DOCUMENT RESUME ED 375 219 UD 030 115 TITLE New Schools for New York. Plans and Precedents for Small Schools. INSTITUTION Architectural League of New York.; Public Education Association, New York, N.Y. REPORT NO ISBN-1-878271-03-2 PUB DATE 92 NOTE 197p.; For related documents, see UD 030 113-114. AVAILABLE FROM Princeton Architectural Press, 37 East 7th Street, New York, NY 10003 (ISBN-1-878271-03-2, $24.95). PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Architectural Research; Cost Effectiveness; Educational Change; Educational Environment; *Educational Facilities Design; Elementary Secondary Education; Neighborhood Schools; School Restructuring; *School Size; Site Selection; *Small Schools; *Urban Schools IDENTIFIERS New York City Board of Education ABSTRACT This study illustrates with specific designs how the city might meet two critical educational objectives in its first program of new school construction in many years. Thestudy designs show how New York might build schools small enough to meet criteria for effective learning environments and how these small schools might be closely integrated with their communities. Following an introduction by Rosalie Genevro, two essays discuss the aims and implementation of this study: "Advocacy and Architecture" by Jeanne Silver Frankl and "The New Small Schools for New York Design Study" by Rosalie Genevro. The six neighborhood architectural and educational programs developed through the study are then profiled and amply illustrated. A final essay, "Building andLearning," by Anne E. Riselbach, expands the analysis of he development of school design in New York City. Drawings and texts are the result of exploration by 50 teams cf architects, credited with their drawings. Contains 138 references. (SLD) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THI Onceof Educational Research and improvement MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED B EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) n.s document has been reproduced as [-cud ece.ved (tom the oerSOn or orgiruttliOrt orpnafing it C Minor changes have been made to improve c4)1t( Chrah .1c)( reprOduCtlen ouahly Points ot view ov oponfonsslated in Pus docu- TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE ment do not necessarily represent official OFRI position or policy INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." New Schools for NewYork 3 New Schools for New York Plans and Precedents for Small Schools The Architectural Leagtic ot Ne\V York lclucation A sociation Princeton Architectural Press 4 REST COPY AVAILABLE Published by Princeton Architectural Press 37 East 'th Street New York, New York 10003 1992 The Architectural League, The Public Education Association, and Princeton Architectural Press, Inc. ISBN 1-878271-03-2 No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the publisher except in the context of reviews All rights reserved 95 94 93 92 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound in Canada Format and cover design Design Writing Research Page larout/production Stefanie Lev: Special thanks to Judy Blanco, Clare Jacobson, Kevin Lippert, Laura Nlircik, Tim Fast, Erika Updike, and Ann C. Urban Libra)), ofCongress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data New schools for New York. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-878271-03-2 (paper) : $24.95 1. School buildingsNew York (N.Y.)Design and plansCase studies.2. School sizeNew York (N.Y.)Case studies.3. Urban schools New York (N.Y.)Case studies. I.Architectur..1 League of New York. II.Public Education Association of the City of New York. Princeton Architectural Press. .B3221.N436 1992 27'.1'097471dc20 92-39205 C1P COPY AVAILABLE 5 CONTENTS PREFACE Paul Spencer liprd PREFACE Irving S. Hamer, /r. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 8 INTRODUCTION 20 1?osalie Generro ADVOCACY AND ARCHITECTURE Adime.rihrr /-*/ :Mk/ THE NEW SCHOOLS FOR NEW YORK DE.IGN STUDY Rosillie Gene Pro MORRISANIA [he Bronx FLUSHING Queens HARLEM Manhattan SUNSET PARK Ui Brooklyn WASHINGTON HEIGHTS 114 Manhattan PROSPECT HEIGHTS 141 Brooklyn BUILDING AND LEARNING lit Anne E. Riew Marl, BIBLIOGRAPHY / BEST COPY AVAILABLE 6 PREFACE The drawings and texts in this catalogue are the In making the exploration, these architects revived result of an unusual exploration by some fifty a much neglected role for design, that is, as a tool teams of architects of the fOrms New York City of investigation. Each scheme, each iteration school buildings might take if they were allowed revealed new possibilities, new issues to address, to be substantially smaller. The exploration made new problems to resolve. The schemes also deep- possible evaluation of the issue of size from points ened the understanding that must inform actual of view that could not otherwise have been consid- design of our public works. In organizing New ered. The designs showed what smaller schools Schools for New York with the Public Education might look like, as well as what different meanings Association, the Architectural League was very they might embods to he truly helpful to children, pleased to be able to contribute to that under- teachers, and neighbors. The designs suggested standing. different spaces that could be provided and how they might he used so that all participants in Paul Spencer 13vard schooling could work better in them. Equally President, Architectural Leitgue of Neu, }.ark importantly, the designs showed new ways these schools might fit with the existing fabric of the city. As juror Henry Cobb perceived, they made clear not only how much simpler and easier each one would be to develop and build, but also how much less -traumatic" an intervention each would constitute in its neighborhood. In preparing these drawings for the New Schools for New fork project, the League archi- tects explored a subject matter of intense impor- tance to New York City. What is done with the new school construction program will have enor- mous impact on our social and politic d ft tore. The exploration of the choic,the program might engage is crucial to such an enormous public undertaking. The choice of form will be impor- tant not just to our social interests, but also to our future physical definition as a city, as anyone trav- eling our landscape and becoming aware of the pervasive, powerful presence of our existing school buildings knows. When we achieve a new "vision- for New York, the form of our schools will be .t critical part of NEW SCHOOLS FOR NEW YORK PREFACE PREFACE PEA's original idea for New Schools for New York Events are catching up with the vision of the New aimed to excite the enthusiasm and endorsement Schools for New York collaborators that, someday, of skeptical educators and policy makers for the ordinary city teachersnot just brilliant rogue importanceand feasibilityof small schools for educators who could teach in a parking garage pity kids. will have a means and mandate to know every Traditional mindsets resist the notion that child they are trying to teach. cities should provide public school children the small neighborhood schools that nurture their Irving S. Hamer, /r. peers in non-urban and private institutions. But ( ;/ tie. Public Education Association big-city students particularly confront a torrent of harsh realities; they need schools which provide relief from anonymity, not another challenge to overcome the loneliness of the crowd. The most direct svay we can recover our cities' lost sense of community is through small schools that bring support and learning to chil- dren and their families. New Schools for New York was conceived in the belief that even the most earnest discussions on school restructuring remain shallow if we fail to assure a workable scale within which students and teachers can function. The quality of participation by architects and designers exceeded our highest expectations. Their practical, beautiful designs concretize educational ideas with a level of insight that can't be argued away by cost cutters. As we had hoped, the effect has been to inspire and inform changes of perspective and emerging policy. A trend seemed to start with the wholehearted jury participation of Chancellor Fernandez's representative Amy Linden, chief executive for school facilities for the Board of Education, and the warm reception for the small school designs in the popular and professional press. Now the Board is moving to create more than two dozen new small schools and integrating sonic of them, as New Schools for NewYork proposed, with other communit facilities. NEW SCHOOL', FOR Nrw YORK I IEFACI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS New Schools for New York was the collaborative Anna Hopkins, Amy Linden, Deborah Meier, effort of two organizations with very different mis- Leslie Robertson. and Susana Torre spent two sions but with the shared goai of contributing to days thoroughly evaluating the proposals and the quality of public life in New York City. For engaging in an illuminating discussion of the well over 100 years the Architectural League of significance of school buildings and the particular New York has helped architects, artists, and the features that make sonic schools desirable and public enrich their understanding of the purposes appealing. and importance of the art of archit.:cture. Since In the Bronx, the project took shape with the 1894, the Public Education Association (PEA), a help