| Discussion Forum submissions - Please continue with the discussions
classrooms are seldom planned in terms of the big picture, hence the knee-jerk set-up at most schools. so why, when planning, isn't the layout thought through properly? then, moving pre-fabs in or out does not destroy the operation and functining of the school.
my personal belief is that putting classrooms on top of ablutions/admin/etc offers more positives (no class disruptions, easy control of access, maximum greenfields, lower vandalism, etc) than negatives (increased contruction costs, increased maintenance costs, increased OSH risks etc) but this does require a greater degree of planning. many of the negatives can be reduced by various strategies eg build your classroom and then lift it onto the ground-floor ablution block.
where the layout of existing buildings is poor, they should be considered for re-placement: the hidden costs of poor layout (eg the need to patrol around the back of buildings and other time-wasting activities) will make the exercise quite worthwhile. upgrading power/phones etc can be economically achieved at the same time. and naturally it doesnt have to be done all at once.
cheers
m
Even new schools (like 5-6 yr old Selwyn Ridge Primary in Tauranga) still have design/layout problems that increase the "chaos at the school gate" problems......as a
resource Management Planner I find it incredible that in this last decade the pedestrian/vehicle traffic conflicts have not been competently addressed by the parties
involved - primarily I presume - the Min of Ed arch Design firm and the Council Planning staff and the local traffic Engineers.
The function of cul de sacs at a schools front gate and side access? The function of pedestrian crossings for pupils that take them directly across the main parking lot
access ways.
Drop off zones that hold only 3 cars if they all park in perfect form to let kids out.
Who is ensuring that the layout fo access egress, roads, pedestrian access etc is functional and safe?
Kiwi
|
