Responses to Yestermorrow Master Planning Process:
From Steve Kellert 11.29.11:
Kate,
I took a brief look at the master planning and grounding and process report. I think the title says it all in my quick reaction to what I briefly read. In my opinion, the title like the document strikes me as too abstract, wordy, convoluted, and impractical. In general, i am skeptical regarding these long, drawn out, wordy planning exercises, which seem to take a great deal of time, agonizing, and cost, and in the end all you are is at the beginning. Sure, we need guidelines and goals, but they do not require as much breast-beating, time consuming, and costly processing. The real test is in the execution not planning. Anyway, what I saw may not be the most important document that I should have looked at, but my reaction to what I saw as noted was impatience with what seemed inordinately obscure, imprecise and, thus, of questionable practicality.
Best,
Steve
From Ben Falk 11.29.11:
Hi Kate and Core Team,
Is there any update as to the questions asked during the MP delivery session that Bill wrote down and said would be answered?
Also, what metrics have been developed thus far related to what I asked during the last board meeting? I imagine Regenisis has numerous one's they draw from in general in performing their design work. Which one's have been used to guide the design decision making thus far for YM? What metric areas still need work?
Thanks,
Ben
And Kate’s response to Ben 11.29.11
Hi Ben,
My impression was that most of the questions that were raised in the faculty meeting were answered in the process of John walking everyone through the plan, and we were left with a few specific things to follow up on, primarily a solar shading study, more detail on the constructed wetlands and wastewater issues, ADA access, and designating an area for “experimental” building projects. These are part of the ongoing discussion and design development within the core team. In particular we are working on a 3d shading study to share and also consulting with wastewater experts from our faculty. Are there other questions which you had in mind which needed further follow up? As we have more data and information available on these details we will certainly share them. (list of questions from the faculty meeting is included below for reference).
I am not sure I understand what kind of metrics you’re looking for, can you clarify or give some specific examples? We spent a lot of time developing Principles to reference throughout the design process which are included in the Executive Summary.
Kate
Staff Meeting/Masterplan Unveiling Questions
October 1, 2011
Embodied material/energy
Why are buildings/functions in the hill shadow (4)
Interaction between school and natural resources on process
Design team expectations of next step
What other users considered in this future that aren’t on the plan?
Where are the gardens?
Parking as a monoculture?
Entry sequence?
Experience from route 100 (perception, noise, views)
Permit issues – Waitsfield
Phasing strategy
Frisbee/outdoor recreation zone
Where are main points of human exchange
Universal access?
Heating
Storage and material location – proximity issues
Solar panels – where are they
Snow dispersal and maintenance
Amphitheater purpose?
Animal grazing location – soil builders
Wild animal habitat
Where does the water leave the site?
Key #s coordination
Energy use – surface area/volume ratio
What are site surface areas
What is the physical invitation to the larger community
Impact of outdoor construction areas on studios (noise)
How to pay for it (budget)
Sewage system/permitting
Nature of armature
Eupsychian structure? (memory)
Why are we getting rid of this building?
Do interns/instructors have privacy?
Why is everything the same size?
Mad river path location
Where is large outdoor gathering space
Are there additional camping places
Function of logging road/scale
Density on dialogue and impact on/to the past
Will plan satisfy strategic plan of 2006
Intimacy and scale issues
Will students participate in design and construction?
Performance metrics
Deconstruction materials
Current structures use – What’s not there
Experimentation sand box
Impact on plan by Bundy property
Economic zone (enterprise zone)
Forestry – lumber management plan
Utilities planning – power/data/waste – flexibility
Bus stop/transportation – bikes/trails
Repurposing of site (exit strategy)
Site evolution over 50 years
Way-finding
Connections to MRV
Occupancy capacity vs. current –occ/sf
Is move uphill a retreat or advance?
Physical output (food, products, etc)
Can you see what we do from the road
From Ben Falk 11.30.11
Hello Kate and Board,
The metrics I was thinking of and began to mention in the last board meeting are ways we can measure the facility to ensure (and highlight) how the campus is being regenerative.
The going planning process uses the language of regeneration to a large extent. We are intending to have a mutually beneficial human presence in this place. This is great. But, to actually do that we need to 1. have a clear definition of what we mean by that (what's regenerative) and 2. how are we being regenerative.
If we don't define these aspects we're just heaping a lot of big words around and selling things we won't actually be doing. Since YM is not in the business of doing that, we have some work to do yet it seems, no?
Here's some input into how regenerative design and development actually gets done:
1. A definition my colleagues and I use to work with for regenerative is: Enhancing ecosystem functions of the site while meeting human needs. That is very broad and needs to be specified more. So, more specifically we use the following question to understand whether regenerative process is happening (it happens, is verb, more than it is a thing, noun):
- "Are we enhancing biodiversity and increasing biomass produced by this site?" Biodiversity being a key metric in non-human health, biomass production being a key human-use yield. Another question to ask that is fundamental to seeing if regenerative process is at work is
- "Are we slowing, spreading and sinking water on the site? Is the water system enhanced (less pollutants and flow coming into the site than off of the site?" Another is:
- "Are we improving the soil on site?" Meaning is subsoil being converted to organic matter-rich living topsoil? Meaning, are we increasing the % of organic matter in the soil, reducing soil toxins, increasing available nutrients? This is only regenerative if it happens not as a result of importing the O.M. like compost into a farm for instance, but through converting lower value to higher value on site, obviously but worth mentioning as many people think they are building soil when they are actually just moving it from one place to another.
There are some specific metrics that are used to go along with broad statements and intents about being regenerative.
If we don't have these (and others) we risk Yestermorrow's approach being as shallow as much of the "green" washed movement's in that we are saying we're doing something we're not.
I think it's great we're now saying we will be moving into a regenerative presence on this site, finally, but to be true to our mission, to grow our reputation and enhance the place we are in we actually do need to DO the work of regeneration which means we need to define what that is and how we measure it.
This is all fundamental to finalizing any concept of a "plan" for this campus. That said, where has this work been done, if it has been so far? (None of this should be news to Regensis). If it has not been, then we need to do this work before we finalize a concept. I have understood the "input of outside experts" or similar bullet point in the work plan described to mean this. Is that correct?
We then need to define what, when and how to get all the baseline data needs. Jeff mentioned wildlife data: species present for instance. What's here, how are we enhancing what is here and offering new habitat for species in need? This gets to be a big project, as you can see.
As far as the questions being answered that were posed at the input session, I don't think many of them have been answered. If so, please let me know, I might have missed something.
I'll make a note on a few below in the list you sent.
Perhaps others who asked some of these questions can provide some input too.
-------
Embodied material/energy
Were numbers presented? How was this answered?
Why are buildings/functions in the hill shadow (4)
Same.
Interaction between school and natural resources on process
Design team expectations of next step
What other users considered in this future that aren’t on the plan?
Indeed, would love an answer.
Where are the gardens?
Parking as a monoculture?
Entry sequence?
Experience from route 100 (perception, noise, views)
Permit issues – Waitsfield
Phasing strategy
Frisbee/outdoor recreation zone
Where are main points of human exchange
Universal access?
Heating
Storage and material location – proximity issues
Solar panels – where are they
Snow dispersal and maintenance
Amphitheater purpose?
Animal grazing location – soil builders
Yes. Where, what, who manages? At least a concept of this before a "plan" is in effect.
Wild animal habitat
Yes, what's being done to enhance habitat? How are we being regenerative in this regard?
Where does the water leave the site?
Key #s coordination
Energy use – surface area/volume ratio
What are site surface areas
What is the physical invitation to the larger community
Impact of outdoor construction areas on studios (noise)
How to pay for it (budget)
Sewage system/permitting
Nature of armature
Eupsychian structure? (memory)
Why are we getting rid of this building?
Do interns/instructors have privacy?
Why is everything the same size?
Mad river path location
Where is large outdoor gathering space
Indeed, where?
Are there additional camping places
Function of logging road/scale
Density on dialogue and impact on/to the past
Will plan satisfy strategic plan of 2006
Intimacy and scale issues
Will students participate in design and construction?
Performance metrics
Yes.
Deconstruction materials
Current structures use – What’s not there
Experimentation sand box
Impact on plan by Bundy property
Economic zone (enterprise zone)
Forestry – lumber management plan
Utilities planning – power/data/waste – flexibility
Bus stop/transportation – bikes/trails
Repurposing of site (exit strategy)
Site evolution over 50 years
A big one. I didn't hear thoughts on this.
Way-finding
Connections to MRV
Occupancy capacity vs. current –occ/sf
Is move uphill a retreat or advance?
Physical output (food, products, etc)
Of crucial importance. Input-output ration - if we're not net positive, we're not being regenerative.
Can you see what we do from the road
From Jim Sanford 11.29.11:
FKP
While I still believe the new master plan is very well done and continue to support it, moving the road behind the buildings is a not an improvement.
Before the feeling or sense of the site was apparent in the design. Now the main buildings, once nicely nestled into the hillside in a position of grace, comfort and control are cast adrift and rather than a counterpoint to the well crafted spine idea are now confused with it. What do they face? A road and dark hillside. With but a sideways glance toward Rte 100. We cannot seriously be considering that the mean space thus created is in any way pleasant, can we?
I see this move as a nod to those who believe everything needs to be sacrificed to solar orientation and that by separating these critical buildings from the hill those loud voices can be appeased. I think your wise consultants understand that there are more powerful forces at play here.
Jim S
From Dave Sellers 12.1.11
Kinny.
Here I go. In general and overall, the series of master planning over the years is admirable, rare and exceptionally necessary for the evolution of the essence of "Y". This most recent rendition is exceptionally thorough in the enrollment and enlistment of the participants from the visitors, to the workers to the students, faculty, passer-bys parents, wind, birds, soil and the misc. elements that by definition define that constellation that is under continuous flux and evolution.
THe framework that has been presented here is for me is a foundation that is designed to be modified. AND like a puff of smoke , any change impacts the whole puff.
Here are some challenges that are worth considering:
1. The main entrance: The relocation to the South. THe traveler from the South is likely to miss the entrance as there is no prediction in terms of landscape. The flag field, now likely to become a crop field, garden or gaming area is a good harbinger to entrance.
2. The current entrance is asking for creativity and can easily be a two way boulevard with a broad welcome for future buses, drop offs, Tractor trailers filled with "Y" products on the way out or in.
3. I doubt the wisdom of mining the current structure, rethink this.
4. The row of studios, classes etc. is excellent and in a good place.
5. The wetlands, ponds, current collector site is asking for treatment and could be a productive asset. If so what is the connection to the whole?
6. I challenge the location of the dining. THe advantage of the current location is the potential for immediate connection to the SUN, future orchards, kitchen gardens and the studios.
7. THE location of Admin, library, lect hall etc. works although the use of the parking lot is weak.
note: this school has yet to see it's potential for new forms of activity. THe studios spaces, assembly spaces, etc. are beginnings and need to be explored for the ideal space requirements in the immediate and long term future.
8. THe open field on the slopes uphill from the current facility is too valuable for housing in my opinion. But housing in that direction is good. Side hill facing south is better.
9. The future link to the BUNDY when given to the school needs to be considered.
10. A tower is in order somewhere.
11. Waste treatment, recycling, especially with buiding materials will be a permanent feature and can be beautiful.
12. Permanence is the key to valuing resources, and beauty is the best, and possibly the only, ingrediant to assure permanence.
More later,
dave
From Fred Bartles, 12.6.11
Hi Kinny,
Thanks to you and the board for providing an opportunity for feedback about the master plan.
My association with Yestermorrow started a little over a year ago. I'm a 58 year old educator (I teach and work with information technology) taking an "adult gap year" to explore some interests that require large blocks of time. One of these is an interest in architecture that began in my teens but which I didn't pursue as a career. I'm in the Sustainable Design certificate program and since the summer have spent over 4 weeks taking classes and living at Yestermorrow.
I've read through the master plan documents and am impressed with the spirit, energy and care which they reflect! In the short time I've spent at Yestermorrow it has had a significant impact on me so I'm pleased to see it is in such good hands.
Here are a few thoughts from my relatively newbie perspective.
1. I think a lot of folks are attracted to Yestermorrow BECAUSE it is slightly funky and not mainstream. There are plenty of mainstream architecture programs out there and Yestermorrow provides a refreshing and accessible alternative. If the folks (including me) in my core SD class are any indication then Yestermorrow students are a quirky group of people. Efforts to make the campus more presentable and attractive should take care not to lose the funk factor.
2. Information technology is starting to revolutionize education. Teaching/learning spaces are being designed to facilitate a world in which everyone has a networked computer and may at any time want to share what's on their computer. The Hawaii Preparatory Academy's new Energy Lab provides a model of a learning space that was designed from the ground up for integration of information technology. The video on this page (http://www.hpa.edu/academics/energy-lab) provides a good overview of their approach. Fielding/Nair (http://www.fieldingnair.com/) is an architecture firm that seems to really get where information tech and schools are heading.
3. Not directly related to the site master plan, but something I think has relevance, is the future growth of online learning. Yestermorrow has an amazing group of instructors, but they are reaching a relatively small number of people. Online learning provides a huge opportunity for Yestermorrow to reach out to the world and share its vision, expertise and resources. The design of future facilities can play a big difference in how easily Yestermorrow can explore this rapidly developing area.
Thanks for the opportunity to share.
Cheers,
Fred Bartels
-----------------------------------------------
An Independent School Educator
And in response to my email back to him:
Hi Kinny,
Wow. Thanks for your quick response.
Just a few quick thoughts regarding online learning.
First, it doesn't need to be all virtual or all face-to-face. There is some evidence that blended approaches can me more effective than either alone. Many courses, for instance Timberframing, which I took last month, clearly need to be primarily face-to-face. Others, like the Solar Design course I took just after, could easily have been taught online, and perhaps more effectively.
I've taken a couple of online courses from Boston Architectural College's Sustainable Design program. One was a really great learning experience, and one was not so good as the teacher wasn't a very active presence.
I've taught AP Computer Science face-to-face for over twenty years but this year I'm teaching it totally online. It is a different experience but I think the kids in the online course are learning as much as my face-to-face students ever did.
It's would be a challenge for Yestermorrow to try this, but it might open up interesting possibilities in a world where, as you note, it is getting a lot cheaper to move bits than atoms.
Cheers,
Fred
From Malena Marvin 12.17.11
Better late than never.
I love it!
I'll let the Yester-community wage their critiques on this one, and just give you my unbridled support. I'm happily surprised to see the beginnings of an actual design that reflects a lot of the feedback I heard while living on campus. If I were independently wealthy I would totally donate cash for a new building or two!
As I think about it, my only real question is about rerouting the driveway. For one, much of that area is a huge marsh, which I'm sure is important in the overall water flow dynamics of the property. And two, it's a nice place to wander around away from the buzz of campus and a driveway would kind of destroy that. The existing driveway is already heavily impacted and its short length limits the amount of carbon burned on campus. I'd vote for sticking with it, and leaving the other end of campus wild and beautiful.
Thanks for bottomlining such a great process.
m
