Community as Classroom: Case Study of a Schoolyard Transformation in Montreal

COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT

ACT I ACT II ACT III

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE IDBE 15

CASE STUDY RICHARD KLOPP

JUNE 2009

COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT

RICHARD KLOPP

Foreword

This work was written in partial fulfillment of the Interdisciplinary Design for the Built

Environment (IDBE) program requirements at the University of Cambridge. The

principal aims of the IDBE program as stated in the course handbook are:

… to give its graduates a broad strategic understanding of the social,

economic and environmental context of design, and the current challenges

and opportunities facing the production of the built environment… and

… to help students from different disciplines to work effectively together,

harnessing their knowledge and expertise in the design of a product that

reflects their joint capabilities.

The purpose of the case study is to reflect on the decisions and actions of the design

team for a recent project in which the author was a key participant. It is an opportunity to

critically analyse the process and its outcomes, but most importantly, to develop the

reflexive skills that will become a valuable feedback mechanism for self-improvement

and teamwork in the future.

About the author:

Richard Klopp is an architect and educator living in Montréal, Canada. His professional

experience of 15 years spans a wide range of project types and cultural contexts. He is

part-time faculty member at McGill University and Vanier College, where he teaches

courses in building construction and passive, low-energy design. He actively volunteers

on a number of non-profit, project-based initiatives to improve the urban environment

and promote eco-responsible building practices. With the support of the Canada Green

Building Council, he curated the exhibition entitled "How to Build post-Kyoto" - an official

parallel event to the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2005.

[email protected]

1

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

Introduction

Primary schools are one of the most important social constructs and formative physical

environments in our lives, which we revisit with each new generation. This case study

tells the story of a dilapidated urban schoolyard in Montreal and how it was transformed

through a series of community-initiated interventions, engaging ever-broader stakeholder

participation in the process. It is a community-building project in both the social and

physical sense of the term. It is also an educational experiment in interdisciplinary

collaboration that attempts to dissolve the silos that typically isolate academia, industry,

culture, and community life.

Because it involves one the fundamental building blocks of society and is readily

transferable as a project, this case study should find relevance with a wide range of

readers, particularly those interested in the following questions:

• What motivates and empowers citizens to make positive changes to their

built environment, and what barriers do they confront in the process?

• What conditions and possible convergence of interests are required to

sustain a multi-stakeholder collaboration, in which community-building is

the prime motivator, not profit?

• What role can community service play in design education, and

alternatively, what role can design education play in community service?

• How can projects be conceived as open-ended processes that continue

to transform, engage, and add value over time?

• What are the socio-cultural, economic, and ecological benefits of

improving the quality of public space?

Two parallel streams of thought are presented in the main body of this case study. The

first stream of thought is a narrative or factual account of events that offers the relevant

context required to properly understand the second stream of thought, which is a

reflective analysis of the processes, outcomes, and roles of the author in the project.

The format, graphic design and typography of the document play an important role in

separating these two thought processes.

2


RICHARD KLOPP

The narrative is structured using the written form of a play, composed of three acts and

an epilogue. The reflective analysis will take the form of notes in the right hand margin.

To give a graphic identity to each of the streams of thought, a different font type was

chosen for each: courier for the narrative and a cursive font for the reflective analysis. A

third font type is used for the introduction, conclusion and captions.

The theatrical play is a good analogy for a project - it has a setting, actors, an audience,

a plot - and we can learn a great deal from the interrelationships of these elements. In a

building project, we call these elements site, stakeholders, community of users, and

schedule. Here the primary setting is a public elementary school and its surrounding

community in Montréal, but there are also a number of secondary sites including: a

school of architecture design studio, a precast concrete plant, and a mosaic school.

The storyline involves a series of nested subplots (or secondary projects) that are each

related but also each an entity unto itself, like the pieces of a Russian doll [FIGURE 1].

ACT I describes a schoolyard landscape project; ACT II, a piece of urban furniture

integrated in the schoolyard; and ACT III, a mosaic work embedded in the urban

furniture. The EPILOGUE briefly introduces a sequel project currently underway at

another schoolyard, which demonstrates the transferability of the project and process.

This case study documents project events and offers reflections on the outcomes and

decisions made. While I was personally involved throughout the process, my role and

motivations at each stage changed significantly: from client advisor to project manager

to design team leader and at times even a tradesman. These multiple project roles were

overlapping and often converging with my day-to-day practice and responsibilities as an

architect, university lecturer, and parent.

While the narrative is central to understanding the case study, it is the author’s notes

provided in margins that are of greatest value to a reader interested in reflective and

interdisciplinary practice. The conclusions are drawn almost exclusively from this

analytical stream of thought.

3

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 1 RUSSIAN DOLLS METAPHOR FOR NESTED PROJECTS

FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF ELC SCHOOL MONTRÉAL, CANADA

4


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT I: THE SCHOOLYARD PROJECT

ACT I: SETTING

École Lambert-Closse (referred to as ELC School

in this document) is a francophone primary school

in the vibrant and multiethnic Mile End district

of Montréal. It is bounded by St-Urbain, Bernard,

and Waverly streets [FIGURE 2].

Like many aging schools in Montréal, the ongoing

maintenance of the ELC schoolyard had not been

prioritized by the local school board (CSDM) and

as a consequence the exterior environment was in

a chronic state of disrepair. Despite the regular

complaints of pupils, parents, and staff, the

situation was tolerated for many years.1

And there was little hope of change in the near

future. The ELC School had lost its former

special funding status for economically depressed

neighbourhoods and as a result was struggling to

maintain the quality and range of it existing

programs and services, let alone invest in any

non-life-threatening capital projects.

While gentrification of the surrounding community

was the cause of funding cuts to the school, it

would also bring many of the leaders and pool of

talent and professional skill required to take on

the project of revitalizing the ELC schoolyard.

ACT I recounts how this group of dedicated

parents carried out the project and establishes

the context for ACT II and ACT III.

Notes:

1 My reaction after visiting the school

for the first time (at an open house

event for parents) was shock and

outrage. How could a society with

such abundant wealth and resources,

rated at the top of the UN Human

Development Index, choose not to

invest in the environments where its

children will be spending their

formative years? What message does

this lack of care send to the children

that attend the school and to the

community they live in?

Upon sharing my feelings with other

parents and members of the school

staff, I realized that I was not alone.

Yet there was a sense of

powerlessness to affect the necessary

change at the local, institutional, or

political levels. In part, the situation

was tolerated because it was not an

isolated case: many urban schools

were suffering equally deplorable

conditions.

5

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 3 ELC SCHOOLYARD SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

FIGURE 4 ELC SCHOOL INTERIOR ARTWORK EMBELLISHES WALLS

6


RICHARD KLOPP

Author notes: Reflection: examine reasons why? due to resistance on the part of the School Board to hand over what it considered its responsibility, perhaps a certain lack of confidence in the proposed plan and ability of the parents to realise it, and lack of funding. What is the right mix of talent to succeed?

ACT I: PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS

NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, parent and member of the

ELC Schoolyard Committee project management team

as professional advisor and volunteer.

ELC SCHOOLYARD COMMITTEE: promoter2 and project

management team comprised of parents, school

staff and community representatives.

CLIENT GROUP:

CSDM (CITY OF MONTREAL SCHOOL BOARD): owner

ELC SCHOOL STUDENTS AND STAFF: primary user

MILE END COMMUNITY: secondary user

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: NIP Paysage

GENERAL CONTRACTOR: EBI inc

PROJECT SPONSORS/SUPPORTERS

ACT I: PLOT

As early as 2001, a group of parents and teachers

at ELC School had formed a committee to address

growing concerns relating to the dilapidated

condition of the schoolyard and inaction on the

part of the CSDM to improve the situation. The

schoolyard was essentially a large empty lot of

cracked and poorly drained pavement bounded by a

chain link fence. The only visible signs defining

it as a schoolyard were the field markings (which

were barely visible), a few metal structures for

attaching sports equipment, and the presence of

the children [FIGURE 3]. This contrasts greatly

with the vibrant interior of the school that is

embellished with student art [FIGURE 4].

Notes:

2 Reflecting on the motivations of the

volunteer parents promoting the

project: first and foremost was their

interest in seeing the schoolyard

project completed as soon as possible

so that their own children would

benefit for at least part of their seven

years at the K-6 school (as one might

expect, the most engaged volunteers

had children in early grades.) Other

motivators included the desire to

invest in the local community; the

opportunity to collaborate and build

relationships; the sense of

empowerment associated with taking

on a difficult challenge; and the

anticipated satisfaction of achieving

a unique project of significant benefit

to the community.

My own decision to enroll my son at

the school rather than look elsewhere

was influenced by all of these

motivations, but at the beginning I

struggled with the basic question:

why did parents have to do what

seemed to be the work of the school

board and Ministry of Education.

Was it not a clear sign of failure of a

public institution if the citizens it is

intended to serve need to organize

themselves and volunteer their time,

energy, and resources to ensure its

basic services.

Once beyond the victimizing and

blaming – when we began taking

charge of the project – some other

motivating benefits became apparent:

namely, the abundant opportunities

to personalized the project to the

needs of the local school and

community, rather than accept a

generic or institutionally generated

plan.

7

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 5 TIMELINE ACT I SCHOOLYARD PROJECT

8


RICHARD KLOPP

Notes:

3 At the time, it appeared as though

the CSDM did not want the

Schoolyard committee meddling in

their affairs. In retrospect, their

resistance may have been due to a

lack of confidence in the committee’s

ability to generate the necessary

funding and carry out the work in a

professional manner.

4 The mix of professions included: a

graphic designer, the president of a

lobby group for cyclists, a lawyer

with political aspirations, a

community activist, a local artist, an

employee of Radio-Canada and

myself, an architect and part-time

university lecturer.

5 The summary document proved to be

an invaluable tool for team building,

sponsorship, coordination, and

project approvals. One cannot

overstate the importance of involving

a good writer and graphic designer in

its production as the content and

presentation quality of the document

reflect the professionalism and

ambition of the project team.

Other organisations have used our

document as a template for similar

initiatives and have commented on

some of its defining characteristics,

which include: a clear definition of

purpose, scope, context and actors;

comprehensive, concise, and

transparent writing; visually

engaging graphical layout; and

regularly updated information.

ACT I: PLOT (cont)

The main preoccupations of the ELC Schoolyard

Committee were the unsafe playing surfaces; lack

of green space, shade, and lighting; and traffic

pollution from St-Urbain Street.

After several years of community consultations,

project definition, and consensus building, the

project faltered and stalled, in large part due

to the lack of support by the school board3.

* * *

A new schoolyard committee was formed in 2005: it

included parents from the former committee, new

parents to the school and some key personnel

within the school administration. These new

parents reenergized the volunteer group with a

broad set of professional and leadership skills4

and a fresh perspective. Their first goal was to

make publicly accessible the work of the previous

committee by publishing a summary document that

clearly described the context, scope, and vision

for the project5. Refer to the project timeline

of key events [FIGURE 5].

This document was distributed to all project and

community stakeholders and a number of potential

partners for letters of support. Letters of

support were appended to the document to build

credibility and momentum for the cause.

The next step was to develop a concept and set a

fundraising target, so that project stakeholders

and potential sponsors would have the necessary

information about the project.

9

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 6 SITE PLAN, CONCEPT STAGE SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE

FIGURE 7 PERSPECTIVE, CONCEPT STAGE SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE

10


RICHARD KLOPP

Notes:

6 Involving professionals that were

known to the various planning and

regulatory bodies was key to gaining

credibility. The earlier plan presented

to the CSDM was prepared pro bono

by a landscape contractor, who was

not familiar with their protocol and

approval processes.

7 Choosing a suitable professional

partner with the right balance of

experience, talent, chemistry and fees

usually entails a certain degree of

compromise. In this case, there was

nearly a perfect match. NIP Paysage

is a local firm of young landscape

architects that specialize in small-

scale community and cultural

projects. Although primarily renown

for their imaginative installations at

art and garden festivals, they also

have a considerable portfolio of

schoolyard and playground projects.

Being accustomed to working on

two-stage, funding-dependent

projects, they were very accom-

modating of the needs of a non-profit

community organisation. Their offer

of services was of exemplary quality,

clearly laying out with graphic flair

their relevant experience, grasp of the

project, a tentative schedule, list of

deliverables and professional fees.

8 Parent activities at the school

typically take the form of individual

or group meetings for information

exchange with teachers or the

administration - usually centred on

the children’s needs and development.

What defined the success of this

event was that it provided a much-

needed space for social interaction

between parents. The event would

nourish and inspire all future

fundraising activities.

ACT I: PLOT (cont)

To enter into a contractual agreement concerning

school property required professional design

services and approval of the CSDM. Contrary to

the experience of the first schoolyard committee,

the CSDM was now more open toward community

partnerships in general and those involving

schoolyard projects in particular6. There was

even new funding available from the Ministry of

Education and the City of Montreal for upgrading

sports facilities, which included school grounds.

With the support-in-principle of the CSDM, three

landscape architects were invited to submit

offers of services. NIP Paysage was the firm

commissioned7 to prepare concept drawings

[FIGURES 6 & 7] and an estimate. Once added to

the project summary, it formed a comprehensive

document for grant agencies and private sponsors.

In parallel with concept development, a series of

fundraising events was initiated that quickly

garnered the attention and support of the school,

community, local politicians and the media. The

aim of the first event, an informal spaghetti

dinner [FIGURE 8], was to introduce the project

to the entire school community and begin building

a network of support. Tickets were sold out for

the event and the gymnasium was filled to

capacity with the borough mayor and other

community representatives in attendance. There

was a very good ambiance. In fact, dinner

conversation was so lively that it was difficult

to hear any of the presentations. Although very

little information was transmitted to the

audience, the positive community spirit and sense

of social cohesion experienced that evening would

make it a defining moment in the project8.

11

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 8 FUNDRAISING EVENT SPAGHETTI DINNER

FIGURE 9 FUNDRAISING AND MEDIA EVENT ROADSWORTH INSTALLATION

12


RICHARD KLOPP

Notes:

9 There was a shared sentiment that

we were building more than a

schoolyard and that even if we never

achieved our fundraising target, our

time was not wasted.

10Roadsworth is the pseudonym of a

controversial artist, who for 3 years

transformed common road marking in

Montreal into what many would

consider legitimate works of public

art. When he was finally uncovered

and apprehended, it created a public

debate, and in the end, rather than

receive a criminal sentence, he was

order to pay a nominal fine and to

serve 40 hours of community service.

His work was strangely symbolic of

and resonant with our efforts in that

it sought to humanise or give a poetic

dimension to institutional space.

ACT I: PLOT (cont)

The fundraising activities would continue for

over a year and although there were times that

the progress seemed too slow or the target

unattainable, there was rarely a sense of

drudgery for those involved because the process

itself was highly prioritized to create

opportunities for personal growth, participation,

group learning, cultural expression, and

community engagement.9

One good example is the schoolyard Bazaar held in

the spring of 2006, where volunteers sold

unwanted household items donated by parents and

school members. To publicize the event, the

graffiti artist Roadsworth10 was invited to

embellish the schoolyard with one of his famous

stencil works live - and legally, for a change.

In fact, his work contributed to a mandatory

community service sentence he received. While the

proceeds of the sales and refreshments were

modest, the art event attracted the local press,

temporarily transformed the schoolyard and became

a source of pride for the school [FIGURE 9].

Other fundraising activities that offered a broad

range of opportunities for engagement, learning

and creativity, included:

- A school-wide student competition to

collect the largest number of recyclable containers for refund;

- The sale of reusable cloth shopping bags,

proudly displaying the project logo, at the school and in local shops [FIGURE 10];

- A St-Valentine’s Day masquerade ball; and

- A semi-formal cocktail and silent auction

of donated student artwork [FIGURE 10].

13

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 10 FUNDRAISING INITIATIVES GRAPHIC SUPPORT

FIGURE 11 CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE

14


RICHARD KLOPP

Notes:

11The sources of project funding can be

broken down as follows:

12% Federal programs

20% Provincial programs

40% CSDM and Municipal funding

15% Private foundations/corporate

13% ELC Schoolyard committee

12Creating an identity for a project

requires printed artefacts and a

recognisable figurehead. Although

they work in different modes, both

can be mutually reinforcing and serve

to communicate project information

in a clear and consistent manner.

Because they represent not only the

project, but also the collective

thoughts, aspirations, and even

reputations of the project team, they

hold or embody the power that will

in large part determine the success or

failure of the project.

ACT I: PLOT (cont)

Note that while these activities were not major

revenue generators in themselves (accounting for

less than 15% of the total funds raised), they

were essential in order to build support and

credibility with funding agencies, many of which

required evidence of in-kind commitments11.

There were about a dozen active members of the

Schoolyard committee and while work was shared

and delegated to volunteers, two key roles

emerged that required a significantly higher

level of engagement: 1) a graphic designer and

2) a project spokesperson12. The graphic designer

gave the project an identity and provided the

graphic support for all internal and external

communication [FIGURE 10]. The spokesperson was

the main point of contact for the committee,

project stakeholders, sponsors, and the media.

By early 2007, committee members were showing

signs of impatience and a decision was made to

schedule construction for the summer, prior to

the school’s fall reopening. The project budget

was revised to match the anticipated funding

level of approximately $150,000. Design changes

and contingency plans were reviewed with the

landscape architects, which involved breaking out

certain items from the main scope of work, namely

lighting and outdoor furniture [ACT II].

By the beginning of summer, all the funding was

in place and the contract documents were issued

to the CSDM, who handled the tendering process

and construction contract. Construction began in

July 2007 and was completed over a 4-week period

ending in late August [FIGURE 11].

15

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 12 ELC SCHOOLYARD IN USE RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY

16


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT I: PLOT (cont) The transformation of the schoolyard was

dramatic. The landscape architects demonstrated

their skill at making very effective use of a

modest budget, most of which went to repaving the

hard surfaces. They were able to create a visual

charged and playful landscape out of a relatively

empty space by adding some topography and a few

goal posts, extending the existing zones of

planting into the schoolyard, carefully

coordinating materials and making abundant use of

painted surfaces. The rubber-surfaced hill in

particular is an endless source of amusement for

the children at all times of the year.

The inauguration of the schoolyard provided an

opportunity for all those that had contributed to

the project to experience the new space in use.

At the same event, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was

conducted by the principal users of the space -

the schoolchildren - in a symbolic gesture of

project transfer and reception [FIGURE 12].

At the end of the project, the remaining project

funds and an unexpected grant were allocated to

several related initiatives, including the

projects described in ACT II and ACT III, a

lighting proposal, and a maintenance program13.

Notes:

13With the very heavy use of the

schoolyard, both during school hours

and after when it is open to the

community, repairs and ongoing

maintenance became pressing issues

almost immediately. No funds were

initially budgeted for maintenance

work, but fortunately the project

ended with a surplus. This

significant oversight in budgeting

was balanced by another oversight

involving the momentum of

community involvement. No one had

anticipated the void that would be

felt by the project team volunteers as

project activities suddenly ceased.

Many were pleased to join a new

committee set up to manage the

ongoing projects and maintenance

work as well as to continue some of

the popular fundraising events.

17

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 13 TIMELINE ACT II BENCH PROJECT

18


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II – THE BENCH PROJECT

ACT II: SETTING

This project involves a student design-build

competition for new precast concrete furniture.

The project unfolds at McGill University School

of Architecture (McGill SOA), before moving to

Groupe Tremca precast concrete plant, where the

winning design was fabricated, and then on to the

ELC schoolyard, where the work was installed as a

permanent feature of the built landscape.

The project was born out of a value engineering

discussion for the ELC schoolyard in early 2007 -

refer to the ACT II timeline [FIGURE 13]. At the

time, not all the funding was committed, and

contingency plans were being evaluated so that

the landscape architect could proceed with the

construction documents phase. The concept design

proposed a series of benches in a new zone of

planting at the western edge of the schoolyard

site. The benches were a generic economy model

and thus a prime target for cost-savings as they

could easily be added at a later date14.

The idea of setting up a design-build competition

for the benches suddenly appeared to me as a

point of convergence15 and mutually beneficial

solution to two distinct problems, namely:

1) to find an alternative to a generic design solution dictated by budgetary and time constraints; and

2) to offer a real-life design opportunity of

appropriate scale and relevance to a class of architecture students

16.

In this case, each collaborating party had what

the other needed. The only missing party was an

Notes: 14Interestingly, it was not the cost-

savings potential, but rather the generic quality of the benches that opened a discussion of alternatives that would eventually lead to the design-build initiative. Standard park benches were viewed as detracting from the creative landscape being proposed. Most of the ELC Schoolyard committee members would even have preferred stone boulders as an alternative.

15This convergence would not have

“appeared” without a willingness to

go beyond the normal trajectories and

typical silos defining professional

work, academia, community

involvement, and family life.

16As a course lecturer at McGill School

of Architecture, I had for some time

been preoccupied with thoughts of

changing the teaching methods of a

technical course called Advanced

Construction from a theory and

lecture-based approach to a practice

and project-based initiative. I had

seen the heightened engagement and

positive learning results from

construction site visits and invited

specialists. For two years, I had even

integrated the course content in what

was know as the Comprehensive

Design Studio. The problem of using

design studio projects as means to

explore detailing and construction

issues is that they were missing the

interdisciplinary constraints, input

and coordination that are critical to

an understanding of construction.

Without being conscious of it, I was

in fact waiting for this opportunity

to collaborate with consultants and

building specialists on a small, value-

added, design-build project.

19

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 14 GROUPE TREMCA PLANT SITE VISIT WITH STUDENTS

FIGURE 15 DIAGRAM OF VALUE EXCHANGES BETWEEN PARTICIPANT GROUPS AND LIVE PROJECT

20


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: SETTING (cont)

industry partner that could provide technical

support and assure the delivery of a high quality

final product. The first company contacted was

Groupe Tremca, who was immediately receptive to

the initiative. The terms of agreement involved

an initial commitment to participate in the

competition phase and, depending on the quality

of the winning proposal(s), to extend their

commitment to the fabrication phase. A similar

non-binding agreement was made with ELC School17. T

The overall structure of relations is descibed in

the diagram on the facing page [FIGURE 13].

Needless to say, the benches were removed from

the construction contract. It remained to be seen

what proposals the students might come up with

and whether any would be realized.

ACT II: PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS

NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, design-build project

coordinator and course lecturer at McGill SOA.

MCGILL SOA: 37 architecture students in the

Advanced Construction course (M Arch program).

ELC SCHOOLYARD COMMITTEE: project beneficiary

offering the program, site, and some funding.

GROUPE TREMCA: industry sponsor offering

technical support for and fabrication of a

student bench design in precast concrete.

NIP PAYSAGE: professional advisor ensuring that

the student designs conform to safety regulations

and the overall landscape concept.

Notes:

17This two-stage, performance-based

agreement permitted each of the

stakeholders to enter into the new

relationship with little risk or

commitment. It also provided the

time necessary to build trust and to

demonstrate the potential value each

could offer the collaboration. There

was no money involved, but each

stakeholder had something of value

to exchange. The key to making the

relationship work was to maintain a

careful balance of stakeholder

interests. The motivations of the

main stakeholders created an

interesting relationship triangle. On

the supply side: ELC School provided

the site; McGill SOA students

provided design services; and Groupe

Tremca provided the product. On the

receiving side: ELC School received a

new schoolyard feature; McGill SOA

students received a valuable learning

experience and a portfolio work; and

Groupe Tremca was able to establish

a relationship with a class of future

clients. The work of the students

would also feature in their

promotional materials. In fact, the

following year, the street furniture

for a major public space commission

would be inspired by the winning

student design.

21

youkicropas

Typewritten Text

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 16 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: TROULOULOU

FIGURE 17 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: KOOB

FIGURE 18 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: RU-BANC

22


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: PLOT

On the first day of class, students in Advanced

Construction were immediately immersed in the

project18. The course outline introduced the

pedagogical objectives and set the stage for the

design-build competition as follows:

ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION is an exploration of the constructive or tectonic dimension of the architectural work. The principal focus of the course relates to the selection process and spatial organisation of materials, assemblies, and building systems and how these design decisions influence the architectonic expression, ambient qualities and environ-mental performance of a built space. This year, a design-build project has been set up to achieve the learning objectives of the course… …This initiative is a unique convergence of interests that brings together architecture students, industry partners, volunteer professionals, and a dedicated community group to collaborate on a construction project that will assist a local Montreal primary school to realize its aspirations for a revitalized schoolyard. The competition offers McGill architecture students a hands-on opportunity to engage in the design and construction of several urban furniture pieces, while at the same time fulfilling course objectives and the following learning activities:

- Meeting with client/consultants to define project design parameters;

- Learning about precast concrete, its potential and limitations;

- Exploring the potential formal and surface qualities of the material;

- Preparing a design proposal including shop drawings and scale model in plaster;

- Participating in technical reviews on issues relating to siting, structure, ergonomics, fabrication, finishes, cost, transport, and installation;

- Building the formwork and preparing technical specifications for the winning design(s).

Notes:

18Student reacted very positively to the

idea of participating in a real project.

For most it would be the first time

they would have the opportunity to

work directly with a client group,

contractor, and consultants, or to

realize a built work. There were a

number of well-known precedents for

this type of design-build project –

including Rural Studio, Freelab,

Ghost, and Solar Decathlon – which

had a certain cache in the eyes of the

students.

23

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 19 STUDENT TEAMS AND MIGRATION AFTER RESHUFFLING 9 PROPOSALS, 2 SELECTED FOR DEVELOPMENT

24


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: PLOT (cont)

The terms of agreement and motivations of the

project stakeholders were carefully explained and

students were reminded that no party was

obligated to continue beyond the design phase of

the project19. Students were aware that the

success or failure of the project depended on how

well they were able to understand and respond to

the often divergent interests and expectations of

the each of the stakeholder groups20.

During the design phase, students were organized

into teams of four [FIGURE 19]. The class was

split into concurrent briefing sessions: one half

going to visit the new ELC schoolyard, where they

met the landscape architect, school principal,

committee members and pupils; the other half

receiving a factory tour and technical briefing

by precast concrete company representatives

[FIGURE 14]. Students were encouraged to ask

questions and to challenge the scope and limits

of the competition brief21. Team members reunited

and shared their experiences. Minutes were taken

and, once validated by all project stakeholders,

they formed an addendum to the competition brief.

Students worked on their design submissions over

a period of six weeks. The competition brief

required each team to propose a single formwork

design for 1-3 precast concrete elements and to

precisely locate these elements on a site plan.

While students were encouraged to explore the

potential uses of a bench beyond its standard

definition of “an object for sitting on” and to

show these alternate uses in their perspectives,

they were also reminded that child-safety was of

paramount importance to the jury members22.

Notes:

19I was very frank with the students

regarding the experimental nature of

the project and the risk of it being

terminated if student performance

was not satisfactory.

20Negotiation and mediation skills are

critical to a designer and both require

effective listening. The student

challenge in this case was to strike a

balance in meeting the expectations

of all the project stakeholders, while

satisfying their own creative

impulses.

21The problem with competition briefs

is that they may exclude potential

solutions by the way in which they

frame or limit the problem.

22Our perception of danger and the

standard by which we measure child

safety has a great deal to do with

how we define or label the risk

elements. A ‘bench’ will not require

the same standard of safety as a

‘play structure’ despite the fact that

child will play on it. To avoid overly

constraining the project with safety

regulations, we were careful not to

refer to the bench as a ‘play

structure’ and to define its primary

use as a bench.

25

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 20 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: HAMMOCK

FIGURE 21 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: TWIST & TURN

26


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: PLOT (cont)

Students were asked to demonstrate that their

proposals were buildable using a 1:10 scale model

of their formwork and to test the formwork by

producing a plaster cast with it. They were told

to design durable, self-supporting and stable

structures, requiring no foundations and to

clearly articulate the intended form and surface

qualities, considering fabrication limitations

and constraints. Finally, the designs were to

challenge the stereotype of concrete as a cold

and unwelcoming material23.

Each team was given 10 minutes to present their

proposal to a jury of project stakeholder group

representatives24. The former director of McGill

SOA, two pupils of ELC School, and a documentary

film crew also attended the event.

Projects were evaluated based on the requirements

previously mentioned and the following criteria:

- Appropriateness of the proposal within the

context of an existing landscape concept;

- Ability to engage children in play;

- Clarity and completeness of documentation;

- Material efficiency and easy of production.

Three projects were short-listed for selection:

Trouloulou [FIGURE 16], Hammock [FIGURE 20] and

Twist&Turn [FIGURE 21]. Despite the high quality

of all proposals [see also FIGURES 17-18], the

selection process was surprisingly easy, in part

due to the wide range of criteria and stakeholder

interests involved. Short-listed projects were

those that managed to avoid elimination by any

stakeholder group, and to inspire at least one

jury member to vigorously defend it25.

Notes:

23When I first proposed the design-

build project to the ELC schoolyard

committee, they were not very excited

about the use of concrete. Turning

the constraint into a design challenge

however, was a very successful way

to negotiate around a potential

conflict and incompatibility between

the stakeholders.

24Participation in the design jury and

the culture of a school of architecture

was an eye-opening experience for

most of the stakeholders. They

expressed amazement at the richness

and diversity of project work and the

high quality and thoroughness of the

graphic presentations – by far

exceeding their expectations. The two

pupils from ELC School were

awestruck by the creative

surroundings. Surprisingly, when

asked to comment, they seemed to

want to focus on adult issues like

safety, which in one case prompted

the witty response, “It is dangerous,

but fun!”

25Twist&Turn received first-prize: it

was not the most creative design,

although it did have an elegant

simplicity to it; it was not even the

best presented work; but from the

point of view of the jury, it was

clearly the most appropriate response

to the project constraints and most

suitable for the construction phase.

Once the jury arrived at the three

short-listed projects, which were all

considered acceptable to the ELC

School, the fabrication issues tended

to dominate the final selection.

27

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 22 PRODUCTION OF FORMWORK AND PRECAST CONCRETE ELEMENTS

FIGURE 23 SITE PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION

28


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: PLOT (cont)

Initially, there was a desire to select up to

three projects, produce the formwork and cast one

or two benches from each. The intent was to give

the maximum number of students the opportunity to

realize their proposals. The problem was that the

first-prize project Twist&Turn alone required

four modules and Groupe Tremca was not willing to

commit to more than this. After some discussion

with ELC School, Trouloulou was also selected to

advance to the design development stage in order

to evaluate the cost and complexity of having it

built by a team of volunteers26.

At this point, new teams and task groups were set

up [FIGURE 19] to complete the design development

of the two selected proposals27; to prepare

technical drawings and specifications; and in the

case of Twist&Turn, to construct the formwork

[FIGURE 22]. Students of the winning proposals

became team leaders responsible for ensuring

design intent, coordination, and approvals for

each of the three following task groups:

- Formwork and structure;

- Surface treatment and materiality; and

- Installation and site considerations.

An independent task group was responsible for

documenting and making publicly available the

student design proposals on a website.

In consultation with project stakeholders, each

student task group prepared a report for their

final course grade28. At the end of term, Groupe

Tremca organized the delivery of the formwork to

their production facilities.

Notes:

26 Trouloulou was the favoured design

of the ELC schoolchildren. It was

inspired by the most common precast

elements – slabs and pipe sections –

observed during the concrete plant

visit. Unfortunately, Groupe Tremca

did not appreciate the design to the

same degree as others: in part because

it was nothing out of the ordinary

for them, but as we later discovered,

it also involved some tricky quality

control and fabrication issues. These

issues were not clearly expressed, so

initially Groupe Tremca’s intentions

were misinterpreted.

27 By reshuffling the teams, students

could reinvest in the process, add

value to and share ownership for the

final work. For most students, this

was their first experience in project

management and a unique

opportunity to develop leadership,

coordination, and research skills – an

experience that is difficult to teach or

simulate in the classroom.

28The value of these reports was most

apparent several months after the

course ended, when information was

required to coordinated the mosaic or

the bench foundations.

29

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 24 INSTALLATION TEAM ON THE TWIST & TURN BENCH

FIGURE 25 FIRST CHILDREN ARRIVE AND DISCOVER THE BENCH

30


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT II: PLOT (cont)

Despite the best intentions, student interest and

availability waned dramatically after the course

ended29. It quickly became evident that there was

not sufficient commitment to organize the

construction of the Trouloulou project30. The

final coordination of the Twist&Turn project and

the preparation of its foundations would in

itself prove to be a formidable volunteer effort.

Fortunately, there was no real time pressure: the

course was completed at the beginning of winter,

which allowed several months to organize a team.

Groupe Tremca had also maintained from the start

that they would complete the formwork and pour

the white concrete mix only when they had avail-

ability in their production schedule31. Stripped

of the formwork, the elements were sandblasted to

give a uniform surface finish and stored on site

until the installation date [FIGURE 22].

One Saturday morning in mid-May 2008, a volunteer

work group of ELC parents, dug out and prepared a

level bed of compacted gravel to receive the CMU

bases for the bench [FIGURE 23], designed to make

it appear to float over the spongy ground cover.

The following Saturday morning, the school

principal came to unlock the schoolyard gate so

that the delivery vehicle and installation team

could hoist the four concrete elements into place

and precisely align them into a continuous ribbon

using neoprene shims to make the appropriate

adjustments. The first children to discover the

bench immediately began to test its potential as

a playing surface [FIGURE 25]. It has since

become a centre of activity in the schoolyard.

Notes:

29Students had worked very hard

during the semester and I assumed

that this personal investment would

evolve into volunteer commitments

after the course ended, especially if it

included the possibility of

constructing their own design. I had

overestimated their enthusiasm, much

of which was exhausted in the push

to complete their final reports. For

most, the end of semester offered a

clean break to shift their attention to

other courses and commitments.

I was also surprised to discover in

the student evaluations a common

complaint that the course did not

have enough lecture content. This

may have been prompted by the

standardized questions of the course

evaluation, but it also reflected that

students did not realize or highly

value the project-based learning.

30In the design development process,

the Troloulou task groups discovered

what Groupe Tremca already knew

at the design proposal stage: that

simple solutions are not always best.

While the design employed basic

elements that are either stocked or

easy to produce at the plant, it

required subconsultants to cut and

core the large tubular sections as well

as the use of steel brackets to

assemble the elements on site. This

added cost and complexity.

31Volunteer services do not imply less

professional or lower quality results.

On the contrary, it often motivates

very high quality work. It does

however demand greater flexibility in

the schedule to accommodate the

availability of stakeholders.

31

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 26 TIMELINE ACT III MOSAIC PROJECT

32


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT III – THE MOSAIC PROJECT

ACT III – SETTING

The mosaic project began as a suggestion to all

bench competition teams to consider involving the

ELC schoolchildren in the design-build process.

The Twist&Turn team originally proposed inviting

children to the concrete plant in order to

incorporate various imprints during casting, but

this idea was rejected due to the complexity of

scheduling and quality control. The Surface

Treatment task group also explored other avenues,

including my suggestion to contact a mosaic

school that teaches contemporary methods for this

ancient art32. The students were enchanted by the

ambiance of Mosaikashop’s studio and the

willingness of its owner to collaborate. In their

final report, they evaluated several scenarios

for integrating a mosaic band in the 10-meter

long bench and offered a number of potential

mosaic themes33. At this point, the story moves

from the McGill SOA studio to new creative

workspaces involving a fresh cast of characters.

ACT III – PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS

NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, mosaic project

coordinator and principle designer.

MOSAIKASHOP: Mosaic school hosting the initiative

and organizing the volunteers involved in the

production and installation of the work.

ELC SCHOOL ART STUDENTS: Over 50 elementary

school students from 3 separate art classes

participated in the production of mosaic pieces.

Reflection: Open ended project. Value of setting the framework for future projects. Designers tend to be overly controlling of outcomes and try to freeze the work in space and time. But the context is constantly changing and evolving. Reflection (Conclusion): One of the aims of the projects was to get students at ELC School to actively participate in the transformation of their schoolyard. At each stage, there was consultation: in imagining the schoolyard, involvement in various fundraising activities, participation at the jury to review bench proposals, and finally in the production of the mosaic. Involving students in the design processes and exposing them to the diverse range of actors has both pedagogical and vocational benefits. Students invest in the space and take

pride in maintaining it.

Notes:

32 My interest in mosaics was inspired

by the Roman and Punic sites seen in

Tunisia during a travel study trip

organised for McGill SOA students.

On the same trip I had also visited

Gaudi’s work in Barcelona.

33 Student proposals did not do justice

to the richness of possibilities offered

by mosaic. As for any media, to

understand its potential requires

cultivation and experience. The

students did however define a clear

scope and opportunity, which would

form the basis for the initiative.

33

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 27 PROPOSED FORMWORK CHANGES TO INTEGRATE MOSAIC BAND

FIGURE 28 FORMWORK INSERT A COMPROMISE SOLUTION

34


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT III – PLOT

When the bench formwork was delivered in early

2008, Groupe Tremca was informed that a decision

had not yet been reached regarding the nature or

scope of the mosaic and that if it proceeded,

there would likely be some minor modifications to

the formwork. Refer to the timeline [FIGURE 26].

After an intense semester of work, there was a

welcome month-long lull in communication until

Groupe Tremca announced that they were ready to

begin production. A decision had to be made

quickly regarding the mosaic or else the benches

would be cast as delivered34.

I called a meeting with the students and it was

at this point that I discovered that they were

either unavailable or unmotivated to continue to

the next stage35. Feeling personally responsible

for having initiated the mosaic collaboration, I

went to speak with the Mosaikashop owner to

better understand her view of the project and the

work involved. She confirmed her commitment and

reassured me that with the right leadership and

team spirit, a project of this scale could be

successfully realized with ELC schoolchildren and

volunteer mosaic students from her school. Her

enthusiasm to take on the challenge was

contagious, but it was the voice of experience

and her calm professionalism that enticed me to

engage in the project and see it through36.

With the formwork deadline looming, I was able to

secure an agreement-in-principle from ELC School

regarding student involvement and funding before

sending off the proposed formwork modifications

to Groupe Tremca [FIGURE 28].

Notes:

34 Every new project needs a champion:

someone who can recognize an

opportunity and act on it. In this

case, I had hoped that a student

would champion the initiative under

my guidance, but when this did not

happen, I found myself taking on the

role. I was reluctant at first as I was

very conscious of my tendency to over

commit to volunteer projects at the

expense of other professional

opportunities and obligations.

35 As mentioned previously, part of the

problem was that students did not

feel they had adequate knowledge or

skills in mosaic work to be able to

contribute further.

36My initial reluctance to initiate the

project dissolved, when I saw the

complimentary working relationship

that could be possible with

Mosaikashop. All the project

unknowns that were causing my

hesitation – relating to the

involvement of school children, the

production of the mosaic and the

mobilisation of volunteers – were all

part of her professional competencies.

I only had to focus on what I do

best: design, coordination, and

quality control.

35

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 29 MOSAIC TRAINING WORKSHOP 20x20CM TEST TILE FROM IMAGE

FIGURE 30 ELC SCHOOL ART CLASS COMPLETION OF MOSAIC FIGURES

FIGURE 31 MOSAIC PROCESS: FROM DRAWING TO COMPOSITION

36


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT III – PLOT (cont)

Groupe Tremca reacted unfavourably to the

changes. While sympathizing with the desired

design intention of creating a continuous ribbon

of mosaic, they were not prepared to modify the

formwork three times in order to provide the

requested A, B and C modules37. A compromise was

reached to use the B module throughout, in which

the mosaic would face up or out depending on the

module orientation [FIGURE 28].

At this point, the scale of the mosaic work was

clearly defined and my attention turned to issues

of process and content. I organized a meeting at

Mosaikashop with the art teacher from ELC School

to discuss how we would go about involving the

children38. It became obvious that some mosaic

training would be required to properly gauge

expectations and to understand the potential and

constraints of the medium. I enrolled in an

intensive weekend course, which proved to be a

creatively liberating, yet humbling experience.

It took more than three days to produce a 20x20cm

tile [FIGURE 28] – the bench mosaic would be 75

times this size! This experience made it clear

that we would need to work in a loose and

forgiving style that would be quick to execute

and accommodating of the diverse work and skill

levels involved39.

The Mosaikashop instructor led two sessions in

three separate art classes. In the first session,

she gave a brief introduction to mosaic art and

then asked students to make drawings on the bench

theme of bees and flowers. In the second session,

they used precut ceramic tiles to reinterpret

their drawings in mosaic form [FIGURES 30 & 31].

Notes:

37 The inserts were required to create a

recess in the surface that would

ensure that the edges of the mosaic

were protected.

The representative at Groupe Tremca

was often in the unfortunate

position of having to remind me of

the limits of their commitment in this

non-profit initiative. When they

explained the cost and time required

to modify the formwork, I realized

that the design did not thoroughly

address the production issues and I

took it as a challenge to improve the

design.

38From the moment we met with the

art teacher, it was clear that there

would be a personality clash – in the

same way that I had experienced an

immediate sense of complimentary

values with the owner of

Mosaikashop. Although there was

ample evidence on the school walls

attesting to the art teacher’s ability

to motivate the children to produce

high quality work, he seemed very

anxious of the children’s performance

and the outcomes. His teaching style

was very structured and directive

and he had no confidence in the

improvised and exploratory approach

of Mosaikashop. When she came to

give her first workshop, he asked her

to rush through the historical

introduction to get on with the

mosaic work. After this unpleasant

experience, he finally agreed to let the

Mosaic teacher take the lead.

39Learning by doing provides great

insight into the management of the

work of others, expectations of

quality and the creative potential

embedded in the process.

37

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 32 DRY ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION FIGURE 33 FINAL MOSAIC INSTALLATION IN BENCH AT ELC SCHOOLYARD

38


RICHARD KLOPP

ACT III – PLOT (cont)

The classroom activities were very productive and

achieved the desired results in a fluid manner.

This was only possible due to the careful

preparation of the materials and forethought

regarding the process and required content40. Over

50 works were created: an even distribution of

bees and flowers from top and side views. These

were arranged into compositions with graphic

instructions on how to complete the background.

I was responsible for project coordination and

the overall artistic direction of the work. This

was quite an interesting design and leadership

challenge: demanding on one hand a clear design

intention with precise instructions41 and on the

other hand, a high degree of adaptability to make

do with shifting constraints and project

results42. For example, when Groupe Tremca vetoed

the continuous mosaic ribbon, I decided to change

the design approach from a singular gesture to a

fragmented series of bright blotches, in order to

achieve the same design intent of deemphasizing

the individual bench modules. The frame around

the mosaic field was also deemphasized by using

background tiles that precisely matched the

concrete in colour variation and matt finish. The

bright blotches were created using the children’s

colourful mosaic works in a sky-coloured, glossy

tile background. The custom tile glazes were

provided by Mosaika, the parent company of the

mosaic school and renown production facility43.

At the time of writing, the mosaic, in its dry

assembled form, was complete [FIGURE 32]. A

confirmed schedule was expected shortly from the

Mosaika installation team.

Notes:

40From the design standpoint, the

number and sizes of drawings had to

be anticipated as well as the colour

palette and drawing themes.

Mosaikashop then prepared mosaic

tiles and the transparent adhesive

that would allow children to easily

compose their mosaic directly over

their drawing.

41While the children felt they had

almost complete artistic freedom,

their work was actually preplanned

to achieve a certain result, with only

a certain amount of stylistic

variation and personalisation.

42 Over a period of several months, a

team of volunteers worked on the

mosaic to fill in the background areas

around the works of the children.

Given this commitment, they were

very sensitive to criticism and I

learned not to become overly

obsessive about the consistency of

work and to accept and appreciate

the differences in the quality and

skill level.

43Working with the best possible

partners gives confidence to the team

and greatly expands the creative and

learning possibilities for all.

39

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 34 SEJ SCHOOLYARD PROJECT SITE PLAN AND PHOTOS

FIGURE 35 STUDENTS FROM SEJ SCHOOL ENGAGE WITH DESIGN PROPOSALS

40


RICHARD KLOPP

EPILOGUE – THE SEQUEL AT SEJ SCHOOL

Given the positive experience of the ELC School

design-build project, I decided to repeat the

exercise with the 2008 Advanced Construction

students. The pedagogical structure was already

in place and there was interest from both the

precast concrete company and the landscape

architect to get involved for a second time44.

After reviewing several potential projects45 with

NIP Paysage, we selected Saint-Enfant-Jésus (SEJ)

School as the most suitable partner, project and

site [FIGURE 34]. The context was similar to ELC

School, comprising a newly renovated schoolyard,

a project team eager to get involved, and a wish

list of items that did not make it into the final

design. With the experience and reputation gained

at ELC School, it was just a matter of a phone

call and a brief meeting on site to get a

commitment from the SEJ School administration46.

While the representatives of the SEJ School were

quite open to evaluating diverse program

proposals from the students, they did

specifically express interest in having new

picnic tables on the raised portion of the site,

from which schoolyard activities could be

monitored. The design would have to be robust,

since the SEJ schoolyard is open to the public

and vandalism has been a problem in the past. One

of the particularities of the SEJ School is that

it offers special services for children with

auditory and visual handicaps. To specifically

address their needs, McGill SOA students were

asked to propose and integrate surface textures

in their final design that would create a unique

tactile landscape47.

Notes:

44Getting commitment from project

stakeholders for repeat work is much

easier due to the shared experience of

the process, team chemistry and

project expectations. Decision-

making is faster and there is less

correspondence. The advantage of

having a model process or project is

that you can make improvements and

avoid repeating mistakes; the

disadvantage is the self-reinforcing

nature of a model, which will tend to

favour optimisation over innovation.

45As project promoters or visionaries,

designers have greater potential to

shape the nature and quality of their

commissions, the design process and

project outcomes than if they are

service providers. In the case of the

design-build project, we were in the

enviable position of being able to

choose from a number of interested

project partners.

46 Prior to the meeting, both the

landscape architect and the ELC

School principal spoke with the SEJ

School vice-principal in support of

the project.

47One of the aims of the Advanced

Construction course is to develop the

students’ knowledge of and curiosity

for the tectonic dimension of

buildings – the joints, assemblies,

and material qualities – in order to

provide a counterpoint to the spatial

explorations that dominate design

studio work. Unfortunately, surface

relief was underexploited by students

in the course or treated as something

completely separate from the design

of the formwork.

41

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 36 JURY PRESENTATIONS WINNING TEAM: CONNEXION

FIGURE 37 RENDERING AND LOCATION PLAN FOR PICNIC TABLE DESIGN

FIGURE 38 ‘CONNEXION’ FORMWORK PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO GROUP TREMCA

42


RICHARD KLOPP

EPILOGUE (cont)

The course unfolded in a similar fashion to the

year previous, with nine student teams preparing

design proposals during the first half of term.

Following their mid-term presentations to the

jury [FIGURES 35 & 36], a winning design was

selected [FIGURE 37] and team members were

redistributed into task groups to prepare

construction drawings and specifications.

The winning proposal48, entitled Connexion, was

quite complex to build [FIGURE 38] and the

formwork could not be completed by the end of

term. The team leader, with assistance of a few

volunteers, finished it the following term and

received credit under a directed studies course.

The work is now at the precast concrete plant.

Despite the many similarities in process and

outcomes, there were some significant differences

between the two design-build projects. The first

year was much more difficult to organize and full

of uncertainty regarding stakeholder commitments,

the process, and results; while the second year

benefited from established relationships,

experiences and reputation of a successful

project. Given my involvement on the ELC

Schoolyard committee, the personal stakes were

higher and I was more motivated by and in control

of the outcomes in the first year. With the SEJ

School, my main motivation was process-oriented:

to create a valuable learning experience for the

Advanced Construction students. While the built

results may be of equal quality, there was not

the same level of engagement with the SEJ School.

For the moment however, the bigger question is

whether there will be a third project.49

Notes:

48Given the experience of the year

before, in which only one of the two

projects was realised, I decided to

limit the design development phase

to just one project and to better

define the tasks so work could be

delegated more easily. In retrospect,

this was a mistake. The task group

sizes of 8-10 students (versus 4-6

students the year before) were simply

too large and the tasks too dispersed.

As a result, students became less

engaged and less accountable, and

coordination issues bogged down the

work. Even the team leaders were

less motivated or they lacked the

necessary management skills. A

second project, even if unrealised,

would have provided the appropriate

challenge and sense of ownership

that was clearly lacking.

49Setting up a successful initiative

requires leadership, but if this

leadership is not translated into an

institutional structure, the leader

will become the weak link that

threatens the viability for any longer

term prospects. I was frequently

made aware of the precarious nature

of the design-build projects that were

often hanging on the commitment or

motivations of a single person. While

institutional commitments would be

required to ensure the future of these

interdisciplinary and community-

based learning opportunities, there

are no advantages for the present

stakeholders to formalize their

relationship beyond the current

project-by-project arrangement. In

my own case, as a sessional course

lecturer, there is little motivation to

institutionalize a program, for which

I have no certainty of bring to

fruition.

43

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

FIGURE 39 INSTALLATION BY GROUP TREMCA

FIGURE 40 COMPLETED WORK AT SEJ SCHOOL

44


RICHARD KLOPP

Conclusion

This case study describes a series of four interrelated community projects, each creating

the context for the next project to unfold. While the built works completed to date can be

considered small successes, they represent just the visible manifestation – the tip of the

iceberg – of a much larger community-building project that has more to do with the

quality of process than outcomes. I was particularly interested in how a project can work

as a catalyst to activate cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration and to create

unique opportunities for learning. My reflections on the project are summarised below.

Motivation in the non-profit sector

Financing is usually the driver of development; profit or fees are the dominant motivator

in the design, management and construction of building projects. The projects of this

case study demonstrate that a team can be organised around other possible motivators:

not only the direct benefits of a completed work, but also a wide scope of indirect

benefits and intangibles accrued during the process, including: social and professional

network building, education and research opportunities, skills development, public

recognition, etc. If these motivations are balanced and transparent, win-win situations

may emerge, in which the interests of stakeholders converge rather than conflict. This

makes a case for the use of parallel economies in community-based projects, where

knowledge and services are the primary form of exchange, rather than capital.

Inverted measures of success

In building projects, we tend to place the greatest importance on built outcomes. Process

is regarded as a necessary evil to achieving them – thus something to be streamlined.

Projects are successful when they are on time, on budget, and have no callbacks. This

case study proposes that the quality of the process can be a driver of equal importance

to schedule, budget and final results, but we need to invert our definition of project

success. As a society and building culture, is our aim truly to minimize the cost and time

invested per square metre? The efficiency of engaging the fewest people to complete

the work in the most expedient and inexpensive manner is not always desirable. In fact,

this model significantly reduces opportunities for a wide range of social benefits.

Alternatively, what if project viability and success was defined as maximizing quality of

45

IDBE CASE STUDY

RICHARD KLOPP

life for each moment or sum invested in a project? This suddenly opens the door to

integrating a wide range of initiatives that add to and extract value from the collaboration

and design process.

Inefficient, yet effective

The ELC Schoolyard projects were extremely inefficient from an end product perspective

of capital or unit of time invested for work realised: four years and thousands of

volunteer hours were invested in a project with a total budget of less than $200,000 that

took only a few weeks to construct. One could argue that had volunteers simply paid out

a portion of the value of their time in money, the children would have benefited from the

results much earlier. Yet from the process perspective, these projects were extremely

effective at maximizing social benefit. An entire community came together and

contributed to the fundraising and project development. This interaction created the

teams that would lead to a number of other initiatives, including the bench and mosaic

projects. Nearly 100 architecture students, 50 schoolchildren, a dozen mosaic students,

and a mix of professionals, academics, industry representatives, trade peoples, and

volunteer parents were directly involved in the design and construction processes, most

participating in a learning-rich context.

Benefits of process valuation

This case study shows how a broad level of stakeholder participation can result in built

works that are well suited to the specific needs of the community they serve and

generate a high level of commitment to the project, both before and after construction.

By analysing the motivations of the stakeholders in an unremunerated context, one can

begin to discover the rich potential that the process holds for individual and collective

benefit in both profit and non-profit scenarios. The indirect benefits and intangibles

mentioned earlier are difficult to quantify, but given their role in sustained engagement of

project stakeholders, these aspects cannot be underestimated. How do we measure the

community benefits of an improved physical environment, social networks, or civic

pride? Project participants can all attest to these benefits, which positively affect their

lives in small ways every day. They may even be responsible for the sudden reverse

trend in student enrolment at ELC School, which began the year after the courtyard

project was completed.

46


RICHARD KLOPP

Empowerment through education in the built environment

There is an urgent need to empower our increasingly urban populations by demystifying

the building and urban design processes. People outside the design and construction

sector often have the impression that the built environment is something quite fixed and

immutable. It reflects a reality that transforming public space is usually complex and

costly. This case study shows the value of engaging citizens, including children, in the

process of positively transforming their environment, if only to realize that change is

possible and that one need not settle for unsafe and uninspiring spaces.

Keys to success

While there were many commonalities between the four projects described in this case

study, each held a key for defining the success of the overall initiative:

• ACT I exposed the value of process as an end in itself, especially in

speculative ventures where outcomes are uncertain. To repeat a

comment often heard during the early stages of fundraising: “even if we

never succeeded at reaching our goal, the process was worth the effort.”

• ACT II offered valuable insights into setting up successful multidisciplinary

partnerships centred on learning opportunities, where stakeholder

interests are balanced and levels of engagement respected.

• ACT III revealed the importance of project leadership, effective teams and

hands-on learning as generators of unique opportunities.

• The EPILOGUE demonstrated the value of a good reputation and

established teams in getting buy-in and approvals for repeat work.

Finally, to ensure the posterity of a volunteer initiative and minimize the risk of it faltering

with changes in the commitment levels of key individuals, proper documentation of the

process and other administrative structures are needed.

Acknowledgement

Successful projects require teams with committed and talented members. It is to all

those unnamed individuals that contributed their valuable time to the success of the

project and the richness of the process that I dedicate this work.

47

Documents

Community as Classroom: Case Study of a Schoolyard Transformation in Montreal