IGS: Report on Current Space Use and Master Plan Report

PROUDLY PRESENTED BY

Professor Deborah Ascher Barnstone andStudents from

University of Technology Sydney, School of Architecture

Jonathan CapparelliZoey Chen

Roberto FattorettoHenry GoodwinSophie HarrisEleanor Peres

Robert ScarfoneJames Vlismas

Rachel WanChloe Yuen

4CONTENTS1. Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Project Objective1.3 Project Brief1.4 IGS Important Facts1.5 Project team

2. Project Methodology

3. Analysis of Trends in Education Design Today

4. Site Analysis and Existing Infrastructure4.1 Site Location and Surrounding Development4.2 Existing Site Use and Conditions4.3 Analysis of the Building Functions at IGS4.4 Analysis of the Space Usage at IGS4.5 Analysis of Teacher Room Usage Patterns4.6 Analysis of Student Room Usage Patterns4.7 Analysis of the Year 11 and 12 Common Rooms4.8 Analysis of Classrooms at IGS size, shape, flexibility, moveability of walls, furniture, light, air quality, color, pin-up space4.9 Analysis of Technology in Classrooms at IGS

5. Year 11 and 12 Commons Room Redesign5.1 Analysis of the Year 11 and Year 12 Common Rooms5.2 Development of Design Proposals5.3 Proposal 1 Year 12 Common Space5.4 Proposal 2 The Swap5.5 Proposal 3 The Beacon5.6 Proposal 4 Imagine the Balcony5.7 Proposal 5 Transforming Common Space

6. Contextual Considerations6.1 Culture of IGS6.2 Dispersed Campus6.3 Unique Teaching Model at IGS6.4 Projected growth in student population6.5 Possible Improvement of Contributions to the Community

7. Stakeholder Consultations7.1 Parent Survey7.2 Teacher Survey7.3 Year 12 Questionnaire7.4 Year 12 Charette7.5 Years 6 10 Charette7.6 Meeting with the City of Sydney7.7 Meetings with the Space Committee and Board of IGS

89101213

16

20

2633363840414243

46

50515256606468

7474757676

80808282828383

586

909296100

106107108109110111112113114115116117

120

124

136138140142144146148150152154156

8. Master Planning Principles

9. Master Plan Options9.1 Proposal 19.2 Proposal 29.3 Proposal 3

10. Master Pan Design Ideas10.1 New Building Program 10.2 Classroom Development10.3 Built-ins10.4 Breakout spaces in the corridors 10.5 New partition walls between classrooms and corridors 10.6 Proposals for Underused Areas10.7 Technology10.8 Way-finding Devices 10.9 Greening and Outside Spaces10.10 Additions to the Physical Plant10.11 Colour Schemes10.12 Re-think the library as technology centre

11. Next Steps: 11.1 Refinement of the Options

ADDENDUMMaster Plan DrawingsAnalytical Drawings: Circulation Space Analysis Classroom Moveable Walls Analysis Classroom Dimension Analysis Subject Locations Analysis Room Efficiency Analysis Roof and Balcony Space Analysis Corridor Analysis School Function Analysis Typical Teacher Movement Analysis Typical Student Movement AnalysisCharette Drawings from Years 6 - 10

INTRODUCTION01

81.1 BACKGROUND

The Master Planning work for Sydney-based International Grammar School (IGS) began in February of 2015 as part of the schools strategic aim to modernise and improve its physical plant. International Grammar School is thirty-one years old in 2015 and since its modest beginnings with forty-four students in rented premises in Randwick in 1984 the school has grown to a multi-building campus across four buildings in Ultimo - the Reg St. Leon Building, the Kerrie Murphy Building, the Wright Building, and the Mountain Street (or Fusion) Building. The Reg St. Leon Building is the largest of the four facilities, as well as the original school structure, and is home to the most diverse set of functions. It houses administrative offices, teaching spaces, specialised teaching facilities like practice rooms for musical instruction and science laboratories, the multi-purpose room, a caf kitchen, and the pre-school. The Wright Building is home to classrooms and rehearsal and performance space for the drama program as well as a handful of offices. The Kerrie Murphy Building provides a primary school library, offices for the languages staff, and multi-purpose rooms. The Mountain Street Building has classrooms for the Upper School and administrative offices.

Expansion of the IGS Ultimo campus occurred incrementally since the school obtained the former Dalgety Wool Store in 1997 as a response to its increasing

enrolments and the concomitant needs arising from greater student and staff numbers. While there have been design plans for individual building projects, the school has never had a comprehensive master plan covering the entire campus nor has it ever engaged in a master plan for future development.

91.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

International Grammar School had several objectives for the project with University of Technology Sydney (UTS). A primary objective was to determine whether IGS should make a long-term commitment to Ultimo or consider moving the school to another Sydney suburb. The school had determined that remaining in rented quarters was not fiscally sustainable over the long term but purchasing the school buildings in Ultimo might not be possible. The school wished to examine the feasibility of remaining in Ultimo, by understanding the demographics of the area and the likely changes in the future. A second objective was to consider potential upgrades to the physical plant in Ultimo that would maximize use of the spaces and improve aesthetics since the correlation between good design and excellent learning outcomes is well known. Finally, the school wanted to ensure that any ideas had been fully discussed with, and as much as possible, were supported by key stakeholders including IGS teachers, parents, students, administrative staff, and Board Members.

10

1.3 PROJECT BRIEF

The following tasks comprised the project brief agreed upon between representatives of IGS and UTS at the beginning of 2015:

-Conduct a series of interviews with school stakeholders including staff and students to determine the positive and negative aspects of the current physical plant.

-Analyse Space Functions across the Kelly Street Building

-Conduct a Year 12 Survey to analyse the Year 12 Commons Space for what works and what is lacking

-Conduct a detailed site survey of the Year 12 and Year 11 Commons Rooms-Write a new program for the Year 12 and Year 11 Commons Rooms

-Research new approaches to Multi-Purpose Learning Spaces

-Solicit Contributions of Furniture and other items for the commons-Conduct a Design Charette with Year 12 Students

-Develop a Series of Design Proposals for the Year 12 and Year 11 Commons

-Present the Design Proposals to IGS students, staff and Board Members

-Conduct a detailed site audit of existing spaces in all four buildings in order to

understand their dimensions, technical specifications, and current uses.

-Conduct a one-day charette with Year 6 10 students as a form of creative brainstorming of ideas for improved and new spaces as well as for ideal school spaces and an ideal future school building.

-Conduct a Teacher Survey about the current teaching spaces and their ideas for improved future teaching spaces.

-Meet with stakeholders regularly to apprise them of the state of the ongoing research and design work.

-Meet with representatives from the City of Sydney to discuss the future of IGS and how it might make a greater contribution to the city.

-Conduct a series of site visits to the new UTS teaching and learning spaces, which are considered state-of-the art in contemporary education design.

-Write a new program for the school buildings based on the results of the design charettes, questionnaires, research interviews and other sources of information.

-Analyse space functions in all rooms, in all buildings across the IGS campus.

-Analyse typical teacher movement patterns on a day and across a week to

11

1.3 PROJECT BRIEF

understand how the current physical plant is being used.

-Analyse typical student movement patterns on a day and across a week to understand how the current physical plant is being used.

-Analyse IGS classrooms and compare them with NSW minimum requirements and other NSW schools, in particular likely competitors.

-Analyse amenities at IGS and compare them with other NSW schools, in particular likely competitors.

-Write a new program (s) for the IGS buildings based on the findings from all of the above.

-Consider the organisation of areas of study for the NSW HSC along with the IGS offerings for their potential to organise the spaces in the school

-Consider the strategic aims of IGS, Empowerment, Lifelong Learning and Sustainability and their potential to help organise the school

-Consider the probable growth in student numbers from 1,200 to 1,400 with the need for up to seven new classrooms by 2024

-Consider the program for the new buildings on Bay Street and how moving program there opens options across the

rest of the IGS Campus

-Develop a series of potential master plans for IGS that address the near term.

-Present the master plan proposals to the IGS constituency.

-Present the IGS master plan to the City of Sydney.

12

1.4 IGS IMPORTANT FACTS

There are several unique characteristics of International Grammar School that the UTS project team agreed should be key considerations for any future master plan. The bi-lingual model of education has been a distinguishing characteristic of IGS since its inception and is unique in greater Sydney. Today, IGS offers six language options, French, Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese, and Chinese. IGS counts among its core values diversity, which it pursues at many levels including through a firm commitment to the global perspective. Its other four core values are personal achievement, connectedness, vibrancy, and authenticity. The schools motto, Unity through Diversity, reflects its international interests and its commitment to helping students develop a sense of being a part of a global community.

The school is known for its focus on innovative teaching and learning techniques and for its emphasis on creativity. Because of these values, the school insists that every student study music. This too differentiates IGS from other Sydney schools. This year, the school began a series of creative boot camps that aim to integrate the arts into the curriculum in intensive and inspiring ways.

In 2015, IGS began developing a Strategic Plan. The school identified three key areas that relate to its core values in which it hopes to promote future action: sustainability, empowerment, and lifelong learning. All three of these interests have implications for spatial design.

InternationalGrammar School

Into the WorldStrategic Plan 2016-2020Explore our plans for the future

STRATEGIC ASPIRATIONS

SUSTAINABLE FUTUR

E

LIM

ITLE

SS L

EA

RNING

EMPOWERED STU

DEN

TS

In

gem

ent u

Mission: To equip our students to

be world ready

We will deliver our vision through three strategic aspirations, inspiring:

These aspirations are interdependent, fostering a school-wide approach.

COLLABORATION

INNOVATION

CREATIVITY

13

1.5 PROJECT TEAM

Professor Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Associate Head of School at University of Technology Sydneys School of Architecture, leads the project team. Professor Barnstone is a licensed architect in Germany with master planning and architectural design experience on projects of a range of sizes. She holds a Master of Architecture degree from the Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning at Columbia University, a Bachelor of Arts degree cum laude with high honors from Barnard College at Columbia University, and a Phd in architectural history from the Technical University Delft, the Netherlands.

She is joined by recent graduate, Zoey Chen, who is the recipient of the 2015 Architectural Registration Board of Australia New South Wales Medallion and runner up for the 2015 Australian Institute of Architects New South Wales Design Medal. Ms. Chen currently works as a designer at Hassell in Sydney and is a sessional design teacher at UTS.

The rest of the team are postgraduate students in the UTS School of Architecture Master of Architecture degree program: Jonathan Capparelli, Roberto Fattoretto, Henry Goodwin, Sophie Harris, Eleanor Peres, Robert Scarfone, James Vlismas, Rachel Wan, and Chloe Yuen.

PROJECTMETHODOLOGY02

16

2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

The project methodology was developed to ensure that the aims outlined in the Project Brief were rigorously addressed in a systematic fashion. The principle steps and processes used to develop the Master Plan proposals were as follows:

Site Analysis and Existing Infrastructure AssessmentThe project team analysed the International Grammar School buildings and sites for uses and location of functions, function proximities, condition of the physical plant, space usage and efficiency across a typical day and typical week, teacher room usage and movement patterns, student room usage and movement patterns, student use of leftover spaces, forgotten spaces on campus, typical classroom sizes and layouts, and typical technology available. The team assessed existing site amenities, the nature of the neighbourhood and adjoining buildings, and development opportunities.

Assessments of IGS were compared with typical conditions at other schools in New South Wales and with state minimum design guidelines wherever possible in order to identify opportunities for future development and/or change. The project team also asked teachers, students, and other stakeholders for suggestions for spaces that the school does not yet have but could use, for improvements they thought necessary, and for comments on aspects of the spaces they believed function well.

Research into the current thinking about contemporary classroom and school designNew research is constantly appearing that addresses the question of best practices in classroom and school design at all educational levels. While the research will never be able to anticipate all the changes in technology or new teaching methods, it serves as the best possible springboard for design upgrades that we have.

Development of Year 11 and Year 12 Commons Room Redesign ProposalsThe project team began its work by dealing with the Year 11 and Year 12 Commons Room area as a microcosm of IGS and a smaller scale problem to understand the larger planning challenges at the school. The project team evaluated the current Year 11 and Year 12 Commons Rooms in order to identify opportunities for future development. As part of the process, Year 12 students conducted a survey to assess attitudes towards the existing space and the project team conducted a design charette (an intense design exercise used to solicit stakeholder input) in order to try to elicit creative ideas for a future space.

The project team assembled five design proposals for the Year 11 and Year 12 Commons Room spaces that are included below.

17

2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

Consideration of IGS ContextThe project team interviewed members of the IGS academic staff, Board Members, students and parents, and read the history of the school and the parent survey, and visited the school several times to observe the daily operations, and to understand the unique character of the school. This was a key aspect of the research as it helped the team identify aspects of IGS that should be preserved, not just ones that should be changed.

Stakeholder ConsultationsThe project team engaged in several forms of stakeholder consultation with a view to better understanding IGS and its constituency, to help build support for the master planning project, to report on analysis conducted to date, to ask for stakeholder ideas for future development, and to canvas various development options. Stakeholder consultation included questionnaires, meetings, and design charettes.

Development of Planning PrinciplesBased on the earlier work such as site analysis and infrastructure assessment combined with stakeholder consultations, and IGS core values and strategic goals, a series of planning principles were developed.

Development of Master Planning OptionsUsing the planning principles together with all the research data collected,

the design team devised three possible master planning approaches. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They also are intended as the starting point for discussion about the best way forward.

ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN EDUCATION DESIGN03

20

3 ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN EDUCATION DESIGN

Design trends in education are continuously under scrutiny and continually changing. Many of the schools constructed in the last one hundred years still use the cells and bells approach developed at the turn of the twentieth century as the best means to prepare young people for life in industrial society even though the way people live, the nature of the professions available to young people today, and the technology they will engage with, have all changed. While researchers have long known that the cells and bells model was out-of-date, they have struggled to define parameters for the contemporary school. And, the ground continues to shift.

The cells and bells model is one in which classrooms are all about the same size, rectangular in shape, arranged in rows along a single-loaded or double-loaded corridor, with the youngest students in one part of the building and a gradual ascension to the upper school classrooms. The organisation is taken from the assembly line of a factory floor and like it this type of school is designed for clarity and efficiency. The classrooms are the cells and the students change rooms when the bells ring, hence the name.

Researchers have long agreed that the cells and bells model does not serve contemporary society well and there have been a spate of studies looking at individual aspects of school design that might need to be altered. Researchers

have also long suspected that the physical environment plays a critical role in student learning. Until 2015, however, and thee release of findings from a study at Salford University in the United Kingdom, there was no comprehensive study that attempted to examine multiple design factors in tandem.

As of this year, however, new scientific evidence supports the long-held belief that well-designed primary school classrooms can boost learning progress in reading, writing, and maths. The implication is that what holds true at the primary school level also holds true at upper school levels. And the Salford study certainly addresses many of the design factors currently being implemented at all educational facilities for all levels of student from primary school through university. The newly released research builds on decades of studies into the probably effects of the learning environment on student performance. Before the Salford University work, studies have been made of individual pieces of the environment such as air quality, access to natural light, heat control, sound control and quality, flexibility of the space, layout of the room, choices of display, student ownership opportunities, colour, and more. Perhaps the most interesting finding of the study is that the design of the individual classrooms is the single most important factor in boosting learning.

21


The study addressed one of the greatest challenges to researchers, namely how to measure simultaneously the effects of multiple design factors on learning. As Cao et al point out, peoples discomfort is usually not determined by a single factor but instead reflects the integration of physiological and psychological influences caused by many factors. Complicating this is the fact that there is no consensus regarding the relative importance of the many design and environmental factors that act on students. The project at Salford University aimed to find ways to model relative impact, to ascertain how different spatial characteristics combine to effect student performance.

The Salford study identified three general areas in the built environment that seem to affect students, stimulation, which included complexity of the space and colour; individualisation, which included ownership, flexibility and connection to the space; and naturalness, which included light, sound, temperature, air quality, and connections to nature.

The study used a large sample of 3,766 pupils in years 1 6, in 27 schools, 153 classrooms. The study concludes that several factors are very important to student performance: light, temperature, and air quality account for half the design impact, the other half is comprised by flexibility, ownership, colour, and complexity. Sound, links to

nature, and connection were discovered to be of secondary importance. The most interesting finding was that physical factors at the school level of analysis did not come through as being of sufficient importance to appear amongst the main factors at all. These covered the size of the school, the provision of shared specialist rooms, routes through the school, the scale and quality of external spaces, etc. The findings of this study suggest, for instance, that the size of classrooms at IGS, even though they are sub-standard, is less important than other factors or not significant to student performance at all.

NaturalnessAccess to the most natural light possible was the design factor that had the single greatest impact on student learning. The next most important factor is air quality.

User controlled ventilation is the most desirable since it is the most responsive to changing conditions in the room during the course of a single day and over the weeks and months of the school year. If air is not circulated, the average classroom has poor air quality within an hour. As with ventilation, the best temperature control is localized because it is the most responsive to local conditions.

Sound is of secondary importance but still needs to be considered in rooms

22


that front on busy streets and are adjacent to outdoor play areas.

IndividualisationFlexibility plays a key role in classroom design. Flexibility applies to the room shape and area, to the amount of wall space for display, to storage areas, the possibility to arrange and re-arrange learning zones, and to breakout zones as well as the ability to accommodate new and changing technologies.

Ownership is a major factor in the classroom by which is meant the students ability to feel that the space belongs to them. Areas found necessary include breakout spaces, student storage areas, large all areas for display and students feel most connected when they have things that they can personalize like lockers and desks and when furniture and fixtures are scaled appropriate to the user age group.

Connection is a secondary factor, which refers to way finding in the school and other connections between school spaces. At the upper levels, when students spend more time navigating the hallways, the ways and the spaces for them may have a greater impact. Wide corridors with lots of natural light are desirable factors as are flexible and usable spaces with area for adequate visual displays.

StimulationThe current study discovered that a moderate level of complexity in the surroundings was a good thing. Visual diversity of layout and ceiling keeping the variety subordinate to a sense of order along with visual diversity of displays, as long as they are ordered and not overwhelming, are all helpful elements to stimulate students.

Colour is also very useful when used in moderation. The study found that lightly coloured walls that are neither bright nor white, with a brighter feature wall, are most effective. Accents in bright colours are also effective such as relatively bright colours on floors, blinds, desks, chairs and other features.

Other studies support the Salford study and also underscore that the same principles apply to classrooms for students of all ages. 21st Century Learning Environments, produced by the P21 group public-private partnership founded by the US Department of Education together with several leading companies in collaboration with academics, emphasizes the same slate of design factors with some interesting additions that are of interest: small agile schools, connecting to the wider world, sustainability and re-use, and reconceiving the library.

SITE ANALYSIS AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE04

26

4.1 SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

IGS is located in the Sydney suburb of Ultimo, not far from the Broadway Shopping Centre at the intersection of Broadway and City Roads, Wentworth Park, and the Fish Market at the Sydney Foreshore.

The suburb of Ultimo offers several advantages to IGS, its central location in the City of Sydney, which makes it relatively easy to access both by public and private transport from all over greater Sydney; its position in the Education Hub between University of Sydney, Notre Dame, and University of Technology Sydney, which IGS could leverage more in joint programs; and its status as one of the few high schools in the CBD. The City of Sydney needs more high schools new plans for a high-rise public high school in Ultimo respond to the projected increase in student numbers, 2,500 new high school students by 2026 but no one expects the new comprehensive high school to have enough places for all the new students. The City intends to make 1,000 places in the new facility. IGS is also uniquely situated to take advantage of new high-density developments going up in Harold Park in Glebe and Central Park in Broadway since it is within walking distance of both projects.

Demographics of Ultimo and Sydney and other parts of IGS catchment:Australia is already the most urbanised country in the world with approximately 89% of all citizens living in cities as

of the 2011 census and urbanisation continuing at a rate of 1.47% per year. Ultimo is situated near the heart of recent gentrification efforts and population surges in the inner city. In recent decades Sydney has experienced tremendous population growth that has transformed the city into a mega-metro region with over 25% of the Australian population now residing in its geographic parameters. One aspect of this growth has been the resurgence of inner city neighbourhoods, those suburbs within the 5-kilometre radius of the CBD. Since the early 1990s, growth in outer suburbs has slowed while growth in the inner ring has increased. The pattern in Sydney has particularly favoured middle and inner suburbs, a trend that is forecast to continue for the foreseeable future. Internationally, the inner city has become more and more desirable over the last 20 years, which means that there are more families with school age children living in and near the centre. This, in turn, increases demand for schools for young people of every age.

Ultimo is a typical inner city suburb that has experienced dramatic urban renewal during the last 25 years. Ultimos gentrification was partly due to national trends and partly due to government-sponsored projects like the Darling Harbour redevelopment. The most rapid growth rate in the last 20 years is in the Sydney CBD.

27


Between 1994 and 1999 it averaged 1.9% compared with 1% in outlying suburbs; between 2004 and 2011 it grew about 1.1%. In Sydney CBD the largest population gain has been amongst the highest earners. The average population gain in the city overall has been 119,000 people per annum, with projections of continued growth at this level at least until 2036 but likely until 2056.

In Ultimo, population has been surging. Between 2004 and 2011 the population raised an average of 2.75% per year, more than the annual average for the inner city, and is projected to continue with new housing projects going up and gentrification continuing. In addition, the demographic profile of residents in Ultimo is changing. Although residents of Ultimo still earn less than residents of other inner city suburbs on average, have fewer higher degrees than the Sydney average, and more people with no qualifications than the city average, the percentage of residents in the middle and high income brackets and with higher degree qualifications has been steadily rising. Together with these rises has come a rise in the average cost of housing in the suburb. The altering demographics suggest that IGS can expect more demand for places to come from local residents in future. (See graphs below)

Ultimo is ringed by suburbs with demographics that differ from those of Ultimo; Pyrmont, Darlington,

Darlinghurst, Newtown, Camperdown, and Stanmore are all very well to do suburbs and growing. These neighbourhoods should all be good sources of students for IGS. The City of Sydney CBD is expected to grow 60% by 2036 according to City of Sydney projections.

Ashfield has a richer demographic than Ultimo but poorer than City of Sydney. Marrickville is about the same as Ashfield. Leichhardt and Woollahra are far wealthier than all the other areas with higher percentages of residents with higher degrees and high incomes. All of these suburbs have been growing over the past decade and are projected to continue to grow.

Two of the most visible growth areas close to Ultimo are Harold Park in Glebe, Central Park at Broadway, and Barangaroo in the CBD. Although people have begun to move into both Harold Park and Central Park, the full impact of the new housing has not yet been felt.

In addition, White Bay is now being developed and the entire Sydney Foreshore will be slowly gentrified over the coming decade, which will see significant additions to the housing stock, attendant population increases, and new demand for schools for children of all ages. IGS is well situated to take advantage of new housing along the Foreshore, parts of which are within walking distance of the campus.

28

Alternative Growth Areas:The strongest recent growth in close-in suburbs that were not part of the inner city was around Canada Bay and neighbouring suburbs such as Five Dock, Drummoyne, and Concord between 2006 and 2011 at 3.2%; other strong areas were Strathfield, Parramatta, and Auburn at 2.8%.

Growth areas around Sydney but outside the CBD include Tamarama, Baulkham Hills, Castle Hill, Epping, North Ryde, Ashfield, Burwood and Campbelltown.

Suburbs in the far west of Sydney around Blacktown and Mount Druitt have also witnessed explosive growth of late.

Impact of Transport Infrastructure Development:With a projected population growth of 60% for City of Sydney and the larger Sydney metropolitan areas by 2036, the City of Sydney launched an ambitious transport development plan in 2012. The plans main aims are to improve public transport in order to encourage commuters to use public transport over private transport and to expand other sustainable alternatives to driving.

Plans include the extension of the existing light rail across the CBD to connect Kingsford and Randwick in the Eastern Suburbs, through Moore Park, with the CBD; in addition they will link Dulwich Hill and other Inner West

suburbs with the CBD. Long-range plans include installing new lines across the Inner City, which will make Ultimo more accessible by public transit. Sustainable infrastructure plans call for a Liveable Green Network of bike paths and pedestrian ways in the Inner City to enhance existing transport including a regional bike network, which will also make accessing Ultimo easier. The city also intends to add bus routes and more buses to existing routes in order to better serve the inner city. (See maps below)

Projected real estate values over the next decade in a) and b):Real estate values are projected to continue to rise across the close in suburbs of Sydney with particularly dramatic growth forecast for so-called bridesmaid suburbs, ones that are under valued but adjacent to highly valued suburbs. According to the Property Observer, suburbs tipped to see above average growth in 2015 include Glebe, Newtown, Surry Hills, and Sydney, all close enough to IGS to offer potential student population for the school.

According to New South Wales Government Office of Planning & Environment, the City of Sydney, Woollahra, Marrickville, Leichhardt, and Mascot will all continue to grow in the coming decade. Increased population forecasts suggest rising real estate values as people compete for limited available housing assets. Real estate


29

values are not expected to decline in greater Sydney because of the annual shortfall of housing stock and the slow rate of housing starts. Sydney has simply not been able to provide enough new housing to meet the demand and there is no indication that this situation will change in the foreseeable future.


I G S L O C A L S C H O O L - G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

THIS DESIGN PROPOSES UNLOCKING THE CURRENTLY DISUSED BALCONIES OF IGS. THE SCHOOL FINDS ITSELF HIGHLY CONNEC TED IN CENTRAL SYDNEY AND SURROUNDED BY THE

CIT Y S LARGEST URBAN DE VELOPMENTS. WHAT DOES AC TIVATING THESE OUTDOOR SPACES MEAN FOR THE SCHOOL IN ITSELF BUT ALSO AS PAR T OF SYDNEY AS A CIT Y? THIS DESIGN

EXPLORES THE APPLICATION OF A GLOBAL PERSPEC TIVE IN A LOCAL CIT Y FOOTPRINT.

I G S ( i n e r n a t i o n a l g r a m m a r s c h o o l )

S Y D N E Y F I S H M A R K E T S

P Y R M O N T

C E N T R A L S TAT I O N

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S Y D N E Y

B R O A D WAY S H O P P I N G

PA R A M M AT TA R O A D

G L E B E S U B U R B

W E N T W O R T H PA R K

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E C H N O L O G Y,S Y D N E Y ( U T S )

G O O D S L I N E R E D E V E L O P M E N T

D A R L I N G Q U A R T E RR E D E V E L O P M E N T

C E N T R A L PA R K D E V E L O P M E N T

I G S C L A S S R O O M S

I G S O P E R AT I N G S P O R T S C L A S S E SW E N T W O R T H PA R K

S Y D N E Y C B D

D O M A I N

H A R B O U R B R I D G E

S Y D N E Y H A R B O U R& O P E R A H O U S E

D A R L I N G H A R B O U R

C I R C U L A R Q U AY

A N Z A C B R I D G E

T H E B AY S P R E C I N C T

B A R A N G A R O O

B A L M A I N

C H I P P E N D A L EC R E AT I V E P R E C I N C T

I G S P R I M A R YC L A S S R O O M S / L I B R A R Y

I G S M U S I C / C O M M O N S /A R T A N D C L A S S R O O M S

D A R L I N G H A R B O U R

E A S T E R N S U B U R B S

E N T E R TA I N M E N T D I S T R I C T

C E N T R A L S TAT I O N

30

A comparison of Ultimo and Greater Sydney as of 2001.

Population statistics for Ultimo.


31


32

Zoning plan of Ultimo showing how much residential development, both existing and future, is in the suburb.


33

4.2 EXISTING SITE USE AND CONDITIONS

The existing IGS site consists of four buildings, the Kelly Street Building recently renamed the Reg St. Leon Building on Kelly Street, the Wright and Kerrie Murphy Buildings on Bay Street adjacent to Kelly Street and connected by bridges to the Reg St. Leon Building, and the Senior Annexe, or Fusion Building, on Mountain Street a block and a half away from the main site. In addition, IGS now possesses two adjacent buildings at 75-77 Bay Street across from the Wright and Kerrie Murphy Buildings. Outdoor play areas

are located at Kelly Street on the ground floor and rooftop and on the ground floor of the Kerrie Murphy Building; there is a courtyard at the Senior Annexe facility; and there are multiple options for sport at Wentworth Park, which is just down Wattle Street; and the Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre is just blocks away.

BLACK WATTLE LAN

E

KELLY STREET

MACARTHUR STREET

SMAIL STREET

MO

UN

TAIN

STREET

TEER

TS Y

AB

DISJOINTED SITE CONDITION

Built up through the years, the campus buildings are dispersed over 2 blocks of land separated by Kelly street and Mountain street

creating a disjointed site condition.

// 1997

// 2000

// 2005

// 2011

34

The Reg St. Leon Building was purpose designed and built in 1997 by Peddle Thorp and Walker Architects on the site of the historic Dalgety Wool Store. The building houses classrooms for all age groups, specialized rooms for science, music, technology and design, fine art, and IT, administrative offices, common rooms for years 11 and 12, the upper school library, play areas outside on the roof, a multi-use space, and a caf. Student lockers are located in the corridors lunchtime takes place in outdoor and other public spaces. The building has undergone numerous upgrades and small changes over the years but no comprehensive re-design nor has there ever been a coordinated master plan to address design changes. Recent changes include moving the reception to the ground floor and renovating the main administrative offices. Circulation spaces and classrooms have not been renovated.

The Wright Building is immediately adjacent to the Reg St. Leon Building and accessible on the ground floor through an outdoor space and on the second floor, by a bridge. It houses classrooms, some offices, counselling rooms, and the drama program facilities on the top floor, under the eaves. The classrooms on the ground floor are accessible from an outdoor courtyard that has problems with rodents. The classrooms and circulation spaces have not been upgraded since the building opened in 2000 with the exception of

minor interventions.

The Kerrie Murphy Building is directly adjacent to the Wright Building and connected by bridge. It opened in 2011 with help from the Federal Governments Building the Education Revolution program. The facility houses a primary school library, languages program offices, a multi-purpose space on the top floor, and an indoor/outdoor play area on the ground floor.

The Fusion Building is a former warehouse that was converted to education spaces in 2005. It holds classes for senior students, the uniform shop, and administrative offices.

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet

Programmatic Analysis

Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

of the wright building is made up of corridors and interstitial open plan space.

29%

Legend

Circulation (Vertical - Lift/Stairs)

Roof Area (Basketball Court/Kids play area)

Classroom

School Hall (Multifunctional)

Services

HSC Study/Common Space (Year 12)

Toilets

Library

Circulation (Horizontal_Corridors/Open Space)

Balcony

Uniform Shop

Existing Building/ Other tenants

IGS CAMPUS BUILDING PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS

KELLY STREET BUILDING MOUNTAIN STREET BUILDING

THE WRIGHT BUILDING

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le Lan

e

Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04


35


Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet


Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof


29%

Legend



Classroom


Services


Toilets

Library


Balcony

Uniform Shop




THE WRIGHT BUILDING

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le Lan

e

Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet


Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof


29%

Legend



Classroom


Services


Toilets

Library


Balcony

Uniform Shop




THE WRIGHT BUILDING

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le Lan

e

Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

36

4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING FUNCTIONS AT IGS

Analysis of the placement of functions across IGS shows that some functions occur in clusters but many functions are dispersed across the four-building campus. For example, there are some administrative offices located in every building; whilst the space for pre-school is concentrated in one location, classrooms for most of the different age groups are spread across the Reg St. Leon, Wright and Kerrie Murphy Buildings with classrooms for the High School spread across the entire campus.

Offices are not always near teaching spaces. For example, Technology rooms are separated over two floors in the Reg St. Leon Building; there are two libraries, one for the Lower School in the Kerrie Murphy Building and one for the High School in the Reg St. Leon Building; science rooms are on two floors of the Reg St. Leon Building.

The spread across the campus creates movement and a lively atmosphere at the school but also creates inefficiencies.

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet

Miscellaneous Classroom

Kelly Street Classroom Organization Analysis Wright Builidng Classroom Organization Analysis Fusion Building Classroom Organization Analysis

Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology

Designated Classroom Legend

Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

37

4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING FUNCTIONS AT IGS

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet



Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology


Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet



Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology


Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet



Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology


Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet



Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology


Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

Kelly Street

Mount

ain Str

eet



Ground Level

Level 01

Level 02

Level 03

Level 04

Roof

Study

Science

Music

Technology


Arts

Drama

Early Learning

54 Rooms

3 Rooms

5 Rooms

13 Rooms

3 Rooms

3 Rooms

1 Room

7 Rooms

Total 150 Rooms

Smail StreetBla

ckwatt

le La

ne

38

Analysis of space usage at IGS found an average classroom occupancy rate of 63% per day, which means that the average classroom is empty 37% of the time, with some spaces empty even more. This data takes into account the under utilisation of certain specialized rooms like the libraries and does not average their use rates. Of course, IGS must decide what the optimum space use efficiency is but the data suggests that classrooms could be better programmed for greater use.

An average of 38.8% of all the space in IGS buildings is corridor or other circulation space yet these spaces are only used before school, sometimes during lunch, and between class periods. There is tremendous potential to re-design these spaces for double functions: circulation and learning, to make better use of them during the school day.

Approximately, 158 square meters is rooftop and 117 square meters is balcony space. Although some of the rooftop is currently being used for play areas, there is still a large portion of unused space. None of the balconies are being used at all because they need to be retrofitted to meet safety requirements.

4.4 ANALYSIS OF SPACE USAGE AT IGS

LEVEL 1 PLAN

K.105 - GLA41periods unoccupied29periods occupied41 % EFFICIENCY32 m

K.104 - 25 computers62periods unoccupied8periods occupied11 % EFFICIENCY47 m



LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN



K.207 - Laboratory23periods unoccupied47periods occupied67 % EFFICIENCY76 m


K.2LIB - Upper Level54periods unoccupied16periods occupied23 % EFFICIENCY189 m



39

4.4 ANALYSIS OF SPACE USAGE AT IGS

LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN







K.413 - Art20periods unoccupied50periods occupied71 % EFFICIENCY74 m

K.412 - Y12 Arts room54periods unoccupied16periods occupied23 % EFFICIENCY36 m






K.406 - Media Space37periods unoccupied33periods occupied47 % EFFICIENCY65 m


LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN




K.311 - Common Space35periods unoccupied35periods occupied50 % EFFICIENCY65 m

K.308 - 11 PCs63periods unoccupied7periods occupied10 % EFFICIENCY31 m

K.328 - Workshop26periods unoccupied44periods occupied63 % EFFICIENCY73 m

K.333 - Textiles & Technology42periods unoccupied28periods occupied40 % EFFICIENCY44 m




K.305 - Chairs only33periods unoccupied37periods occupied53 % EFFICIENCY41 m

K.307 - Chairs only37periods unoccupied33periods occupied47 % EFFICIENCY52 m



40

4.5 ANALYSIS OF TEACHER ROOM USEAGE PATTERNS

IGS supplied the project team with the room use patterns of eleven teachers from across the age groups at the school. Not surprisingly, specialized teachers like the art and science teachers show the least amount of movement across the campus in a single day or during the week because they use specialized rooms usually in one location. The students come to them. The next least movement was in the pre-school teachers room use because their teaching and recreation spaces are consolidated at the Reg St. Leon

Building. On the other hand, teachers in the High School seem to typically move a great deal in a single day and across the week because they teach in the Reg St. Leon and Senior Annexe Buildings. Since this group uses General Learning Spaces, they go to the students rather than having the students go to them. The analysis of movement patterns supports the anecdotal evidence given the project team by IGS staff and students of a lively campus with students of all ages, and teachers from all age groups, constantly crossing paths.

11 OVERLAID PATHWAYS

Teacher Movement Mapping


Student Movement MappingTeacher Movement Mapping

41

IGS supplied the project team with the room use patterns of fifteen students across the age groups at the school. Not surprisingly, the room use patterns of the students are similar to those of the teachers. The pre-school students room use patterns show the least amount of movement across the campus in a single day or during the week because their teaching and recreation spaces are consolidated at the Reg St. Leon Building. On the other hand, students in the High School seem to typically move a great deal in a single day and

across the week because their classes, commons study space, and library are spread across the Reg St. Leon and Senior Annexe Buildings. The analysis of movement patterns supports the anecdotal evidence given the project team by IGS staff and students of a lively campus with students of all ages, and teachers from all age groups, constantly crossing paths.

4.6 ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ROOM USAGE PATTERNS


Teacher Movement Mapping


Student Movement MappingStudent Movement Mapping

42

4.7 ANALYSIS OF THE YEAR 11 AND YEAR 12 COMMON ROOMS

The Year 11 and Year 12 Common Rooms are on the second floor of the Reg St. Leon Building. The Year 11 room is 47 square meters; the Year 12 room is 109 square meters. There are three offices that share the general space with the common rooms and intersect them. In addition, the Year 12 Common Room is located in what was originally part of the library, adjacent to a multi-use space. The common room and multi-use space are separated by a glass partition that does not adequately block the noise between the two rooms.

Furnishing in the rooms consists of half-round desks, chairs, a large-screen for use with computers, and conventional desks.

Missing from the rooms: a library of resources for the HSC, desk lamps, comfortable reading chairs, alternative places to study, and desks that can be reconfigured in different ways.

| existing 11 + 12 study space |

year 12 study space

SC & SC

meeting room

APHS

year 11 study space

Y12 Study Space - SC & SC - Meeting Room - APHS - Y11 Study Space

43

For the purpose of this study, classroom means General Learning Area.

Classrooms at IGS vary depending on the age group that is assigned to the space although this can be broadly divided into three groups: preschool, primary school, and high school. We assessed a host of design characteristics across the age groups those that use the General Learning Areas namely, primary school and high school. Across the campus, 86.6% of all classrooms at IGS are substantially smaller than the minimum recommended by New South Wales Department of Education, which calls for 65 square meters or more for an average classroom (See attached analysis). The GLAs were assessed in the categories of design that educational experts agree are most important to effective classroom design: Naturalness, Individualisation, and Stimulation. Please see above for more detail in Section 3, Analysis of Trends in Education Design.

Naturalness:

Most GLAs have windows to the outside and windows into the corridors except for three GLAs on the ground floor of the Wright Building. Unfortunately, many of the windows between corridor and classroom have been covered with lockers and other storage. This makes the corridors darker than necessary and blocks views into the classrooms.

Most GLAs have both natural ventilation and air conditioning.

Although there is a fair amount of green space on the ground floor and on the roof, there are tremendous opportunities for more since there is very little anywhere else. The balconies and GLAs could benefit from strategic planting. Plants aid in indoor air quality, offer students the opportunity to take responsibility for their environment, and

4.8 ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOMS AT IGS

44


Individualisation:

The shape of most GLAs is rectangular and regular, which is appropriate for some subjects but not ideal for all ages or all subjects.

There are very few opportunities for individualisation anywhere in the classrooms or the school. Most rooms have some drawers with student names on them but that is it. Lockers do not have student names on them; desks do not offer the possibility of ownership either.

There are no breakout teaching spaces anywhere in the building although there are many potential areas where these could be located.

Flexibility is limited at every level in the school. In every room, the furniture is the same so that there are no opportunities for students to use the room in a variety of ways. Admittedly, most of the GLAs are too small to add a variety of seating options, which is why adjacent corridor space could become very useful breakout space for classrooms. At the moment, primary school classes are generally arranged with four desks pushed together in a group whilst high school classes are arranged in rows.

Way finding is complicated at UTS. Simple visual cues like colour used to identify areas is not in play at the moment. Instead, colour is used

randomly throughout the complex of buildings. There is little or no helpful signage either. Whilst someone familiar with the school will know how to get around, it can be confusing for new students, parents, and guests.

There are no large-scale screens in public places for the display of student work.

There are no vitrines for the display of three-dimensional student work.

There are limited spaces for display and other spaces in the school that the students can take control over.

According to data collected by IGS in March 2015, there are currently 45 classrooms used between Primary school and High school, 39 of which are undersized. Thats 86.6% of the classrooms on campus.

UNDERSIZED CLASSROOM

According to data collected by IGS in March 2015, there are currently 45 classrooms used between Primary school and High school, 39 of which are undersized. Thats 86.6% of the classrooms on campus.

86.6% Undersized Classrooms

45


Stimulation:

Lower School GLAs have pinup space but generally the teachers have papered over windows to the outside and to the corridor so that the spaces feel cluttered. High School classrooms have one tiny pinup board generally that does not seem to be used.

Most classrooms do not have appropriately designed or sized storage or any built-in storage whatsoever. The result is that each room has a hodgepodge of storage solutions that often block interior and exterior windows and do not make a coherent design picture in the room. The situation is particularly dire at the high school level since the GLAs have no teacher desk or in-class storage.

Not only is the colour scheme confusing because it has no relationship to the use of the spaces but there is too much colour variety in many places. The typical hallway has some white walls, columns of three or four different colours, brown plywood, beige and white ceilings, and dark coloured floors.

46

4.9 ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOM AT IGS

Most of the classrooms have a projector, computer hook-ups, and whiteboard that is either electronic or old fashioned. There are no overhead projectors, however, which would be particularly useful in science and art classes.

Wifi is available throughout the campus. There are no charging stations for phones or computers in the common spaces.

YEAR 11 AND YEAR 12 COMMON ROOM REDESIGN05

50

5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE YEAR 11 AND YEAR 12 COMMON ROOMS

Assessment of the current Year 11 and Year 12 Common Rooms was conducted in four ways: through a survey of Year 12 students (see appendix), through interviews with some staff at IGS including those who work adjacent to the spaces, through interviews with several Year 11 and Year 12 students, and through a design charette that involved a group of twenty-one Year 12 students. The design charette paired IGS students with UTS student facilitators. The objective was to gain some insight into what appeals to Year 12 students and what does not, what aspects of the spaces work in their opinion, what aspects could be altered, and what amenities could be added.

At the design charette, students were asked to address the following questions: 1) What is your favourite spot or space at IGS? Why? Draw what it is that you like about this spot. 2) What do you love about the Year 12 Common room as it is now? Draw what you love. 3) If you could put the Common Room anywhere in the school, where would it be and why? 4) If you could have anything in the world in this room, what would you like to see there that isnt? Draw your desires. Now explain briefly why, in your opinion, each one belongs in a Commons Room. 5) What is your favorite place in the world to study? Why? Draw what you love about that place.

6) As a group draw your ideal HSC Room. The current Year 11 and Year 12 Common Rooms are well located in a central place in the Reg St. Leon Building, at the heart of the school. The spaces are generously sized for their function, have good access to natural light, are appreciated by the students, and used quite regularly.

Problems with the rooms identified during the research include: lack of a variety of furniture, which means the study styles are highly restricted; the desks that are in the room are not a shape that is conducive to joining them for group study; lack of resources and reference materials to hand; lack of student ability to control or take ownership of the space because of the adults who are adjacent; and poor sound insulation from several of the adjacent spaces.

In the Year 12 Study Space Survey, students indicated interest in having a kitchenette to make tea and coffee as well as a place to microwave and refrigerate food; identified the lack of loud versus quiet space options (in other words lack of spaces for individual and group work); the desire for a variety of ways to study, for example, in a comfy chair, lying on the floor, at a traditional desk alone or at a group of desks with others, at a standing work table; some requested a combination of furniture designed for study and for amenities

51

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PROPOSALS

UTS students developed five different proposals for the Commons Rooms based on their analysis of the material and interpretation of the current situation.

designed for relaxation like ping pong tables, chess sets, and backgammon. Students complained that the power points were not designed to make using their computers in different locations in the room easy. In other words, the space is not very flexible.

52

5.3 PROPOSAL 1 - YEAR 12 COMMON SPACE

Jonathan Capparelli and Roberto Fattoretto teamed up to develop this proposal. They decided that the main problems with the common spaces were their lack of flexibility and the concomitant difficulty for students to take ownership of the spaces along with the fact that they do not respond to the strategic aims for sustainability, limitless learning, and empowerment. Capparelli and Fattoretto addressed these issues by proposing to eliminate the offices that intrude on the commons spaces, extend the Year 12 space into the current adjacent meeting room and out onto the balcony, which is currently not used at all. They envision the balcony as part conventional study space and part indoor garden and wish to repurpose the Year 11 Common Room as offices to replace the rooms they plan to eliminiate. They would also remove the stairs connecting the library with the spaces below since the connection is no longer necessary and they would gain space from doing this.

They then propose a kit-of-parts of custom designed, prefabricated furniture pieces and space-making modules that can be arranged and rearranged in limitless ways. The kit includes single chairs of several different kinds to promote different modes of study, small round desks, rectangular desks that can be configured in different sized groups, large oval tables for group work, walls

sections, a kitchenette, storage units, shelves, lockers, and other pieces.

The students propose to remove the existing spatial dividers and replace them with moveable glass partitions, which can provide sound insulation without blocking light or views. This also makes the large room more flexible since it could be totally opened up or closed into three spaces. The larger space at the back is for individual work, the central space contains a multi-use installation with group study space on the second story, kitchenette and other functions underneath, and the balcony is for individual study. In addition, the design foresees adding two screens to the walls on either side of the central space so that students or staff could use the upstairs for meetings.

53


Proposed Layout of Year 12 Common Space

Visualisation of proposed balcony

54


LIMITLESS LEARNING

BALCONY

COLLABORATIVE SPACE

COLLABORATIVE SPACE

PERSONALSPACEFLEXIBLE SPACE

LIMITLESS LEARNING

BALCONY

COLLABORATIVE SPACE

COLLABORATIVE SPACE


EMPOWERMENT

WINDO

W ELE

MENT

ISLAN

D WOR

KSPAC

E

NICHE

ELEM

ENT

PERSONAL SPACE

COLLABORATIVE SPACE


CHARRETTE

AMENITIES

_ KITCHEN_ LOCKERS_ QUIET SPACES_ SOCIAL AREAS_ OUTDOORS SPACES_ LOUNGES

SPATIAL QUALITIES

_ FUNCTIONAL_ INSPIRING_ EFFICIENT_ ORGANISED

COLLABORATIVE SPACE


SUSTAINABLELIMITLESS LEARNINGEMPOWERMENT1

1

2

3

3

55


Kit of Parts - Utilising sustainable material and space saving design

LIMITLESS LEARNING

MULTIPURPOSE ROOM

COLLABORATIVE SPACE


2

56

5.4 PROPOSAL 2 - THE SWAP

Rachel Wang and James Vlismas worked together on this proposal, which identified a lack of organisation, illogical functional proximities, and ineffective spatial design solutions, as the primary challenges to tackle. After careful consideration of the entire Reg St. Leon Building, they decided that the most effective solution would be firstly to swap the common spaces and the library, then redesign the areas upstairs and down.

Wang and Vlismas propose to remove the offices on Level 1, remove the partition between the Year 12 Common Room and the gathering space, install the library in the enlarged area, with a meeting room and office and storage spaces. On Level 2, the would make a series of spaces beginning with lockers for students, a kitchenette, a large study space equipped with many different kinds of seating and desks and tables for different types of study, then a quiet room with individual desks. They would take some space from the former library to make into offices for the displaced staff, which would put them up closer to the rest of the administrative offices. In the centre of the large study space they would place a moveable, soundproof room that could be used for loud group study or, conversely, for very private study.

| programmatic bandaid patchwork |

programs placed where they have space organised neighbours with coherent usage

| programmatic bandaid patchwork |

programs placed where they have space organised neighbours with coherent usage

Program placed where they have space

Organised neighbours with coherent usage

57

| rezoning locations |

Switching locations of Year 11 & 12

| campus issues |

blocked vision

inconsistent program locations

oversized lobby spaces

ineffective noise & activity division

Proposed Solution

Campus Issues


| campus issues |

blocked vision

inconsistent program locations

oversized lobby spaces

ineffective noise & activity division

58


| visualisation - space from atrium |

| visualisation - space from atrium |

Visualisation of proposed Year 12 Common Space

Visualisation of proposed Library

59


| plan - level 2 |

Stair 7Stair 6

Science LabK.204

ChemicalStoreK.205

PDHPEOffice

K.203

Maths & ScienceOffice

K.201

Science LabK.206

Science LabK.207

Common RoomK.211

YellowMeeting

RoomK.213

PrincipalK.216

APAPK.214

OOTPK.218

Sick

bay

K.220

Kitchen

Comp.K.212

GLAK.224

GLAK.226

GLAK.223

CopyRoom Data

CentreK.202

GLAK.222

Stair 4

Staff Area

Service Room

High School Area

Legend

BRIDGE LINK TOTHE WRIGHT BUILDING

LEVEL 2

K.219

K.215

K.217

Reception

MeetingRoom

K.227

StudentReception

K.228

DeputyPrincipal

K.229HOHK.221

APHS SC & SCLocker Room - Breakout Space

Kitchen

Quiet Study Zone

Loud / Social Zone

Print Island

Quiet Reading Zone

Y11 Study CommonsMovable Hub

Resource Library

Relaxed seating for library

Contemporary Terrain Seating

Lower GroundLibrary Access

Storage Partition Wall

VOID

Storage

Lockers

Stair 7

Stair 4

AtriumK.100

SC & SCK.102

Y11 StudySpace

K.104GLAK.105

GLAK.107

GLAK.106

KitchenK.108

Store

APHSK.103

Staff Area

Service Room

High School Area

Primary School Area

Legend

Early LearningK.116

Early LearningK.115

Store

Early LearningK.112

WC

Store MeetingRoomK.102A

Y12 Study SpaceK.101

Stair 6

Commons area now located on Level 2, with an extended locker area in previous oversized lobby space

| plan - level 1 |

Computer Workstations

Librarian Reception

Secondary Access toY11 +12 Commons

Relaxed Reading Area

Popular + New Books

Group Meeting Tables

Individual Study Tables

Events Pin Board

Entry & Computer Area

Book Shelving

Study Area

Meeting Area

Stair 7

Stair 4

GLAK.105

GLAK.107

GLAK.106

KitchenK.108

Store

Staff Area

Service Room

High School Area

Primary School Area

Legend

Early LearningK.116

Early LearningK.115

Store

Early LearningK.112

WC

Store

Stair 6

MeetingRoom

LibraryOffice

Store

Joinery Wall

Joinery Wall

Stair 7

Stair 4

AtriumK.100

SC & SCK.102

Y11 StudySpace

K.104GLAK.105

GLAK.107

GLAK.106

KitchenK.108

Store

APHSK.103

Staff Area

Service Room

High School Area

Primary School Area

Legend

Early LearningK.116

Early LearningK.115

Store

Early LearningK.112

WC

Store MeetingRoomK.102A

Y12 Study SpaceK.101

Stair 6

Library is moved down to Level 1 - Atrium and common spaces occupied

60

5.5 PROPOSAL 3 - THE BEACON

Henry Goodwin and Robert Scarfone collaborated on this proposal. In their view, the common rooms suffered from being buried inside the chaos of the existing school, in a location with poor views to the outside and no real architectural identity. They felt that the common spaces needed a better, more visible, and more special location at the school and they felt that IGS needed an iconic space. At the same time, they identified the need for a quiet and secluded location for study.

Goodwin and Scarfone propose to construct a new room on top of the Reg St. Leon Building roof, at the back corner facing the Sydney CBD. They would use one classroom on Level 4 as the entrance space and access to the rooftop room, which they propose to cantilever over the edge in a dramatic gesture towards the spectacular views and downtown. By moving the Common Rooms to this new location, they gain space for three or four new General Learning Areas on Level 1, depending on how the spaces are reconfigured.

The Level 4 room would be used for collective, loud study and be furnished with a large table and chairs while the Level 5 room would be either for social activities and contemplation or individual study. This new room would also be a fantastic place to hold Board meetings and other special functions at the school and serve as an icon in the cityscape. In the daytime it would be

somewhat visible as a glass box atop the school; at night it would light up like a beacon.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L G R A M M A R S C H O O L

Y E A R 1 2 C O M M O N R O O M

Concept sketch

61

C U R R E N T L O C A T I O N

P R O P O S E D L O C A T I O N P R O P O S E D U N R E S T R I C E D V I E W S

R E S T R I C T E D V I E W S

Visualisation of proposed collective study space

Concept diagram


62


Visualisation of proposed social space

Visualisation of proposed Beacon - Year 12 Common Space

63


S O C I A L S P A C E

V O I D

L O O K O U TE X I S T I N G R O O F T O P

C O L L E C T I V ES T U D Y

T E R R A C EC L A S S R O O M

C L A S S R O O M

C L A S S R O O M

C L A S S R O O M

C L A S S R O O M

S E C T I O N - P R O P O S E D 1 : 5 0

R O O F P L A N - P R O P O S E D 1 : 5 0

N

S O C I A L S P A C E K I T C H E N

L O O K O U T

E X I S T I N G R O O F T O P

L E V E L 0 4 P L A N - P R O P O S E D 1 : 5 0

N

C O L L E C T I V ES T U D Y

T E R R A C E

C L A S S R O O M

L O C K E R S

C L A S S R O O M

64

5.6 PROPOSAL 4 - IMAGINE THE BALCONY

Sophie Harris and Eleanor Peres partnered on this proposal, which attempts to address the need for more quiet study space whilst tackling the problem of un-used areas in the existing IGS buildings. They identified eight balconies and two rooftops in the Reg St. Leon Building that are currently locked and therefore unused or not fitted out for use. They discovered that together these unused spaces contain 40% more floor area than the current Year 11 and Year 12 Common Rooms.

The main reason that the balconies are not being used is that they only have open handrails, which make it possible for someone to jump off from them. Harris and Peres propose to construct a series of screens for the balconies that enclose the spaces as rooms and also insulate against heat and cold.

Harris and Peres imagined three different kinds of spaces tailored to the different sizes of the balconies. The smallest balcony is just large enough for a desk and chair at either end so these would be designed for private study. The intermediate space can accommodate a long worktable with several chairs for up to nine students. This could be used either for quiet individual study or group work. They envisioned a digital studio in the largest space. It would consist of a u-shaped desk built around the three balcony walls that is equipped with up to twelve computer workstations.

By fitting out the balconies for the common rooms, Harris and Peres free up the current common rooms for other functions. They could easily be reconfigured into three to four General Learning Areas.

W H AT I S T H E P U R P O S E O F T H E C E N T R E ?

65


B A L C O N Y 6 + 8 / D I G I TA L S T U D I O

B A L C O N Y 1 / R E A D I N G B A L C O N Y 3 / COLLABORAT IVE

Visualisation of proposed reading room Visualisation of proposed collaborative space

Visualisation of proposed digital studio

66


W H AT C A N T H E B A L C O N I E S FA C I L I TAT E ?

C L O S E D ( T R A N S PA R E N T )

R E A D I N G

O P E N ( C O N T R O L L E D M O R E )

C O L L A B O R AT I V E

D I G I TA L S T U D I O

1 6 ( 6 ) , 8 ( 8 )

8

2

+

C L O S E D ( C O N T R O L L E D )

A X O N O M E T R I C T Y P E O F S T U D Y B U I L D I N G L O C AT I O N

ba

lco

ny

1b

alc

on

y 3

ba

l co

ny

6 +

8

6

8

3

1

B A L C O N Y 1 / R E A D I N G

J a y A t h e r t o n a n d C y K e e n e r , h o m e s t u d i o , P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a

1 : 5 0P L A N

1 : 5 0 S E C T I O N

B A L C O N Y 3 / COLLABORAT IVE

K A N A Z AWA U m i m i r a i l i b r a r yC o e l a c a n t h K & H A r c h i t e c t s

S E C T I O N

P L A N


H i r o s h i N a k a m u r a N A PL a n v i n B o u t i q u e G i n z a

1 : 1 0 0P L A N

1 : 1 0 0 S E C T I O N



1 : 1 0 0P L A N

1 : 1 0 0 S E C T I O N



1 : 1 0 0P L A N

1 : 1 0 0 S E C T I O N

67


L EV E

L 1

L EV E

L 2

L EV E

L 3

L EV E

L 4

D E S I G N I N G B A L C O N I E S F O R D I F E R E N T T Y P E S O F L E A R N I N G

T H E C E N T R E D I G I TA L S T U D I O

C L O S E D ( C O N T R O L L E D )C L O S E D ( T R A N S PA R E N T ) O P E N ( C O N T R O L L E D M O R E ) O P E N ( C O N T R O L L E D L E S S ) O P E N ( M E TA L M E S H )

R E A D I N GS O C I A L S T U D Y C O L L A B O R AT I V E

b a l c o n y 1

b a l c o n y 2

b a l c o n y 4

b a l c o n y 3

b a l c o n y 5

b a l c o n y 7

b a l c o n y 6

b a l c o n y 8

1

2

A

3

5

7

8

6

B

4

W H AT I S T H E P U R P O S E O F T H E C E N T R E ?

I G S S T U D E N T S A N D T E A C H E R S

C O M M U N I T Y M E M B E R S

I G S C L A S S O P E R AT I O N

s p a c e f u l l y f u n c t i o n s a s c l a s s r o o m

C O M M U N I T Y E V E N T

e g . w e e k e n d m a r k e t , w o r k s h o p , c h o i r

I N T E G R AT E D E V E N T

c o m m u n i t y d i s c u s s i o n , a f t e r s c h o o l p r o g r a m

68

5.7 PROPOSAL 5 - TRANSFORMING THE COMMON SPACE

Zoey Chen and Chloe Yuen designed this proposal together. They identified the underuse of circulation and common space at IGS as a primary challenge for the schools spatial efficiency. They also noticed how cluttered many of the corridors are and how the current lockers obscure windows and therefore block natural light. They questioned the need for special rooms for Year 11 and Year 12 common rooms, which they believed could also be spread across the existing campus in under utilised spaces. They saw the need for more diversity in study spaces, for areas devoted to individual study, collaborative study, and social activities.

Chen and Yuen discovered that 38.8% of IGS space was devoted to circulation, which means corridors, common spaces, and stairs. Of this, 24.7% has potential to be converted into multi-use space.

Chen and Yuen believe that the corridors could be designed to serve different purposes. Ones immediately adjacent to classrooms can be designed as breakout spaces for loud or group work, whilst common areas near the library and offices could be designed for more general study purposes. They propose to design a series of new built-in features to better utilise the existing space that include new lockers and under bench storage, shelving, desks and tables of differing sizes with seats for group work and break-out work, individual seating of different kinds, DVD and book storage, and new flooring and ceilings that would warm up the space and make it more lively.

- Study - - Social -- Collaborative -

69


Food

Empowered Students

Limitless Learning

Sustainability

Music

Social

Recreational

Down-time

Empowered Students

Limitless Learning

Sustainability

InformalLearning

Collaborative

?

Study

FormalLearning

Proposed Option_01 - Social Space

Proposed Option_02 - Collaborative & Personal

70


LOCKER SEATING

SEATING

Proposed Option - Re-imagine the Corridor

71


Lockers

Seating

Seating

Wall Display

Seat

ing

Lift

Lockers Lockers

Corridor

Common Area

LockersLockers

// COMMON SPACE //

OPTION 01_SOCIAL

Lockers

Lockers

Seating

Book Shelf

Reading Area

Study Area

Study Area

Lift

Lockers Lockers

Corridor

Lockers

Common Area

Wall Display

// COMMON SPACE //

OPTION 02_COLLABORATIVE PERSONAL

CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS06

74

6 CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 CULTURE OF IGS

Any master plan or long-term development plan needs to take into account institutional identity and culture. IGS has a unique culture. The school promotes nurturing, rather than competition; it celebrates diversity in its student composition but also in the variety of languages taught; it supports individual goal making and social responsibility. At the same time, IGS strives for excellence, tries to innovate, and is a co-educational secular school. IGS is a very vibrant school that prides itself on its energy, which is palpable in the hallways between classes and at special events. It promotes mutual support and collaboration across year levels through a series of programs like high school students mentoring younger students. The schools music, art, and drama programs reflect the IGS commitment to creativity on the part of the students but also to creative approaches to teaching and learning, as do the new boot camps like the 2015 Shakespeare and Opera Boot Camps

6.2 DISPERSED CAMPUS

Along with its location in the middle of Sydney, in the suburb Ultimo, the most unique aspect of IGS is its dispersed campus the spread of its facilities across the neighbourhood. This is both an asset and a challenge. Any master plan has to develop an attitude towards the dispersion.

75


6.3 UNIQUE TEACHING MODEL AT IGS

IGS divides its school into three cohorts, Early Learning Centre, Primary School, and High School in recognition of the fact that students of different ages have different needs so the curriculum, and the facilities, need to be designed accordingly.

The Early Learning Centre combines learning with time for play. The curriculum is built around a belief in promoting discovery, fun, and the building blocks for reading, writing, numeracy, and acquisition. Students begin with a foreign language and music from the start because research shows that it is easiest to acquire a second language at an early age and that music instruction enhances cognitive development, self-discipline, and imaginative thinking. The Early Learning Centre has special, purpose-designed spaces to support the teaching model.

The Primary School is organised to promote individual achievement whilst students are learning about themselves and their world. Self-directed learning occurs in the Key Learning Areas, English, Mathematics, Human Society and its Environment, Science and Technology, Creative Arts, and Personal Development, Health and Physical Education. Students explore self-expression in Languages, Visual Arts, Music, and Drama. The second language instruction is extended for this age

group to 80 minutes a day of immersion instruction. Much of the instruction takes place in General Learning Areas, only specialist education such as Music and Art have specially designed teaching spaces.

The High School is sub-divided into three areas, Stage 4 (Years 7 and 8), Stage 5 (Years 9 and 10), and Stage 6 (Years 11 and 12). Although the NSW Board of Studies largely dictates the curriculum for Years 7 -10, IGS supplements these subjects with creative special school developed courses that include Thinking Mathematically, Craft of Writing, Practical Writing, working mathematically, and Independent Learning Project.

76


6.4 PROJECTED GROWTH IN STUDENT POPULATION

Today, there are 1,200 students enrolled across IGS programs. The school is exploring the possibility of growing its enrolments to 1,400 students by 2027. If this should occur, the school will need about seven new General Learning Areas.

6.5 POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY

At present, IGS donates and rents some of its spaces to the community primarily for education-related activities such as Higher School Certificate (HSC) exams. School representatives have met with representatives of the City of Sydney recently to discuss the possibility of increasing such activities. After School Care and Arts Programs are two options that could help increase IGS involvement in Ultimo.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION07

80

7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

7.1 PARENT SURVEY

In 2014, IGS conducted a Parent Survey to assess how parents of current students perceived the school and to assess what changes and improvements parents might wish to see in their school. The scope of the Parent Survey far exceeds the physical plant but it also included the physical plant, which is of interest here. In response to the question, What should IGS focus on moving forwards? parents listed Infrastructure: Libraries, Learning Areas, and Quality Buildings, which are all addressed in this project. The consultants recommended that IGS invest in updated buildings, particularly classrooms, the library, and technology; that existing space be enhanced and better used; that IGS extend and update dedicated learning areas; and that IGS add more greenery across the campus, from the outdoor play areas on the ground floor, to the roofs. The consultants also recommended more efficient and effective use of resources. Finally, the issue of soundproofing for the music studios was raised. (See attached appendix for the full survey results.)

7.2 TEACHER SURVEY

In 2015, IGS conducted a Teacher Survey that aimed to assess the design, fit out and functionality of current classroom space as well as ideas for future potential change and development. Teachers were asked to respond to 20 questions:

1) What kind of classroom (s) do you teach in; 2) For each room you teach in, what works in the current layout?3) What works with the current furnishings and fit out? 4) What works in the current technology setup? 5) For each different classroom type you use, what is lacking in the current layout? 6) For each different classro

IGS: Report on Current Space Use and Master Plan Report

Documents

Transcript of IGS: Report on Current Space Use and Master Plan Report