Amphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A …arizona.openrepository.com/.../608604/1/Rioux_Capstone.docx · Web viewAmphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A Study

Amphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A Study in the Application of Design | Andre Rioux

Andre Rioux

12/11/15

SBE 499

Amphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A Study in the Application of Design

1


ContentsIntroduction.................................................................................................................................................3

Background:.............................................................................................................................................3

Research Methodology................................................................................................................................7

Literature Review........................................................................................................................................9

Making a Case for School Gardens and Outdoor Classrooms..................................................................9

Design Theory........................................................................................................................................11

Design for Educational Spaces...............................................................................................................17

Water Harvesting...................................................................................................................................18

Plant Selection.......................................................................................................................................18

Data Collection..........................................................................................................................................20

Case Studies...........................................................................................................................................20

Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory..........................................................................20

Mission Garden..................................................................................................................................21

Russell Elementary School.................................................................................................................21

Design....................................................................................................................................................22

Analysis..............................................................................................................................................22

Conceptual Development..................................................................................................................25

Design Proposal.................................................................................................................................27

Implementation.....................................................................................................................................29

Phase I...............................................................................................................................................30

Phase II..............................................................................................................................................31

Phase III.............................................................................................................................................32

Maintenance......................................................................................................................................33

Discussion..................................................................................................................................................34

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................36

Appendix I..................................................................................................................................................38

Appendix II.................................................................................................................................................41

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................49

2


Table of FiguresFigure 1 Underwood Garden.....................................................................................................................39Figure 2 Mission Garden............................................................................................................................40Figure 3 Russel Elementary.......................................................................................................................41Figure 4 Amphitheater Context and Circulation Map................................................................................42Figure 5 Site Assessment Map...................................................................................................................43Figure 6 Shadow Study of Courtyard.........................................................................................................44Figure 7 Preference Diagram.....................................................................................................................45Figure 8 Suitability Matrix..........................................................................................................................45Figure 9 Concepts Legend..........................................................................................................................46Figure 10 Sectional....................................................................................................................................46Figure 11 Native Embrace..........................................................................................................................46Figure 12 Work Station Nooks...................................................................................................................46Figure 13Preliminary Proposal...................................................................................................................47Figure 14 Perspectives A & B referencing the Preliminary Plan.................................................................48Figure 15 Perspectives C & D referencing the Preliminary Plan.................................................................49

3

https://d.docs.live.net/5c9f347ef0ae1ef2/Spring%2016/CAPSTONE/Written%20stuff/Rioux_everythingthusfar.docx#_Toc448699171


IntroductionThere has been a nationwide movement which has promoted urban agriculture. The locale,

seasonality, and methods of cultivation, have all entered the spotlight of public consciousness. While

farmer’s markets, and co-ops may sometimes have limited accessibility with respect to cost another

community gardens are branch of the urban agriculture movement which are highly accessible. The

surge in popularity of community gardens came with the 2008 market crash, which created many

foreclosures, and accordingly vacant lots. Where vacant lots are reclaimed by citizens, they create a

sense of ownership within a community, they become physical manifestations of neighborhood rally

cries, elbows rub, and community connections are made. With a relatively small amount of initial input,

and continued care, there are tangible outputs, and literal fruits of labor. The popularity of these

gardens extends to schools, and a whole branch of pedagogy which emphasizes place based learning.

The benefits to these schools is tremendous; students are offered the opportunity to be academically

engaged in a space other than the traditional classroom. Community gardens show the potential to

create value from little input. With the benefit of a structured design process, there is potential to make

school gardens learning space, in addition to growing space. The intent of this study is to explore the

value created for these spaces by a formalized design process.

Background:

Following are a few examples of landscape architect designed community gardens that have

received recognition. One example is, Viet Village Urban Farm was a designed by the firm Mossops +

Michaels, and recipient of the 2008 ASLA Professional Design Award of Excellence for Analysis and

Planning. The design sought to remediate 30 acres of land which had been devastated by the 2005

Hurricane Katrina, in a predominately Vietnamese area of New Orleans. The goal was to create a

cooperative farm that would supplement the income of community members affected by the storm. In

4


addition to reclaiming the harshly affected land, the site would process storm water in an ecologically

efficient manner. Unfortunately, the community development corporation was not able to proceed

because the land plot which they purchased was on historic wetlands, and thus beyond the budget

scope. Despite this setback, the community development corporation was able to use the financial

aspects of the plan to create a network of gardens called the VEGGI Farmer’s Cooperative, which rents

space from community member’s backyards. 80 cents of every dollar goes back to community members.

This model has proved so successful that some community members who lost work because of the BP

Deepwater Horizons Oil Spill of 2010 have been able to completely supplement their income. (Green,

2013) This shows that the value of designed garden spaces not only expands the ecological sustainability

of a place, but even potentially the economic viability.

Lafayette Greens, located in Detroit, Michigan, is another notable community garden design.

The site was designed by Kenneth Weikal Landscape Architecture, for Compuware Corporation, and was

the recipient of the 2012 ASLA Honor Award for General Design Category. The garden was in part a

reflection of the urban gardening trend occuring in Detroit in response to the food deserts of the freshly

abandoned neighborhoods of Detroit. Lafayette Greens was also a statement about the commitment of

Compuware to the city of Detroit. The garden functions in cooperation with first floor company daycare,

where employees of Compuware may take their children. Through the daycare children are brought out

to engage with many aspects of the garden, which features fruit trees, a kiwi vine, berry garden, art

circle, lawn, and plentiful gardens beds. Community members are welcome to rent out garden bed,

engaging multiple demographics. The physical configuration of Lafayette Greens makes a broad range of

considerations. The garden beds are spaced in rows and columns aligned so that the tops of beds are

level, but grow deeper as they descend along the slope. In conjunction with swales placed between the

beds, the garden effectively manages storm water, makes it an asset. Aesthetically the site tells a story

about the surrounding area. The material palate of exposed rebar, unstained wood, corrugated metals,

5


and even planters made from oil drums, reflect the industrial nature of Detroit. (Weikal, 2012) It is the

interface between engineered aspects, and the interpretative, which make a case for the sustaining

value of community gardens designed by landscape architects.

With respect to the three pillars of sustainability community gardens are the product of social

sustainability, but design allows for the incorporation of economic and environmental sustainability.

Where gardens are not designed there are generally two different places that community gardens

appear. There are those which develop in urban neighborhoods, and those which appear in schools. The

first type of garden, neighborhood, is the type of space that the Viet Village Farm shows economic

sustainability. The second type, the school garden, is reflected in Lafayette Greens, where children are

brought into the garden to learn as a part of the daycare program. Even without design both garden

types strive to bring people into contact with foods they produce, and to consider the foods which they

consume. goals may diverge; in neighborhoods gardens serve as places of community contact, or

enrichment of the built environment; in schools they are used as spaces for hands-on learning. The

evidence for the benefit of school garden is not based in sentiment; one study from Griffith University,

England, shows a study at two middle schools where garden beds and school kitchens were introduced,

alongside cross-disciplinary curriculum. The end result at each school was respectively 16% and 9%, for

both reading and mathematics according to the National Assessment Program test data. (Manzo

Elementary School, 2016)

These examples and results that might inspire teachers, staff, and parents to take interest in

gardens at their school. In Tucson, Manzo elementary sets a prime example of how a determined set

individual can transform a school. Starting with a student constructed tortoise habitat, the school has

grown its infrastructure to include, water harvesting cisterns, Garden beds raised, and sunken, a chicken

coop, greenhouse, aquaponics tank, compost bins, and worm bins. The infrastructure has been

6


accompanied by the development of garden and outdoor curriculum which integrates common core

education goals, by the University of Arizona Department of Geography. Outcomes so far have resulted

in an increase of 22% and 20% of passing scores for the AIMS (Arizona’s instrument to measure

standards) for Math and science respectively. () This begs the question of design might have to offer

school gardens like this.

Currently there is a gap between community gardens, which are generally grass-roots

community oriented projects, and carefully designed landscapes. The question begs as to how they

might benefit from these designs, and if they do, how can we ensure there are procedures in place to

aid in these designs. With respect to schools there is proven educational value, and accordingly there is

strong backing for these sorts of projects by teachers who wish to expand their learning space beyond

the chalkboard. An opportunity to expand that learning space has presented itself with the Science

department at Amphitheater High School (AHS) has expressed interest in pursuing these goals, and has

an open space which they are willing to invest efforts for this experiment. The department has

expressed interest in developing the space beyond just a garden space, and would like to include space

for class meeting space, recreational space for students, and the incorporation of sustainable practice

like water harvesting, and native low-water use plants.

Completion of this project will require careful exploration of structured landscape design

processes. A quick overview of this process will require that I perform a site analysis of how the space is

currently used, and perform interviews of students, teachers, and the people who provide maintenance

of the site. In addition to current use, the interviews should include what the desirable outcomes would

include for these users. With case studies of successful outdoor classrooms, interviews of the students

and faculty, additional site analysis, then a series of conceptual plans, a recommended preliminary plan,

7


and plan for implementation and maintenance will be produced for the eventual construction of the

“Outdoor Learning Classroom” at AHS.

Research MethodologyThere are several aspects to this project which should be considered in how my research

approach for the Outdoor Learning Classroom. A significant portion of this project is based in developing

a set of plans that meet the needs of a specific group, the students and teachers at AHS. My research

needs to inform my ability to develop these plans, but also needs to accommodate for how I develop an

understanding of these needs. The final key characteristic of my project which relates to my relationship

with the participants. I am a former student of AHS, and the teachers and students I will be working

with, are people from a community I have identified with for the majority of my life. The methodology

which that I choose must accommodate a relatively high level of personal interaction with participants,

as well as value on my personal investment in the project while maintaining the integrity of the absence

of bias.

My methods account for how I must interact with my participants. In Constructivist grounded

theory, interviews are a key component they become the “site for the construction of knowledge and

clearly the researcher and informant produce this knowledge together” (Hand, 2003). Constructivist

grounded theory, as described by Mills, Bonner, and Francis (Jane Mills, 206), requires an approach

three factors:

“1. The creation of a sense of reciprocity between participants and the researcher in

the coconstruction of meaning and, ultimately, a theory that is grounded in the

participants’ and researcher’s experiences.

8


2. The establishment of relationships with participants that explicate power

imbalances and attempts to modify these imbalances.

3. Clarification of the position the author takes in the text, the relevance of biography

and how one renders participants stories into theory through writing.”

The nature of the relationship between the teachers and students at AHS already leads itself to multiple

levels of reciprocity. AHS and its community members have already provided for me as an institution, by

preparing me for collegiate work. Additionally, this project affords me the benefit of developing my

design skills and capabilities. AHS receives the benefit of outdoor learning infrastructure, as well as the

opportunity to develop strong relationships with students, which may in turn produce useful alumni.

The nature of this reciprocity lends itself to controlled imbalances in power relationships between

researcher (me) and subject (students and teachers). Justification for the project is readily found in the

story of AHS, not only through its demographics, but also through the stories of the students and staff.

Though my personal enthusiasm and investment in the project may be beneficial to the process,

it may also create bias, as Blummer puts “the existence of passion for the area of research interest can

be problematic in itself because it has the potential to blind the researcher to aspects of the data, or at

the very least, to constitute filters through which we view the data” (Mallory, 2001) It is the

recommendation of Mills, Bonner, and Francis, that reflection and memory be used to encourage the

research to reflect, and maintain objectivity. Accordingly, I will incorporate journaling that takes notes of

my process along the way.

Literature Review

The nature of this project requires a variety of be covered. To begin with there should be

justification for the investment needed for a school garden and outdoor learning. After there is reason

9


established for the garden methods for the design of the garden must be identified. This requires

several scales of detail; a general outline for how to approach the design process from project

acceptance, down to implementation; and then information for how to approach specific elements of

the design process. Three facets of particular import to the project relate to the analysis of the site, to

better inform conceptualization, plant selection that is both appropriate for its water usage and it

survivability in the microclimate of the site, and finally the initial talks with the AHS faculty have

expressed extreme interest both passive and active water harvesting, acting as factor of sustainability,

and as a mitigator of poor conditions on the site.

Making a Case for School Gardens and Outdoor ClassroomsMany people are behind the idea of school gardens and outdoor learning, the value seems

inherent. Despite a lot of support gardens are still subject to scrutiny, as is famously the case of the

scathing editorial that appeared in the Atlantic in 2010, calling school gardens idealistic, culturally

insensitive, and ineffective teaching tools (Flanagan, 2010). Without addressing the combative tone of

editorials, critiques like those fail to acknowledge the inclusivity presented by school gardens. One

study published in the international journal of science education looked specifically at the benefits of a

school garden in low-income schools. Elementary students at a school with more than half of the

population receiving free and reduced lunch took part in a study with science based garden

interventions. What was found was a modest, but significant increase science knowledge with those that

participated in the garden interventions. The benefits were noted to increase with the frequency, and

intensity of garden “dosing”; students with that spent more time in the garden, with more developed

curriculum experienced more significant improvement in their science comprehension (Nancy M. Wells,

2015). This is of particular significance to the AHS which is classified as a low income school.

Additionally, the study focused on science learning, which parallels the activities in planning for AHS,

where it is the Science Department which has expressed interest in the outdoor classroom.

10


Furthermore, the inclusivity of gardens in learning is not limited to socio-economic status, but also to

students at all levels of educational development. In an article published by Teaching Exceptional

Children, Garden based learning as was shown to be an effective intervention at a school with a

population which had 19% limited English proficiency, and 23% special needs population. Garden based

learning allows for those students to have hands on learning opportunities where “… teacher become

coaches by helping students actively explore and manipulate soil, worms, seeds, and plants”. AHS would

particularly benefit from programs which are inclusive of these demographics, as the school population

is comprised of one in seven students who are learning English as a second language. In addition to

these benefits, the article provides a framework for creating an enduring garden; beginning with

gathering administrative support, followed by creating interest by teachers at a school, identifying

opportunities for funding, gathering support from the community, and finally planning the garden. The

article also provides an examples of how garden curriculum might be integrated in types of academic

pursuits, showing potential for the building on the “dosing” effect as described in the Nancy Wells

reading (James A. Rye, 2012). The order of support gathering which is described by the Rye, may show

as a bit of a missed opportunity, where teachers had begun development of curriculum, before

contacting administration. This conflict with administration is later described in the results section.

Moving forward this should be a key consideration, alongside the support of parents and the

community. Gathering this support is proven to be an important factor in creating enduring outdoor

learning spaces. In the publication Green Teacher, and article addresses the sustainability of outdoor

classrooms; a 2003 study revealed that in the state of Georgia, 41% of more than 1000 school yard

habitats projects had been abandoned, with over 80% of the abandoned projects falling into disrepair by

their second year. The author prescribes a series of recommendations which lead to the success of the

59% of classrooms which do not fall into disrepair. The three most important factors are continued

maintenance support, integration of curriculum, and the inclusion of students in the construction of

11


those spaces. (Kail, 2003) This suggests that some considerations must be made to connect with

maintenance crews, as well as the development of a written guide for the care of that space. The

entirety of the science department at AHS has already vested considerable effort into the creation of

curriculum to integrate into the project. This leaves the task of planning for giving students hands-on

opportunities in the development and construction of the space. An additional suggestion for in final

plans was the fencing off of a space to allow natural succession to take place, as a low cost, low

investment, high learning value opportunity. (Kail, 2003) Justification for school gardens, and outdoor

learning are readily available; fortunately addressing concerns raised against their implementation

seems equally manageable, and reinforces the benefit and need for using a formalized design process.

Design TheoryThere are many ideas of where the design process begins, and how it should develop.

Something which seems to be universally identified is that the process has many interpretations. No one

methodology typically addresses all the needs or specificities of any project. Some design methods may

be overly involved, or not involved enough. I have selected an authority on the topic of site design for

Landscape Architecture. Norman Booth, author of the “Basic elements of Landscape Architectural

design”. Though the book is older, it offers a solid structure for the process. He provides that each of the

facets of the design process will be expanded upon through other readings. Booth posits that success of

design is dependent on thought combination of all design elements, only when they work together do

they have the ability to meet the objectives set forth by a project. He further states that there are four

uses for the design process; it provides a logical framework, it ensures the appropriateness of a design,

that it helps to determine the best use of land, and it serves as a way to justify a design to a client. The

steps for the problem-solving process include, project acceptance, research and analysis, design,

construction drawings, implementation, and post construction evaluation.

12


The research and analysis phase requires the creation of a base plan, site inventory, client

interview, and program development. The base plan should show property lines, topography,

vegetation, water, buildings and associated infrastructure and utilities, walls, roads, and any other

immediate off site conditions. Inventory provides a comprehensive list of details, including

neighborhood character, site conditions, Hydrology, Soil, vegetation, microclimate, views, spaces and

sense of spaces, and site function. Booth provides an example client interview for a residential home,

while the interview contains questions that are not pertinent to the site of this project it does show the

need importance of gathering the input of the client, which in this case is the teachers, faculty, students,

and community of AHS. Some relevant questions that are mentioned in the client interview, revolve

around maintenance of the site, and budget for the project. The development of a program requires

three parts; a list of goals and objectives, a list of elements to be included in the design, and a list of any

other special requirements. Goals are defined to be statements of intent, where objectives are

statements which define how those intentions will be carried out.

The Design stage of the design process is organized into the ideal functional diagram, site

related functional diagram, concept plan, form composition studies, preliminary designs, schematic

designs, master plans, and final design development. The ideal functional diagram identifies the most

appropriate relationships between functions and their spaces; how functions relate to each other and,

whether they should be near or apart, closed or open. Site related functional diagrams establish the

same relationships, but are created with acknowledgement of the scale, and physical context of the site.

Concept plans are the product of the previous diagram mated with the site analysis portion of the design

process. Concept plans, are built in layers, and begin show property lines, structures, major functions,

relevant changes in topographic form, view sheds, and points of conveyance. At this stage major

functions are defined as entrances, paths, vegetation (grouped by their height, or composition), or

where different activities take place. Form composition study precedents, and preliminary designs work

13


with those to develop themes based on the context of the site. By the time the preliminary master plan

is reached, all design elements are considered down to the materials of elements, surfaces; plants are

defined by their general size, form, color, and described by terms like “ornamental tree”, or “Screen

hedge”. Master plans are then created after reception of feedback from the client concerning the

preliminary plan. (Booth, 1983) Though schematic drawings, construction plans, and eventual

implementation are key components of professional practice, however the process described, are

beyond the limited scope of this project.

Two components of the design process require more in depth exploration than the discussion

provided by the Booth text include site analysis, and conceptual diagramming. Many of the texts

provided for site analysis should be appreciated for their face value as an annotated checklist of items

which must be accounted for when trying to piece together elements found on a site. One document

created by created by Floyd Zimmerman, FASLA, is considered essential reading by the American

Institute of Architects. In an Excerpt from the Architects handbook of Professional Practice, Zimmerman

contends that the importance of site analysis lies within its ability to help us understand the value of a

piece of land, by determining its capability to perform in a specific way given the context of politics,

environment, and regulation. Zimmerman states there are four services provided by professionals in site

analysis; they may help with the selection of a site; with the definition of the programming for that site,

understanding the opportunities and limitations of a site with respect to the previously determined

programming; and to address any special issues or concerns on the site. Zimmerman goes onto to state

that the task of good site analysis, is too much for an individual to take on, and that it should usually be

delegated to a team of people, from differing backgrounds, who can account for all aspects. Beyond

these insights, Zimmerman provides a comprehensive checklist of physical, cultural, and regulatory

factors which should all be considered in the analysis of a site. (Zimmerman, 2000) While Zimmerman

does say that it is important for there to be a set of interdisciplinary team members, much of what he is

14


discussing is for assessment at a much broader scale, than the rough acre of land that is being looked at

for this project. In the Site Planning and Design handbook by Thomas Russ, we are offered a similar

checklist, with different insights, but with the addition of recommendations of where to acquire

information. Russ argues that site analysis is the most important phase of the design process because

the more complete the analysis is, the less revision that will be necessary later in a project. Surprisingly,

Russ concedes that most of the work done in the analysis phase is not based on the generation of new

data, but instead collects data which is already present. The value is not in the amount of data, but in

how it is synthesized, and made relevant. Russ continues by providing information on where to acquire

that information; soil maps are available for free from USGS, and plant hardiness zoning maps are

available through the USDA. Russ recognizes the need to account for sun orientation across seasons, and

acknowledgement of the changes in the climate for lasting performance of designs. According to Russ,

observation of existing vegetation is an indicator of the character of a site. Additional consideration is

given to vegetation where Russ places value on mature trees, and the importance of acknowledging

local regulatory practices with respect to protected plant species. In this same section Russ provides a

table to be used for evaluating the condition of a tree which may be used later on. Consideration should

also be offered to historic developments, and local ordinances for projects, which are typically available

as free information to the public. Finally, Russ stresses the importance of what is now known as

universal design, by making accommodations to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the guidelines for

which can be found on the website for ADAAG. (Russ, 2009) This consideration is of particular interest to

the design of this project; one of the major benefits of garden based learning, is that it providing

learning opportunities which are relatable to people of all different backgrounds. Russ also offers a

check list of items for site analysis. By combining, and removing unnecessary elements from both of

Zimmerman, and Russ checklists, an appropriate benchmark can be created for the project at AHS.

15


The other facet of the design process in need of expansion is the process of conceptual site

design. This intermediary is important for the development of multiple ideas. Becoming anchored to a

single concept for a site has the potential negative consequence of hampering the ability of a site to

meet the needs of a program developed from a well-informed analysis. The conceptual design phase

prevents stagnation. Landscape architect, James A. LaGro jr. authored “Site Analysis Informing Context-

Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design” a textbook which offers many standards to follow

for the design process, including conceptual designs. LaGro begins his section on conceptual design by

offering the advice of “Design with nature; design with culture; design for people”. This references

meshes well with the principles that are meant to guide the Outdoor Learning Classroom for AHS. LaGro

acutely notes that in the early stages of design restrictions for a site can actually be the least difficult to

design; sites with little to no restrictions are able to be programed any of a multitude of ways, and are

thusly more difficult to determine a design efficiently and effectively. To place conceptual design into

context Site Inventory is explained to be the process of fact finding, Site analysis to be the assessment of

suitability of a site, while conceptual design focuses on the creation of solutions. The creation of good

design solutions is dependent on what LaGro terms the creators “design vocabulary”, which is best

expanded through study of the environment, images, note keeping, and most importantly, sketching.

Expansion of the design vocabulary advances the creators understanding of design theory, which LaGro

posits should be comprehensive in knowledge of both natural and built and environment. All the best

theory has little value without application during conceptual development. LaGro states that “this

investment can pay substantial dividends by improving the quality of the final site plan, which—

ultimately—impacts the character, livability, and sustainability of the built environment.”, from this

foundational statement of import, LaGro suggests that the reader make use of four steps of conceptual

development, as written by Ian McHarg’s design with nature. The first step is to identify primary and

secondary areas of conservation, conserve the most sensitive natural areas, to minimize their

16


fragmentation to link those spaces where possible. The second step is to identify areas most suitable for

development, and to separate them into “pods and envelopes” which are defined as programing and

functions. The Third step is to identify the hierarchy of circulation in the space. The final step is to add

information to the concept plan, which develop the “character of pods”. LaGro adds that at all stages of

the conceptual design, that the detail of concepts is largely determined the scale of the site, where

multi-acre sites might specify a “seating area” a small backyard would show approximate seating

placement. LaGro suggests that different phases of conceptual diagrams should be layered over one

another, and also specifies graphical conventions, like the use of polygons sometimes referred to as

bubbles to signify programming or activities, lines use for showing pathways, and edges, points to show

landmarks, nodes, and entrances, and the use of precedent photos which show design intent. In

addition to instruction for the instruction of creating diagrams, LaGro makes the suggestion to examine

patterns of circulation, and categorizes them into linear, grid, loop, radial, and spiral. Finally, LaGro asks

that designers consider the impact of any development, whether it maintains existing zoning, addresses

natural hazards, maintains natural features and views, and minimizes any negative impact (Jr., 2013).

While some of the considerations asked of by LaGro may not be appropriate for the scale of the site, it

provides a strong consideration of how to begin the conceptualization process.

Design for Educational SpacesThe case that is readily made for outdoor classrooms is that they provide hands on

opportunities, and alternative learning experiences. The simplicity of this justification for outdoor

learning can be reductive, in the Boston School Yard Initiative’s guide to outdoor classroom design, they

identify the typical image of an outdoor classroom as being a simple AHS, or circle of stones and logs. It

is there assertion that “the outdoor classroom is a basic educational resource, like a library or a

computer room.” (Boston Schoolyard Initiative, 2013). The utility of outdoor classrooms is better

17


crystalized by Jason Medeiros in his identification of the function of educative landscapes to include

inspiration, exploration, reflection, application, and connection. (Mederios, 2010)

Medeiros and the Boston Schoolyard initiative focus heavily on considerations. In Medeiros

master’s thesis on educative design there is an apt identification in the way learning experiences happen

outdoors through formal teacher led activities, and informal free choice experiences. It is noted that the

formal, teacher led activities are better suited to large groups, and therefore require design which

established boundaries, focus attention, and allow for management of the group. Conversely, informal

learning lends itself to solitary experiences, which require ease of movement, and self-navigation.

(Mederios, 2010) In the Outdoor Classroom Design Guide, a variety of functions, elements, and guiding

principles are identified in the creation of useful outdoor educational spaces. Perhaps the most general,

but potent advice offered is that when designing for learning environments there must be “[…] High

educational value, low maintenance, suitability for the site, and sustainability.” This advice in

combination with recommendations for incorporating student driven maintenance, consideration for

class use alongside student use, and the strategic introduction of elements like fencing, seating, and

pathways to create circulation paths and defined spaces for different kinds of learning. (Boston

Schoolyard Initiative, 2013)

Water HarvestingThe remainder of the review is dedicated to identifying resources that will inform the

development of technical aspects of the site. One of the more important technical hurdles to overcome

is the management of rainwater on the site. In addition to expressed interest by the AHS science

department, rainwater harvesting has the benefit of both addressing erosion issues that currently exist

on the site, while negating some of the negative impact of drawing from water resources for the garden

space. In the Tucson area, Brad Lancaster is a celebrity and champion of water harvesting. Lancaster’s

book “Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond” is the de facto manual on the topic of rainwater

18


harvesting. Lancaster begins by provided anecdotal support for the use of rainwater, in providing his

own home with excellent shade, vegetation, and reduced heating and electricity bills. Lancaster calls for

what he has termed “greenfrastructure” to supplement widespread use of grey infrastructure to

manage storm water. So called greenfrastructure are earth forms, and plantings which mitigate

flooding, and convert that water into a resource in the form of vegetation rather than allowing it to be a

wasted resource. Notably, Lancaster’s greenfrastructure is typically low cost, and at most require the

investment of tools and labor. Lancaster has divided his manual into three parts, the first volume

provides and overview, and context for water harvesting, and sustainable design. The second volume

deals with the topic of earthworks, related to the creation of berms and swales. The third volume

focuses on the implementation of roof catchment and cisterns. (Lancaster, 2006) The implementation

of these techniques will be dependent on what the final analysis of the site will reveal.

Plant SelectionThe other major technical component of this design will revolve around the selection of an

appropriate palette of plant materials for the site. The initial goals of the site were to produce a

landscape which was native to near native, and would be able to survive drought tolerant conditions,

thus further negating the negative water cost of creating the site, and reducing the impact. For this task

there are two excellent resources for selecting plants, and making informed decisions about planting in

the Tucson area. Mary Duffield’s “Plants for Dry Climates” provides many resources such as some

instructions for planting and care, a plant list, recommended vegetable gardening practices, and a

calendar of the blooming season of various colorful flowering plants. In addition to this Duffield provides

valuable information which should inform the selection of plants for a site here in Tucson. Duffield

defines arid climates as places where evaporation exceeds rainfall, and further explains that heat is not

requisite to the definition of a desert climate. In the text, Tucson is defined as a “medium zone climate”

which is typified by having mild winters, and a shorter growing season than lower elevation.

19


Additionally, Tucson should experience between 220 and 242 frost free days, with minimum

temperatures as low as 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and summer temps typically 5 degrees cooler than at

lower elevations. In general Tucson also experiences higher precipitation than lower elevations, and

through bimodal rainfall. Duffield states that key considerations for plant selection should account for

frost hours, toleration of temperature fluctuation during the day and night cycle, heat exposure, wind

exposure, and humidity conditions. Additionally, Duffield discusses microclimates, stating that the

boundaries of climates are poorly defined, but generally speaking, there are cold air basins, and thermal

belts created by a combination of ground cover, sun exposure, and elevation. Microclimates need

special attention as they dictate the success of plant in the space that it is located. Duffield categorizes

plants by some of their visual qualities, and groups them according to visual themes like rustic or

woodsy. Finally, Duffield promotes the creation of a water budget, which accounts for the amount of

rainfall a place receives, with the draw of water needed to maintain plantings. (Mary R. Duffield, 1981).

Landscape architect Carol Shuler, is author of “Low Water Use Plants for California and the Southwest”,

another book which provides listings for plants appropriate for regions ranging from the Chihuahua

Desert, Sonoran Desert, California coast, and all of Baja California. This manual provides slightly more

depth with respect to the description of plants, detailing, structural compositions, appearance, height,

width, origins, speed of growth, and hardiness. The book shows some of its age ins stating the difficulty

of finding native and arid adapted plants in nurseries; while this may be true of chain stores, local

nurseries in the Tucson area have made them more available. Shuler promotes the xeriscape gardening,

a trademarked term, which has been defined to have multiple meanings, but typically refers to low

water use. Shuler contends that Xeriscaping solves problems associated with increasing southwestern

populations by alleviating urban heat, attracting wildlife, harvesting rainwater, reducing erosion, and

reducing greenwaste. A Particular recommendation that should be taken into account for this project is

20


that plantings should reflect the local wildlife, which means that if local wildlife consists of many birds,

or hummingbirds, or bees, that plantings should be used to accommodate them. (Shuler, 1993)

Data CollectionCase Studies

Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory

The Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory was an ASLA Honor Award Recipient

completed in 2010, located at the University of Arizona. The project adapted an entryway to the

University’s college of Architecture from a portion of parking lot, and transformed it into an outdoor

classroom, a demonstration space for water harvesting, and even an urban “Safe Harbor” for an

endangered species of fish. The Site makes use of both active and passive water harvesting systems, and

through the implementation of vegetation is so effective that it changes improves the temperature of

the space, creating a desirable microclimate. Furthermore, many of the materials on site are recycled

materials, reducing the impact of the construction of the site. (College of Architecture, Planning &

Landscape Architecture, 2016) The site demonstrates an ideal mixture of both human function, creating

an inviting desirable climate, and ecological function. With respect to the site at AHS, the garden proves

the feasibility of the creation of a space which both reflects the native ecological identity of Tucson,

while creating an inviting experience. Caution should be used while drawing inspiration from this site

because of the difference in the abilities to maintain a site at the University, where there is a dedicated

landscaping crew with ample budged, as opposed to the limited maintenance which can be provided by

the students and teachers at a small urban high school.

Mission Garden

Mission garden is located along the Santa Cruz River, in a flood plain that was historically home

to the agriculture facilities of the Spanish Mission of Tucson. In more recent history Mission garden sat

21


on top of a site which was part of a municipal dump. Initially a part of the Rio Nuevo redevelopment

projects, the project was picked up by a nonprofit called Friends of Tucson’s Birthplace. Constructed in

2008, by EDAW, BWS Architecture, Sage Landscaping, Lloyd construction, Mission Garden seeks to

develop a landscape which educates people through a living timeline of agriculture. Mission Garden has

propagated a variety of heirloom, Tucson adapted fruits and vegetables, from different eras of cultural

influence, and exposes people to the methods of cultivation accurate to their respective origins. (Friends

of Tucson's Birthplace, 2016) Mission Garden demonstrates some of the simplest methods of the

integration of sustainable practices, because many of the practices are those which have been tested by

the trials of time. Furthermore, Mission Garden shines as an example of the possibilities of design which

carefully implements storytelling to create sustained interest and care of a site.

Russell Elementary School

Started in 2006, and completed in 2010, Russell elementary is just one of the many successful

projects take on by the Boston Schoolyard Initiative. Designed by Klopfer Martini Design Group, Russell

was featured in Landscape Architecture Magazine, and touted as a shining example of the success of the

application Boston Schoolyard Initiative’s design guidelines for outdoor classrooms. The site was

specifically designed to remediate absence of dedicated science learning facilities at the school. Science

specialist teachers at the school take materials between classes and bring students outdoors for

instruction. The site features planting beds, an experiment lab with raised tables, and urban meadow,

rain garden, storage shed and storm water feature, and integrates the use of recycled building materials.

This site demonstrates the ability to program many different functions into a compact space. (Brown,

2015) Though it is oriented for use by an elementary school group, it shows the most direct applicability

to the space to be designed for AHS.

22


Design

We have now entered the design phase of this project which seeks to explore the benefits which

a formalized process lends to the continued success of outdoor classrooms and school gardens. True to

constructivist grounded theory this project acknowledges the personal investment of the researcher

(designer) with the participants of the research (client). The selection of AHS as the site of the project is

influenced by the established connection to the faculty and staff, and the personal opportunity to pay

respect to the designer’s home community. This is not to say that AHS is without merit as a school to

select. AHS is a Title I school, in a low income area of Tucson, with a high percentage of English Language

learners, making the introduction of hands on learning experiences all the more in demand.

Furthermore, the interest at AHS in this infrastructure is not limited to a solitary passionate teacher, as

the case is to the detriment of many school gardens which fall into disrepair due to inadequate support.

Instead the entirety of the science department has a vested stake in the project, with several teachers

working towards the completion of grants for funding, and doubly more developing curriculum and

support for the project.

Prior to the formal beginnings of this endeavor there had already been an attempt at a proposal

for an outdoor classroom in at AHS. However, this process was not governed by a formalized design

process, and as a result any work which was completed during that time has been discarded. This is

further expanded in discussion.

Analysis

After gaining volunteer clearance at AHS I was able to visit the school and gather some

information about the site, as well as perform some inquiries with relevant parties. Data concerning the

physical site was simple in collection, but time consumptive in practice. Armed with a tape measure, and

23


volunteer student, the courtyard was dimensioned to determine the size of the site, location of utility

access points, walking paths, classroom doors, building heights, plant materials, and any other relevant

infrastructure. This data was graphically interpreted, and scaled using AutoCAD, SketchUp, Google Earth

Pro, and illustrator. This information is only foundational, as it provides the quantitative elements which

inform the design process. Additionally, during this phase, there was time to take photos of the site.

Some important notes visual notes indicate potential sources of water, and flow of rainwater runoff at

the site. In general water on site runs from east to west, with a change of elevation somewhere

between one and two feet as determined by the USGS topography maps available on the Pima County

map guide (Pima County, 2016). Potential water sources are on all sides of the site. The roof of the

buildings on the west and north side of the site, are sloped such that they are suitable for the collection

of rainwater. To the East of the site, is the location of the chillers for the air-conditioning systems which

provide for the 300 and 400 wing, and which produce water condensate as a byproduct. There are drain

pipes for this system along both the East, and southern walls. 1 Through modeling the site, we are able

to understand the availability of sunlight throughout the day, across different times of the year. Figure

10 shows how the courtyard receives light, with important distinction that the orientation of the

buildings places importance on using the exposure of the western half to keep garden infrastructure

under maximum sunlight.

Through several meetings of the science department, and a series of informal

interviews, some relevant information was gathered. By nature of how the project began there is

established interest with the science teaching staff in the installation of outdoor learning infrastructure,

but having that sort of activity does raise concerns for teachers. One of the key considerations for this

was the visibility of the site. For the teachers who are a part of the three hundred wing, it was of critical

importance there are clear lines of site from their doors, into the site, in order to be better able to

1See Figure 8

24


monitor activity in the courtyard. Conversely, teachers in the 400 wing, on the South side of the site,

have windows which face into the site, are concerned for the potential for disruption or noise from the

site, and as a result screening is recommended.2

Students were spoken both during class time, and during their passing period. In general

students congregate in just off of the sidewalk towards the center of the site3, likely due to the shade

provided by the bottle tree (Brachychiton populneus) at the center of the site. The topic of shade is

something that came up frequently in conversation with students. While a few students expressed

interest in “green”, “grassy”, areas as good places to hang around, almost all students noted that places

to sit, and the provision of shade were critical. Some students also expressed interest in the potential for

sustainable aspects, such as water harvesting, or native vegetation, but nearly all were at least

interested, in the prospect of having class outside away from desks and the white board.

Other staff which I had the opportunity to speak with included the lead security guard, who

patrols that portion of campus, and some members of the landscape, and maintenance crew members.

A former student, the head of security was excited to hear about investment in the future of AHS. AHS

had apparently in recent years undergone changes in security policy, which changed the way students

are allowed to move through campus, and they have since made it more restrictive during lunch hours,

but they were open to the idea of students being allowed to use the space during that time. Concerns

for misuse of the space were absent in our conversation. Some teachers had notified me in previous

meetings that some accommodation would need to be made for maintenance crews to move through

the space with a vehicle. This was clarified by maintenance crew that the alley to east of the courtyard

needed clearance, and that none was necessary to the interior of the space. The landscape crew

provided some information regarding the nature of the crew, and some of the conditions of the site. In

2 See Figure 93 See Figure 8

25


the past, groundskeepers were responsible for the school they worked at, but have recently been

changed to a format where they are dispatched by the district to maintain all of their campuses,

meaning that the landscape crew could be any of a number of rotating members. This means that any

changes to the landscape of the 300 wing would need to be mostly manageable by students and

teachers. Furthermore, the landscape crew showed me where there were existing valves drip irrigation

valves at the east end of the courtyard, and said that they could potentially move an existing

greenhouse that had fallen out of use and accessibility on a now closed off portion of campus.

As mentioned above there was previous contact with the school, and some designs which were

developed and since abandoned, in favor of a more informed design process. The initial proposal which

was submitted to the district level administration was meant with many concerns. One of the key

considerations for the development of this space was that it would have to be hypoallergenic, and make

use of plant materials which did not pose harm to students. Additional concerns voiced by

administration were with respect to the continued care, and cost of the space. This reinforces the need

to create a space which is easy to care for and manageable by students. In the end, the needs of three

different parties must be met through the outdoor classroom, that of the students, teachers, and

administration. Figure 11 provides and illustration of the nature of the needs of each of these parties,

and how they relate to each other, and the project designer.

Conceptual Development

Figure 1 Concepts Legend

26


The conceptual phase requires synthesis of site analysis and spatial placement of the elements

needed to achieve the goals of a project. Before placing elements in the context of the site, it is helpful

to examine how those elements relate to themselves. A helpful graphic for these relationships is known

as a suitability matrix. All of the design elements are listed in a single column, and are connected to each

other in a graph outward. Following the diagonal paths drawn from each element, relationships can be

described between elements where the meet. If there is no relation the square where elements

intersect is left blank, otherwise they are denoted as being strongly correlated, having some relation, or

necessitating separation. The suitability matrix found in Figure 12 was heavily informative for the

placement of for these concepts.

Figure 2 Sectional

“Sectional” (Figure 2) promotes movement across the space by locating gathering space and

work tables at the center of the courtyard. During class time this means that instructions or lecture can

be provided in the gathering space, and students can break off to stations or assignments located

amongst the greenhouse, garden beds, or the native vegetation area. Several small reflective spaces are

provided along a path which bisects the native vegetation patch, to contrast the gathering of small

groups which would be expected to congregate in the recreation space at tables or benches. The

gathering space, and work tables are located where they will be able to capture the most shade. Shown

in the jagged green lines, vegetative screening is suggested along the north and south, as well as

bordering the gathering space, to create a soft visual barrier between spaces. Both the plantings along

27


the north and south make use of passive water capture due to the drainage of the site. A water tank sits

between the raised beds and the storage shed on the west wall.

“Native Embrace” (Figure 3) places an emphasis on the native vegetation by placing it in several

locations across the site. Along the eastern wall where there are curbs around the former foundation of

a greenhouse, a planter is recommended. This large planter would serve as a sort of raised

demonstration site for natural succession of plants into the area. It would be adjacent to a high water

use or microclimate, and could potentially hold a demonstration pond fed by the runoff from the North

building roof. The planter would also serve as a seat wall, and be mirrored by a seat wall across the way

bordering another natively vegetated area, dotted with reflective spaces for students, opposite a series

of work tables. In this concept the greenhouse and raised beds are located such that they would receive

better sunlight in the morning, and less of the oppressive afternoon heat.

Figure 3 Native Embrace

“Work Station Nooks” (Figure 4) retains the location of the raised beds and greenhouse as

concept. Student recreational space is moved over to the west side of the courtyard between the

walkway and the greenhouse for high visibility. Classrooms to the south are buffered by the southern

plantings. Delineation of spaces are more rigid, dividing the court yard roughly into two halves for more

distinct use of space. Worktables are spread apart from each other by a walking path, and the native

vegetation that enclose them. The gathering space has been put against the East wall, removing it as far

28


as possible from the earshot of other classrooms. This configuration attempts to make use of several

different locations for water collection including the storage shed combined with the North building

roof, the runoff from the green house, and the run off from the air-condition systems.

Figure 4 Work Station Nooks

Design Proposal

Through review by teachers, students it was determined that “Sectional” provided the best

spatial configuration of elements, to suit both educational goals and the physical context of the site. All

of the actively managed garden infrastructure is placed on the West end of the site. Placing the

greenhouse, and raised beds here provides the most exposure to the sun. Situating the bleachers, class

moveable seats, and work tables in the middle of the courtyard provides shade for prolonged exposure.

Native vegetation fills the remainder of the space with a few benches, and are amended with prominent

shade cover. A plan view of the proposal is visible in Figure 13 Storage is provided in a simple wooden

shed that should accommodate the needs of garden tools, and various supplies as deemed appropriate.

The four raised garden beds sit at 24 inches high, five feet wide, and 12 feet long. Soil depth offers

complete control over the growing conditions of anything produced there. While the width of the beds

allows for the entirety of the bed to be within an arm’s reach from either side. The greenhouse shown in

the design proposal is sized such that it fits the footprint of an existing greenhouse which will, likely be

used for the purposes of this project. 750 square feet of floor space will lend very well to multiple uses,

29


one of which will likely be future home of the aquaponics tank and growing beds which currently resides

in a classroom. The increased temperature of the greenhouse will improve growing conditions of the

tilapia, and is much needed for their success.

The design of the outdoor meeting space is intended to create spatial enclosure which directs

attention to a focal point where a teacher might deliver instruction. The enclosure is created by the four

planters is made permeable by wide their wide spacing, facilitating movement from the meeting space

into other activity stations. Two types of seats are provided; fixed bleacher seats provide 18 seats, while

wooden blocks provide an additional 18 seats, and can be moved to wherever they are needed. Work

tables just South of the meeting space are four feet across, and 8 feet long, they are conveniently

assembled from simple boards and a pair of sawhorses, and have the potential to be disassembled if

needed.

The native vegetation area is primarily east of the meeting space, but as part of the passive

water harvesting system, it encloses the space. The existing native mesquites are complemented by palo

verde, Net leaf hackberry, and desert willow. Shrubs include chuparosa, snow plumbago, fairy duster,

turpentine bush, and creosote. Ground cover can be found in wildflower seed mixes are recommended

as well to incorporate Mexican poppies, desert globemallow, yellow dot, and more.

The path which passes through the native plantings feature a few curved wooden benches,

placed beneath the shade of proposed trees. The Path circumscribes the court yard, and provides access

to all activity stations, without disturbing each other. Ramps visible in the perspectives4 provide ease of

access into the spaces for people of all abilities. The path is defined by decomposed granite, retained by

simple metal edging material.

4 See Figure 15

30


Water harvesting happens in two places. The 1000-gallon water tank should be fed by a gutter

constructed along the edge of the roof of the North building of the site. Its location at this corner allows

for the use of collected water in the raised garden beds. The remainder of water is collected through

passive harvesting. Large stones, called rip rap, are laid along both swales, and the crossing underneath

native garden path. Portions of the swale are raised to create check dams. These dams create basins

where water is detained and allowed to percolate into the soil, to the benefit of the surrounding

plantings.

ImplementationTo help ensure the success of this space a plan of implementation, and recommendations for

continued care are necessary. Due to the busy schedules, and difficulties of acquiring funding the site is

broken up into phases of construction which offer different levels of function to the space. These phases

should be introduced one year at a time. Unless otherwise stated prices for materials are estimated

through Home Depot. These prices are listed in order to provide an idea of what to expect from the

construction of the project. It should be acknowledged that none of these plans, are construction ready,

and should be considered as a proposal, which would be reviewed and approved by district. Before any

progress can be made, a blue stake needs to be performed to determine the location of electric, gas,

and water lines which may be in the building. Speaking with maintenance crews at AHS, this is

something that is handled in house since some utilities for AHS, like water, are on their own well, and

not connected to public systems. The majority of cost estimations here do not include the labor needed

to install these elements. In many cases specialized labor is not necessary, but there may prove to be

situations where special labor is unavoidable. In total all three phases of construction will have an

estimated of total $10066.

31


Phase I

The first phase of construction will revolve around the implementation of the garden

infrastructure. This means completion of the tool shed, rain water harvesting barrel, garden beds, and

greenhouse. Beginning with these features ensures that teachers will be able to begin integration of

garden activities into curriculum. The maximum cost of this portion of the project is considerably

increased if the cost of the greenhouse is included; without this expense the maximum estimated cost of

this portion of the project would be $5069

Garden beds should be constructed first, and will require the least technical expertise for

installation. The raised beds should be between 18 and 24 inches high, and constructed from recycled

lumber. In meetings with students, a potential source of construction material was identified in through

resurfacing wood reclaimed from shipping pallets. A key consideration for the use of this material is that

only heat-treated pallets, and natural food safe finishes should be used during construction. Tucson local

recommendations for sourcing fill soil for the beds include Tanks Green Stuff, Civano Nursery, and the

Compost Cats program, of which AHS already has an established affiliation with. In the event that wood

cannot be reclaimed, and that soil cannot be donated, the cost of beds remains within the reach of a

small grant, at $348 for boards, nails, and finish. The soil needed to fill these beds amounts to 17 cubic

yards, or $511 dollars at a rate of $30 for every cubic yard.

While elements like the raised beds require little construction experience, and could be handily

crafted by a team of students and spare hours, other elements are better suited to prefabrication. The

storage space needed for the garden does not need to be very large, and a suitably sized cedar wood

shed, at 4’ by 8’ would be priced at $900. A call to Southern Arizona Rain Gutters, provided an estimated

cost of $3400 for 1000 gallon corrugated steel tank, water pump, foundation, and other hardware. In

order to bring water from the roof to the rainwater barrel gutters will also need to be installed. For the

32


northern and western roof, 234 feet of 5-inch aluminum gutters are needed for a total cost of $450 in

materials.

AHS is currently already in possession of a greenhouse. Due to a location which limits

accessibility of the greenhouse it fell out of use. The greenhouse is currently owned by the Career and

Technical Education program; however, discussion indicates that they there is good reason to believe

that they are willing to relocate the greenhouse. The greenhouse as it appears in the plan is

dimensioned such that it matches the dimensions of existing greenhouse. Relocation of the greenhouse

has been indicated to be within the ability of maintenance crew, and would have only the cost

associated with repair. In the event that the they are unable to use this greenhouse the cost of

implementation of a similar sized, and functional greenhouse has been indicated to cost between

$12,000 and $14,000, as determined by IGC Greenhouse Megastore. Regardless of the source of the

greenhouse, before anything is put into the ground it should be noted that access to a water tap, and

electrical will need to be laid into the ground.

Phase II

The next phase of construction should focus on the development of class meeting space, and

working space for varies activities. Implementation of this phase of construction will add to the

functionality of the space, and possibly encourage students to use the space on their own time. The

addition of class seats, and work benches also increases the variety, and duration of activates which can

take place in the garden. In total this phase of the project as an estimated maximum cost of $1715.

Planter boxes shown around the class meeting space should be similar in construction to the

raised garden beds. They may also be constructed from the same material, which add variability to the

cost. Though they cover less surface area, they are greater in height, so they will require roughly thirty

percent more lumber, bring the cost as high as $450 for boards, $50 in hardware, and $50 finishes. The

33


planters will require significantly less garden soil due to the plant materials, and will accordingly use

nearly half the compost at $250. The bleachers require use of pressure treated wood. It is

recommended to use lumber used for decking as they can withstand high traffic and use. Combined the

bleachers accommodate 18 people, and the boards needed would cost around $300, and an additional

$25 for the hardware. The plan calls for 18 moveable seats, that are 18”x16”x16” cubes. The cubes

should be constructed from 4”x4” posts, which are bolted together. More or less could be made

depending on the needs determined of the space at the time, but each seat would cost $11 each to be

assembled. The work tables are very simple in terms of construction, they place seven 2”x8” boards,

and two 36” sawhorses to make a working space that covers 37 square feet. Though deconstruction

would require the use of a drill, they could be dissembled or reassembled as needed deepening on the

needs of the site. Each set of sawhorses would run $56 a pair, and boards would cost $42 per table.

Phase III

The final phase of construction provides plant materials, pathways, and implements the passive

rainwater systems. This part of the project is not the most essential to the curriculum aspect of the

outdoor classroom, but it is the most important to the appreciation and enjoyment of the site. It is

important to show students the offerings of the world immediately outside of the urban conditions of

Tucson. In total this phase of construction has an estimated maximum cost of $2742.

Although one of the main goals of the native vegetation area is that they will be low water use it

will be necessary to install drip irrigation for the first 2 to 5 years of the planting of the park.

Measurements indicate that approximately 900 feet of poly line would need to be laid in. Though

installing the drip ports is time intensive, it is easy to perform. The poly tubing, and ports would cost $50

for every 500 feet, totaling $100 for the project. Plant materials for the site were priced through Desert

Survivors Nursery, for their specialization in Sonoran adapted plants. They have a fees structure which

34


charges based on the size of the installation pot. Ground cover plantings should be installed at the two-

gallon size, at $8 per plant. Shrubs should be installed at the five-gallon size, at a price of $22 per plant.

Trees come from this nursery at a fifteen-gallon size, at the price of $55 per plant. In total the plan calls

for an estimated 72 ground cover plantings, 48 shrubs, and 8 trees, for a grand total of $2072 in plant

materials

There is 1500 square feet of pathways outlined. The recommended material for this is

decomposed granite. According to Sonoran Landscaping Materials, one ton of decomposed granite at

quarter inch depth covers 150 square feet. Every ton of decomposed granite costs $25, for a total of

$250. The name of the medium sized rocks used for erosion control is called rip rap, and it covers 180

square feet for every ton used. The total area of passive rainwater harvesting areas comes out to 2170

square feet. At $25 per ton rip rap for all the areas will cost $300.

Maintenance

Continued success of the Outdoor Classroom requires consideration for the continued needs of

operation. The cost of maintenance is entirely dependent on the degree to which the students are

actively involved in the up keep of the space. Soil for garden beds needs to be actively managed, and has

the potential to be supplemented by a rigorous composting program at the school. Good practice with

respect to inventory, and cleaning of tools will ensure their longevity. The greenhouse requires clean

panes, maintained seals, and seasonal repair of the cooler and fans. All wooden surfaces, should be

repainted or refinished as necessary. It should also be noted that the native landscape should go as

unmodified as possible. When needed, branches and brush which are obstructing pathways should be

removed, but only under these circumstances. The intent of the native landscape is to demonstrate a

wild area, which is lost where there is too much attention given pruning back plants that do not need

that treatment.

35


Student clubs should be encouraged to manage the productive aspects of the classroom, where

it does not interfere with the work being performed by classes. Seed libraries exist through both Native

Seed Search, and the Pima County Library. These programs loan out seeds, under the promise of the

return of seeds from the crops that are produced from them. Seed saving workshops could serve as an

exercise in active management of the space by students who express interest. Students could potentially

become involved in the sale of produce from the garden, to gain experience in participating in the

community. It is these extracurricular pursuits which demonstrate the multi-faceted value of these

projects beyond science curriculum.

Discussion

It is difficult to determine the value offered by a formalized design process for people driven

projects like school and community gardens. Initially the extent of this project included construction of

actual elements at AHS. Since the beginning of this process many goals have changed; teachers have

become busy; administrators have shown disinterest, and even discouragement. The design which was

produced here may very well be an excellent solution to the question of how they would go about the

redevelopment of their space. The design may also prove to be ineffectual, but it will be difficult to

determine without being able to review its operation over a few years have passed from the time of

completion.

This version of the project is currently the second iteration. The previous version was generated

without the benefit of the design knowledge and background provided by the literature review. This

version did not use the generation of multiple concepts, and instead began with a napkin sketch was

refined several times over, and modeled after repeat interaction with the teachers at AHS. Several

problems became apparent from this approach. First, through conversations with project mentor

Margaret Livingston, it was made clear that the absence of concept development would not only limit

36


the scope of potential development, it would also be poorly received by other parties such as

administration, because of the appearance of “completeness.” More specifically, the perception of

proposals which appear complete, or finalized, are often off putting for the parties reviewing them

because the appearance of completeness creates the impression that the design decisions are done, and

no longer modifiable, which can deny clients sense of control or collaboration regarding the project.

Unfortunately, this proved to be the case almost immediately. When the science teachers presented

administrative officials from the school district with the project to get clearance, they were met with

many critiques, concerns, and criticisms of the goals and implementation of the project. The project was

sent back to the drawing board, and this is where the redesign began, this time informed by design

literature, and a more inclusive collection of concerns and interests, of both administration and

students, who had been left out of the discussion previously.

Production of the proposal was an excellent exercise in the exploration of the formalized design

process. The analysis of the courtyard, and subsequent interviews ran through the rigorous checklist

recommended by authors like LaGro, and the result was a comprehensive collection of data to inform

the design. This information was refined through a series of graphic aids like the bubble diagrams, and

suitability matrix. What remained was the production of ideas. The remaining work is what becomes

difficult to evaluate. It is possible to categorize, and quantify the things that are needed of a space, but it

becomes difficult to evaluate a qualitative product which stems from the production of concepts and

preliminary proposals. The quality has only been able to be determined by the response generated by

submission of the designs to all vested parties which has generally been positive.

The case studies showed that there are many approaches to an informed design process which

produce a real world community garden and outdoor learning spaces. Furthermore, they showed that

there are many solutions to the problem of creating a learning space, that accommodates many needs.

37


To me this evidence is indicative of both the potential success of the space and it would be excellent to

explore what results are yielded from the completion of this type of project, but there are limitations to

the amount of work that can be produced by a single person, and the production of construction

documents, acquire funding, and directing labor, are outside my personal bounds.

Conclusion

Many of the limitations inherent to this study are the lack of variety examined for the topic of

outdoor classrooms. Within the profession of landscape architecture, there are a relatively small

percentage of projects that have received recognition, which are related to the development of outdoor

learning. This makes it difficult to find precedents for designed gardens. Conversely there is a wealth of

information about landscape design process. Every aspect from analysis to implementation has a

multitude of authors who discuss the process of developing projects from start to finish. This may

highlight a potential weakness in the development of outdoor learning classroom, a lack of source

material, with defined successes or failures, coupled with an abundance of material which has subjective

components, like the design process.

For now, the construction of the outdoor learning classroom at AHS remains in limbo.

Development on the project from here will depend on the commitment of teachers and students, and

ultimately the approval of the district. It is my personal hope that construction is able to move forward.

If they choose to move forward, then they do so on the foundation of a design vetted by the rigor of

structured process. If constructed, the space created will meet educational goals, encourage active

management and ownership by students, and most importantly a space which is interesting and

engaging for all parties which enter. Moving forward may well prove the success of the design

38


Appendix I

Figure 5 Underwood Garden

39


Figure 6 Mission Garden

40


Figure 7 Russel Elementary

41


Appendix II

Figure 8 AHS Context and Circulation Map

42


Figure 9 Site Assessment Map

43


Figure 10 Shadow Study of Courtyard

44


Figure 11 Preference Diagram

Figure 12 Suitability Matrix

45

Figure 13 Preliminary Proposal


46


Figure 14 Perspectives A & B referencing the Preliminary Plan

Figure 15 Perspectives C & D referencing the Preliminary Plan

BibliographyBooth, N. K. (1983). The Design Process. In N. K. Booth, Basic elements of landscape Architectural design

(pp. 283-305). New York: Elsevier.

Boston Schoolyard Initiative. (2013). Outdoor Classroom Design Guide. Boston: www.schoolyards.com.

47


Brown, J. R. (2015). Just Add Nature How Designers of Boston's Outdoor Classrooms arrived at a "Kit of Parts" That Really Works. Landscape Architecture Magazine, 56-60.

College of Architecture, Planning & Landscape Architecture. (2016, March 15). Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory. Retrieved from Capla.arizona.edu: http://capla.arizona.edu/facility/other/underwood-family-sonoran-landscape-laboratory

Flanagan, C. (2010, January). Cultivating Failure. The Atlantic.

Friends of Tucson's Birthplace. (2016, March 15). Mission Garden Project. Retrieved from http://www.tucsonsbirthplace.org/: http://www.tucsonsbirthplace.org/tucsons-birthplace/mission-garden-project/

Green, J. (2013, June). In New Orleans, a Vietnamiese community Bounces Back with Urban Agriculture. Retrieved from Dirt Blog ASLA: http://dirt.asla.org/2013/06/10/in-new-orleans-a-vietnamese-community-bounces-back-with-urban-agriculture/Veggi Farmers Cooperative. About. [web] http://www.veggifarmcoop.com/about/

Hand, H. (2003). The mentor's tale: a Reflexive account of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher, 15-27.

James A. Rye, S. J. (2012). Elementary School Garden Programs Enhance Science Education for All Learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 58-65.

Jane Mills, A. B. (206). Adopting a Constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal o fNursing Practice, 8-13.

Jr., J. A. (2013). Conceptual Site Design. In J. A. Jr., Site Analysis Informing context-Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design Third Edition (pp. 247-275). Hoboken: Wiley.

Kail, A. (2003). Sustaining Outdoor Classrooms. Green Teacher, 40-41.

Lancaster, B. (2006). Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond. Tucson: Rainsource Press.

Mallory, C. (2001). Examining the differences between reseracher and participant: An intrisic element of grounded theory. In S. Schreibner, Using Grounded thoery in Nursing (pp. 85-96). New York: Springer.

Manzo Elementary School. (2016, March 15). Retrieved from Arizona Report Cards: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard?school=5700&district=-1

Mary R. Duffield, W. D. (1981). Plants For Dry climates. Los Angeles: HPBooks.

Mederios, J. (2010). Educative Design. Retrieved from http://www.outdoorclassroomdesign.org/: http://www.outdoorclassroomdesign.org/resources/Medeiros.LA363.Handout.pdf

Nancy M. Wells, B. M. (2015). The Effects of School Gardens on Children's. International Journal of Science Education, 2859-2875.

Pima County. (2016, March 15). Pima County Map Guide. Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

48


Russ, T. H. (2009). Site Analysis. In T. H. Russ, Site planning and Design Handbook (pp. 27-53). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shuler, C. (1993). Low water Use Plants for California and the Southwest. Tucson: Fisher books.

Weikal, K. (2012). 2012 ASLA Professional Awards Honor Award General Design Lafayette Greens. Retrieved from ASLA.org: http://www.asla.org/2012awards/073.html S

Zimmerman, F. (2000). Site Analysis. In F. Zimmerman, The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice, 13th edition (pp. 1-8). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

49

Documents

Amphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A …arizona.openrepository.com/.../608604/1/Rioux_Capstone.docx · Web viewAmphitheater High School’s Outdoor Classroom: A Study