SCKOOL SITE SIZE STANDARDS THESIS FOR ME DEGREE 0F M.U.P. MECHIGAN STATE UNEVERSITY LLOYD JERRY KNOX 1968 (v .0»-' . s' 11 I' 13?; A .4 1K : Fv’lichigar. " I‘ ., Univc; 2 WES‘S ---b-‘ m ABSTRACT LU SCHOOL SIT? SIZE STANDARDS by Lloyd Jerry Knox School site size selection is important because the prOper site size allows a more efficient distribution of land usage and makes the school itself more usable. But, in the past site sizes have been based upon rules-of- thumb which often proved too inflexible for modern educa- h tional concepts. 3y examining the existing standards in the light of actual site size selection practices, cou- pled with an examination of key educational concepts and policies, a new site selection guideline was formulated. he pronosed guideline has the dual advantages of being flexible and eXplicit about why a specific sized site is needed. Use and refinement of the guideline should result in a more efficient allocation of the community's land re- source base. SCHOOL SITE SIZE STANDARDS By Lloyd Jerry Knox A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1968 AChITOIZ’LEDGEI‘GELT The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Professor Charles W. Barr for the sympathetic guidance and penetrating critique of this study. ii Chapter 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHOOL SITE SIZE STANDARDS Introduction PrOposed Study SCHOOL SITE SELECTION STANDARDS Walking Distances Summary SCHOOL SITE SELECTION PRACTICES National Practices Michigan Practices School Location Practices Summary EDUCATIONAL CONCEPTS AND THE SCHOOL SITE Enrollment Class Size Organizational Format Community Use of Buildings and Grounds Combination School-Park Sites Educational Park Outdoor Resource Service Athletic Programs Curricula Busing Parking Building Size Innovations Summary A PROPOSED GUIDELINE FOR USE IN DETERMINING SCHOOL SITE SIZES Enrollment and Class Size Buildings and Grounds Recreational Areas Athletic Programs Layout Factor Driver Education Range Parking Park Area Outdoor Resource Service Use of the Guideline Comparison With Other Standards SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS iii 68 71 71 72 73 71+ 75 75 77 77 77 81 8.5 Table Number 1 10 LIST OF TABLES Title RECOMMENDED MINIMUM ACREAGE STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL SITES ll SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADES SEVEN - NINE APPLIED MINIMUM ACREAGE STANDARDS 22 RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SCHOOL WALKING DISTANCE PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS BY SITE SIZE MEDIAN SCHOOL SITE SIZES AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN PER PUPIL AREA OF COMPLETE SCHOOL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED IN MICHIGAN 1955-56 THROUGH 1966-67 iv 21 - 23 25 53 56 41 1+5 45 65 CHAPTER 033 ITTRODUCTIOK There are several reasons to examine existins stand- L) ard O) of any nature. Standards may be exam'ned to deter- mine what the practices are so they can be utilized. Standards may he studied to determine the methodology used to establish them so that a similar approach may be used to establish other standards. Finally, standards may be examined to determine and test the rationale behind them. Although this study embodies elements of all three reasons, th~ primary emphasis is on the rationale, in the hope that a critical examination of the reasons (or lack thereof) for the standard would enable a better standard to be drafted. The urban planner, as a generalist, would not nor- mally be interested in school site size standards, since this is a rather specific study area. However, such an examination may be justified on at least three grounds. The occupation of educational facilities planner or school planner is a new and growing one, due in large part to an increased awareness of the need for careful school planning. It is quite logical to eXpect that many urban planners, because of their broad background, will enter this field. Secondly, the entire field of education is now in a state of flux. New philosOphies -2- and concepts are being formulated and tried. M any of these philos0phies and concepts challenge the traditional arproacn to education and the traditional educational site requirements. The planner must take a second look at existing standards. Thirdly, there are important rela- tionships between school policies and the overall compre- hensive planning process. One of the urb oan plannm undamental aims is to make the land use pattern of the community as efficient as possible. Preper use of the comziunity's land resource base requires the proper allocation of land to the vari- ous uses. An important aspect of an efficient land use eiates to the reservation of land for future "5 .1 pattern chool sites. If too much land is so reserved, an uneco- nomic use of land recv t3. If not enough land is re- served, the school site will not adequately serve its intended purpose, and pressures for more space will re- sult. Once the school a1d its surrounding area are de- veloped, land costs soar and school site eXpansion be- ‘ comes quite costly. Tn ‘ e total co unity nas a large stake in preper school site size selection as well as school site location. Certain rules-of-thumb have been derived over the ' . 6 years to aid in the determination OI the site size and location of educa ational facilities These e151p ir ric cally- derived andards have been widely endorsed by educators and planners alike. However, recent years have seen such -3- a variety of approaches to education that these standards have often proved too inflexible for practical applica- tion. In spite of this apparent lack of flexibility, the standards are still widely quoted and included in many or educational facilities planning and urban H) efe r ences .fi- V planning, as Cn apter Two will illustrate. Even though the standards are out-moded in many wa;s, they are still officially adepted for use in many communities. Why? The answer is simple. The star dar is are useful and fulfill a basic need. This is true even though the stand- ards may not be entirely satisfactory. Mr. John H. Herrick of Cincinnati offers two reasons for the use of standards for school site selection: "Most of the advantages of the use of definite standards could be secured without formal adoption of criteria by the board of education. Such adeption, how- ever, seems to have two strong points to recommend it.” "In the first place, he superintendent is in a better position to discharge his responsibilities in mak- ing site recoms-idations when such an official guide is available. he knovs the standards to which he must work, and he has a pattern for guiding board discussion of his site recommendations. The chances of having his recommen- dations upset by last minute preposals at board meetings are reduced. Then such proposals are made, his recommen- dation that time so given for checking against the criteria is likely to es accepted.” "A second advantage of formal at dontiO‘.- of site cri- 1.1." teria by the board of education is the b tr1e hands of the staff and the board are strengthened in dis osing of preposals of little merit. The entht Isia Mt c advocate of an unsatisfactory site is by no means a rare individual when public funds are to be spent, and the added support of officially adOpted standards is often most useful in bringing to a close what s ens to be interminable debate -4- . . . 1 concerning the merits of his proposals." Assuming that the standards utilized are reasonable and adequate, the reasons for adopting standards, as put forth by Herrick, are valid. However, the need for flexibility in the standards is stated by the American Association of School Administrators: "The actual size, shape, and dimensions of a site cannot be oet“*\ined by "CrBiallaablono and fix ed formu- las. Any diSCL asion of such site characteristics as size and shape will oe unrealistic unless the site is directly related to the requirements of the specific services that are to be ncovided there. If a fixed formula for site size and shape is HOllOJed, limitations are placed on the program. To estaelish the land needs of program and services V'ithout a prior co:nprehensive study of those needs for a specific neighoorhood, c01nunity, or region is to chance being wrong in tw says. First, the full notevti l of community service for that site may be badly underestimated. Second, a fixed acreage formula may assign entirely too gush or too little land for the needs of a specific area.” Thus, we have the twin horns of the dilemna. The standards are useful to the school administrator as both a ”euudriii stic: and an instrument to promote the objec- tive selection of sites. However, inflexibility tends to negate the us e1 uln ss of the standards. The resolution of this problem will be attempted in the latter phases of this study. Several decades ago planning for educational facili— ties was relatively uncomplicated. The typical school 9 1Lawrence E. Perkins and flaltor D. Cooking, SCHOOLS; (Her-z York, 1957),”? p. 55. 2American Association of School Administrators, PLAHH HG A”T7TCA'" SC: IOOL EUILDIHGS, (hashington, D. C. 19(30), 13. 1410 -3- building was a two-story box with a basement. Class- rooms usually were 24 feet by 32 feet by 12 feet to ac- commodate the normal five r ws of desks (fastened to the floor) and the aisle space. The entire school building and especially the classrooms within it were based upon the educational philosOphy of the times, as the following quotation aptly states: "The premised function of a school was to teach read- ing, writing, and arithmetic, and no monkey business. The integration of lea nin: with life was better accomplished by the necessary home chores than by artificially ”made" work projects. Therefore, formal individual work enjoyed not only the highest priority in the design of a class- room, it was the only awarded priority. A classroom was a place where pupils could sit in ordered regularity to absorb prescribed subject matter at an administratively predetermined rate. The youngster sat quietly at his desk until called upon. Then he rose politely to his feet and skillfully and respectfully gave back his 1 ssons. He was and did what he was supposed to be and do. The teacher's unquestianed authority and the relative simplicity of the curriculum left no place for discussion and planning. Here was the job to be done in Latin or Hath or Geography, so "no talking, now!" Hence, no group work. Hence, no space for it.”? But the current concept of the school's role is much broader than that of Just formal education. Few concepts in teaching have been introduced. These concepts apply A. not only to what is taught, but how it is taught. Along ,. , , _‘ .. . _, L , 5 A , a p. fl Ultd tne recognition that new courses, sucn as economics and languages i1 Pra'e school, and new programs, such as hot lunches, must be provided to meet the needs of a changing society has come the recognition that the school “Perkihs and Cooking, on. cit., p. 71 -C)- building and site must also be re-evaluated to reflect thought about space, light and air. Quite often what was deer ed adequate even 20 years a3o falls woefully short of today's need .0) A number of school policy decisions directly affect the site requirements. For xample, the busing of children frees the site from many locational limitations and requires loading nd/or parking space for the bus. Likewise, the use of the school site by the community-at- large puts a different burden upon the site than the tra- ditional concept of using the school property only for activities directly related to the school program. These points are obvious, yet the typical school site size and locational standards ignore the implications of the changes in basic school policies. The typical standard for elementary scilool sites (grades hindersaitel throu3h six) calls for a site size equal to ten acres plus one acre for each 100 pupils enrolled, located within one-half mile of all the students].r Depending upon the specific circumstances, tflis mav be entirely too large or too small. Realistic standards for school site planning must be flexible enou3h to reflect the individual school's policies. Without this fle: Hm ecoz cmme ecoz I N.mIImv.v N 6:50hwhmHQIxamm .oommdvanwmm oHHnsm cwownmad magpmnmpHA mQHscmHm .m H on H on H OH mH .gOHH .cOmxome poanmHQ Hoonom QOHgO N «N N NH mm.H O Umnpmwmhm H ON H OH H m HH adsHsHE mmvcmq use cOHpgadm whom\mHHQSQ om whom\mHHssm Ow whom\wHHmsm Om swnhsndm whom\wHHst Om myom\mHHssa mu ouom\mHHQ5m om OH manna wsfixooo s mcwxnmm H cm H on H m we .osnm so .p.mon .s .z A.pcoov msspmpmpHA Hoozom .4 mHHmsm Ammuodvl mHHmdm Ammhomv muHm mHHmsm Ammnomv mNHm thsm oopsom museummom 00H\mmpo< mNHm oOH\mmgo< mpHm seaHsHs.QOH\mmno< opHm_adaH:Hz .sgmwpw Hmaowmmwnd mpHm.a:sH:HE HmCOHpHUnHI Hmsoapanw anm uOHsmm anm MOHnsw IOHHnHm Hoonom humpcmsmHm mmeHm Hoomom mom mamOpm seem H OH H m we samOIHoosom OoOHano cmMHnOHfi .mnHmcmH pmmm I OOIIOn I m.NHIIm.O xmeIHoosom OOOHOSOO I OHIIm.m cmpHm chz mm .aaOO OMHm spHO pHonpOO H mH H m me .HmO «.oo epmoo mapsoo OOH \ «\H O OOH \ m\H m.m pH mHOOHHHH .OmmoHnO OOb um>o OOH\H \ m OON “mso OOH\H x e Om OHmnOOmHa .pHOme mpnommmllmsmHm nmpmmfi .O H m H w H v we umHHHE mm, H Om H ON H m s OOHpmHOOmmH Jl m.hmwmsms thO HmGOHpmsumecH AcmdsHpsoov endpmuopfiq msflcGMHm .m mHHmsm Awesomv mHHmsm Ammpowv muHm mHHmsm.Hmmmomv mNHm Hausa meadow mocohmMQm OOH\mmpo< ouHm OOH\mmpo< mpHm asaHOHs OOH\mmu04 cpHm asaHaHs .saampm HMQOHQHUO< mpHm aschHz HmsOHpHOmd .HMGOMprvd HOHHnHm cme uOHsem smHm 90Hssw Hoocom hhmpcmamHm OMHHm Hoomom mom QO¢Q2§Hm Hudmmo¢ EDEHZHE Qmmzmufioomm HumanpcOOV H mHmaH I Ow I ON I OH mu «GONHM4 «nomads H mN H mH H m om .sOHs HmOOHmmm_spOOOOIHHH H on H mH H OH we .Omm; ..OO mcmxomm H ON H OH H m He OHso .OOoHoe H om H mH H m em .Hmo .OmmHO gem mH.N ON «O.H NH s.H 5 mm sumaIHoosom OmcHOaOO mamamxpa ..OO HammHOm H «H H OH H m Hm copwnHOmms .Oommm H OH H OH H m ON ncoo .meepoz I NH I m I mIIm .O .m HmpHQmO Hm:OHpmz H ON H mH H m Ow acme..OO OOmOH>mO s oHHH>gmmz .npo.omh thsdsaoo whom OcsopmhmHm whom m OeOOAOHMHQ whom mIIH OHIIO \ Hoozom egos mH \ Hoozom whom OH X Hoonom whom m Om vsdopmmmHQIHoonom .nsoo HmpHOOO HmOOHpszccmHspms H mN H mH H m Nmem>OmOO chOHmmm spnOOOIpman vassHpcoov manommmIImcmHm hmpmmfi .O mHHmsm Awesomv mHHmsm Awesomv mNHm mHHssm Amehomv mmmw hnpsm meadow monopmmmm OOH\mOpoa oNHm OOH\mma04 msHm asEHOHs OOH\mmpO« mpHm asquHsp magmas HN:OHpHOU< oeHm ssEHcHfi Hm:OHpHOO4 HmsOHpHnud IOHHnHm nwflm AOHCmm cmfim AOHCSO Hoonom humpsmEmHm EEO. HOOsOm mos Susana moss? “salsa Ommzsasoomm HumansOOOv H MHmaH -15- is the simplest to apply, yet the least flexible, since no reference to enrollment or program is made. Five of the sources listed on Table l utilize this approach. A second basic approach utilizes a ratio between school site size and ultimate enrollment, with the ratio adjusted according to the *ade level of the school. This ex I approach allows more flexibility, but it may prove unsuit- able for small enrollments, since some scale economies ('I“ resul from usin3 larger enrollments. Only one of the EM sources included on Table 1 recommends this method. A third approach represents a sarria3e of these first two methods. A minimum site size is stated, and this base figure is enlan3ed by applying the su33ested ratio between enrollment and size. As in the first two instances, this formula is adjusted to reflect the grade level of the school. This approach provides the flexibility of the ratio technique while the provision of a minimum base 1.1 acrea3e avoids the problem of low enrollment. m‘1is com- ! ‘ bination method, espoused ori3inally by the National ° ('V 7 ‘ I" 0 - q 0 CounCil on Ocnoolnouse construction in 1939,“ is by 1ar the most Widely used and quoted standard. Twenty-five of the 34 sources included on Table 1 use some variation of the Council's basic formula. The last approach is quite similar to the flat acre- 1 1 age requirement, except tiat it attempts to explicitly state the needs upon which the site size is based. Since ”National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, on. cit., p. 27. V I this is the unique amon3 the approaches citea, a more seOCific ci3:u*sian 01 it will be included. Only three of the references inclueel on Taale l utilize this A reIert prepared by the Detroit City Plan Commis— sion tries to exanine the site space problem from the standpoint of actual need: assnewn by a detailed examina- .L. I eserve; soxe addioional atten- (7.) L Y C I" [J )—- .,_ (3 "1 f U 9.) ..J $3.. f.) 3 C3) 5?: L .3 Ho rt.- (2.. .1 es covera3e ‘ 1 tion game. The more comple 1€“€ Will also "‘ ‘“"u ' '. ‘ I ‘ ‘.“ I“, Y‘r‘“ 1 ‘7 J‘ ~‘ " I“ \ 1W4" ~‘L f .‘ serve to p1ovlee .ole each round b0 the su3pested stand- O-n-33~ ’ 3—30 93"“ “l3 “and "3’1 t‘m l-t'm~ :~3~_ n 1‘ ‘- <._-u‘-’ to '»/v \x‘q IL O__'-V\l .LL- .Lb a v.1. “:‘J-.a‘—JV'-' OJ. L W .1. I ,w "-9... AA . . - ° 3. ,-. q - .~- ... . A bQSlC anor1l3 the senior hlf; school require on s is “etroduced below. Jote that recreational space is excluded, since it is .ssuned to be added as the pa: n O oubi1ation school-park lasili A. .l ty and, as 4- 'ion of a (3 , '3 l“ I such, was covered by a separate report which will not CG ‘ I ,1 r "r r , ‘.‘\ r3u‘I/3-C.IC\1 -104. O. -17- Senior Vigh School Space Requirements Area in Square Feet Buildings 195, 500--230,000 Outdoor Educational Space E9,000---69 ,000 Nature Physical Dri Tr Staff and Visitor V81" Coihunit Service Landscape Sour For ouilding to 2,000 Of-thumb 7tudy Area Education Space aining Space and Loading pupils at one--part of park-playfield ,200 plus 113,600 plus Service Parkin3 l0,000---12,000 arkins 3,000 plus Pa arking 60,000---75,000 7,000 plus and Setback 293,2§O—-3b5, 000 TOTAL 7hL,550--850, 800 ACPEAGE l7.l--l9.5 ce: Detroit City Plan Commission, "Public Edu- Facilities", nimeographed p. 35. cational eport, April , 19/0 , the most part the table is self eXplanatory. The area was derived from a school enrollment of 1,700 llS square feet each, a standard rule- susgested by several sources. The outdoor edu- cational space was estimated at 30 percent of the building area. This corresponds 13hly to the home cla ass area reserved within the building. The physical educational space requirement is based upon tro class of 27— 23 utilizin3 60 square feet of area per pupil. The study does not clearly identify the basis for the 2.r acre, or 113,000 mq1a1e fee t drivers training area. The parkin3 areas are based upon an averaze of p00 square feet per space, a fairly standardized rule—of-thumb. -1R- 9 Perhaps the most definitive attempt to ate te school site area need: is the 1966 stu‘y, ”School Site Analysis - '~ .' '3 - ~ ~ ‘- - ”x “n I“? 3 \ ' "‘ ado Develep eat”, oxepaiec up t1e saliioiuia State De- ' ‘-Q 1 l- -9 {q -‘ N -'— . - t‘ v" ‘ r~ p '1‘ . F‘ ‘t .'V ‘ _3ar cmenc 01 “IYCatian. aecause 01 tn; uz‘;1qaeneas and completenegs of this study, and because it will also be ‘ _ "a _ _3_ a ‘ 1 0 _ __ L a 1‘ 3 I- p craan upon t1en 3e ll’GlllOc aro fo “QCCQ a1 pa“ 01 J‘ N .0 3*. '___ _I_ ‘ I ‘ . - .9_ § _0 ‘ ’ _|_ H, o 5 '3 -I ,—. ‘_‘ _‘ 1 _|_ _ r".“ V q . enis st1au, his report ulll 3e discussed at lendcn nere. j 1 .1- '1‘ ., .1. ' . .. - _ 1 fii. .’ , - CH.‘ - , 1 . sue CO 110 1acnre of tie standards, 1er could not be included on Table 1. f‘ r1 . '1 -- .. , ‘ ,1 in- . ,. . - -' . -- he ruiuelines were QCCchd 1rou an azaljsis 01 iour —.-’-«L 38.3 C 13C“O7"131 in}. 1 -" ‘ - ~ .\"-‘ ‘ J- . I. ' J‘ r‘ outdoor 0 . ical CC‘UCaClOD 1aCilities ‘ .. —. r7 ». -. a 'V 1' ‘2 ‘u “'\ '\ ‘ I‘ ‘ . ’. Juilaiija ualkua s, anc landscaping parkin3 an' access reads a 3“”C61b 3e factor 0 f cilitate the layout v‘ 13:18 Si 130 212513 "01 The space for outdoor physical education facil- ities was based upon a pr03rax that would conform to tne 0) (0 Ci. 0) legal requirements of the State of California, which minimum physical education program requirements. Studies .0 to determine the actual time spent u in3 the outdoor 1a- cilities were translated into actual space require nts. k‘Califor1.:1_a State Departee—nt of Education, "School 1 a Developme.1t", (SaC1anm1to, Cali.T ornia) -1o_ The land required for buildin3s, walkways, and land- scaping was based upon two formulae. The building area was based on the followins California state-aid area allocations: 55 square feet per pupil for kindergarten and 3rades one throu3h six 75 square feet per pupil for grades seven and eight 35 square feet per pupil for grades nine through twelve. These per pupil averages are substantially lower than both the Detroit standards mentioned previously and the actual Nichigan practices which will be discussed subse- quently. A ratio of 2:1 between buildin3 3rounds and building area was then applied, so that an elementary school would require 165 square feet per pupil in the buildin3 site. The building site includes the buildin3 and land adjacent to the buildings, such as paved areas, walkways, lawn area, outdoor classrooms, and courtyards. This excludes area for parkin3, service areas, and outdoor plysical education and recreation facilities.8 The space for parking and access roads was based upon 5,000 square feet for bus loading areas plus 300 square feet per parking space, includin3 access roads. Finally, a percentage factor to provide land for site layout was included. The-land derived from this ratio is intended to allow he various activity spaces to be fitted Cd Ibid., p. 10. -23- tog ther 103ically. The actual percentage factor used (1) varied fron 10 percent for larpe schools to 30 percent for small 3ChOOlS.Q A portion of one of the tables included in the Cali- fornia study is reproduced as Table 2 to help illustrate more precisely the nature of this method. Table 3 was prepared to show the results obtained by usin3 the various standards su33ested on Table l. Spe- cifically, ultimate enrollments of 500 students for an elementary school and 1,000 students for both the junior and senior ligh schools were assumed, and the various standards were applied to produce the recommended site areas. As the table shows, recommended site areas for the elementary schools vary from a low of 3.0 acres to a high of l5.5 acres. Twenty-four of the sources yielded a min- inum site size of 10 acres. This conforms to the standard suggested by the fational Council on Schoolhouse Construc- tion from l9u9 to 196a, when their basic formula was changed from five acres plus one acre per 100 pupils to ten acres plus one acre per 100 pupils. Only three of the sources included su33est this upgraded standard (including the Council). It would be difficult to overestimate the influence that this standard has had, at least in respect , , . 10 to espoused standards, if not practices. m, ’Ibid., p. 11. lO.v o n . 1 r1 ' national counCil on Schoolhouse construction, Op. Cit., p. 27. -21- TABLE 2 SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADES SEVEN - NINE Enroleent 301-450 451-600 601-750 Type of Outdoor Facility Field area 260' x 260' 1 1 Field area 260" x 460' l Hardcourt area 90' x 100' 3 4 4 Hardcourt area 100' x 120' 2 2 3 Field area 360' x 360' 1 l 1 Field area 300' x 750' l 1 Apparatus area 1,000 sq. ft. 3 3 3 Percent Factor for Layout 25 2O 20 ,Area Use Number of Usable Acres Required Physical Education 8.7 13.4 13.7 Buildings and Grounds 3.0 3.6 4.2 Parking and Roads .4 .4 .5 Total Acreage 12.l 17.4 18.4 Source: California State Department of Education, "School Site Analysis and Development", (Sacramento, California) 1966, p. 19. -22- TABLE 3 APPLIED MINIMUM ACREAGE STANDARDS Bibliog— Elemene raphy tary Junior Senior Reference Source Entry (500) High High A. School Literature California State Dep't. of Educ. 45 9.9 21-5 29-1 Caudill 3 10 2O 20 Connecticut Dep't. of Educ. 48 10 20 20 Detroit Bd. of Education Minimum 3 10 15 Preferred 5.5 20 30 Engelhardt,Enge1hardt,& Leggett 5 10 3O 40 Kansas Dep't. of Public Instruc. 48 10 30 40 Ian 6 10 30 40 Michigan Dep't. of Public Instruc. 33 10 25 45 Nat. Council on Schoolhouse Const. 8 15 30 40 New Jersey Dep't. of Educ. 48 10 30 30 Perkins & Cooking urban 10 6.25 13.3 25 Suburban 10 25 33.3 Sumption & Landes Minimum. 11 10 20 30 Preferred 12.67 32 45 Union School Dist., Jackson, Mich. 15 15 30 40 B. Planning Literature American Public Health Assoc. 2 park-playground 4.45—8.2 Chapin 4 10 2O 30 Miller 48 9 18 18 International City Manager's Assoc. 7 10 30 40 C. master Plans--Reports Beloit, Wisconsin 20 7 11 15 Chicago, Illinois 17 5.2 l2 l2 Contra Costa County, Cal. 48 10 25 40 Detroit City Plan Comm. 35 - 8.3-10 17.1-19.5 combined school—park 5.5—10 40—50 45—55 East Lansing, Mich.Comb. school—park 42 13 28 35 East Providence, R. I. 44 10 30 40 Inter-County Regional (Denver) 52 10 25 30 Maryland National Capital 30 combined school-playground 40 6-10 15 21-34 Nashville & Davidson 00., Tenn. 55 3—5 8 12 National Capital P. C. 10 2O 20 Norwalk, Connecticut 29 10 2O 2O Pasco, washington 31 10 2O 25 -23- TABLE 3 (continued) APPLIED MINIMUM ACREAGE STANDARDS Bibliog- Elemen- raphy tary Junior Senior Reference Source Entry (500) High High C. master Plans--Reports Pulaski County, Arkansas 53 combined school-park 57 15.5 32.4 41.5 San Diego, California 10 25 40 Toledo, Ohio 41 10 2O 30 Spokane County, washington 48 15 25 4O Tri-County Regional, Michigan 39 10 25 35 Tucson, Arizona 43 10 20 4O T? A. . - '1. 4—' . 'n «Ln-v frequency of Distrioution--nlemeutarf 1/h to 1/2 xxx l/.’-L to 3/"! X ]_//22 1::<:<:{:: 1/2 to B/M xxxxxx 7 I . ‘ .71?!’ ‘f‘f -‘ JXZLIL X‘lLJL 1 x The recommended maximum wa kin: d stances for junior high school children vary from three-fourths to tw miles. The one and one-half, one to one and one-half, and one mile ranges, in order, are the most widely promoted stand- ards. Frequency of Distribution--Junior High 73/1} to l X" 1 xxxx 1 t0 1 1°: l//-} X 1 to 1 R 1/2 xxxxxx 1 to 2 x ‘ l a 1/2 xxxxx x 1 & 1/2 to 2 X Naximum recommended walking distances for senior high school students vary from one to three miles, as Table 4 shows. The two mile and one and one-half to two mile ranges are easilf the most widely recommended. rrequcngy of Distribution--Senior Dish FUH N H \ l to 1 PH d'd'ri-Ii 000 1'7 Vf‘fo AxaxAXJL l d 1/2 rt- 0 N NKJINKN m 2 b4 2 to 2 a 1/ RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SCHOOL WALKING DISTANCE Reference Source A. School Literature Connecticut Dep't. of Educ. Engelhardt, Engelhardt, & Leggett Kansas Dep't. of Public Instruction 48 Mich. Dep't. of Public Instruction 33 Nat. Council on Schoolhouse Const. Perkins &.Cocking Sumption & Landes B. Planning Literature American Public Health Assoc. International City Manager's Assoc. 7 Miller C. Master Plans--Reports Beloit, Wisconsin Contra Costa 00., Cal. Detroit City Plan Comm. East Lansing, Michigan Inter-County Regional (Denver) Kingsport, Tennessee Norwalk, Connecticut Pulaski County, Arkansas San Diego, California Toledo, Ohio Tri-County Regional, Michigan Tucson, Arizona Bibliog- raphy Elemen- Junior Entry tary high 48 1/2-3/4 1-1% 5 1/4-1/2 1-2 3/4 1% 3/4 1% 8 3/4 1% 10 1/2-3/4 1—13 11 3/4 1% 2 1/2-1/2 - 1/4-1/2 3/4-1 48 1/2 1 20 1/4-3/4 3/4-1 w lMdfl PE 35 3/4 1-5-2 42 3/4 1% 52 1/2 1 37 1/2—3/4 1-13: 29 1/2-3/4 1-1% 53 1/2-3/4 l-ls 57 1/2 1 41 1/2-3/4 l-ls 39 1/2 1 43 1 1% 1-1-3 1-2 13-2 15-2 1 _: v f _r\ - s _f ~ 0 ~ 1 0 1"" ‘ 1 »\ T'1e ran es eer-ved 1or tne Junior ni,1 scnools ‘ . I\ '9‘"! "‘ ': (“.3 'L .- ". (N ‘7 '1 J'1‘. -~.: 1 r‘ f" - "‘ ~ -. V&“lOo 110“ 61 JC LO LO QCJGQ, alilO CLO &£QO 109 sCQlOP r— ‘ ~ _ o .“ ‘1 ‘ 3 acres. inere is much less _ ’1‘“ "0-.“ l' t ‘1. I“ J_".. _ ‘ J" ,3 ' ”i '1' . __ : '0 ‘-"\ .1 ' .‘ ‘1 . 'n q‘njd (N ‘ '1 Y. QULCVMGJ a? O tle achOf1cho 10 JOtd Jduloi -11 sefl101 ‘1 . (“11 r‘ aid 1 (.‘_~-" ’1 ”)r‘ '1 or: r" .1 ‘ .1 ‘n (‘1 a“. 11 4- r‘s; r- - out) 1 r} was 'i- -1111 . 1.11:1- ub-LOO ubcL.‘..\.Lc1.~L C...) b.13.l 101 ¢.-g...e.-balu- qLu;.-CLc;--_u.u. nullc CO‘d‘PCO ;- r‘u r-rr" ~~- "F‘ 5% '\ ,_, ' 4‘ '3 4‘ -~ 1 '1 3: " " -' «la 0 1 ') ._) ... v‘.) -.I '1; :’,O~JL’ O. CKJ {ILL k: tJlle 4.01 a IJL--1_LOI‘ 11.1.";11 kJCLloO... ‘ "c‘. 9" j J' ,-.-'- ‘ ~ J- A‘ 17? ' . »- V‘r‘ J- QesldACfi to aCCO"OOmb' l,OOO studeits, enile Clint r" w suggest 2 acres, and eifiht more BO acres. Eleven of the authorities recommend a n11111m site area of L0 acres for a senior hifh school of 1,000 students, and another seven suggest 50 acres as minimum. Again, the various standards at least aopreximate the 30 acre junior high school site an“ the hO acre senior high school site recon 011ed bv the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. 1 It snoul' be noted that, with few encept102_, 1 1880 ('l' standards assume suburban locations. In rec gnition of higher land costs coupled with a scarcity of arse 1a1d J. parcels in the central cities, 3ev.er al of the authorities, 0.3., Pc1lzi1s and Seeking, sunntio1 and Lar des, suggest different, less stringent, standards for central cit locations. This raises an 'nteress tin; question concerning the concept of minimum standa1d3 deemed suitable or ade- uate for a given school. The “a ards respond to eco- r11 nonic pressures linked witll the ce21tral city. inere 9.) re, ”J hoaever, also presstres in the central city for more lanc in open space use. A child in the central city certainlv U requires as much room, if not more, for physical activity 4. -27- ‘l as does the child 01 the more egacious suoirhs. 111s allow: focus to he made on two observations. First, as previously tated, economics can he a very pr'ne consiier- ‘n "a '; r3 "- b O'VrCJ. .L .L.\A ('3 v inj wha would seem to b 1110 E? G basic human needs. 8 condlr it raises the question of validity of t1e standards. How can a minim :1 standard, if based upon actual 1eeds, vary accord1113 to locale? Patently, if rs ca1r4 H \9 \fl \ ,n \] I \J 1 As this breakdown shows, from 15.7 percent to 57.0 AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN 1957-58 through 1966-67 Average Average NCOSC* Site Year Capacity Site (acres) Size (acres) 1966-67 469 16.8 15 1965-66 526 14.7 16 1964-65 448 12.5 15 1963-64 477 11.9 10 1962-63 386 10.2 9 1961-62 462 12.1 10 1960-61 433 11.5 10 1959-60 429 13.1 10 1958-59 Information not available 1957-58 390 11.4 9 Source: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing , Michigan *Based upon 5 acres plus one acre per 100 pupils for 1957-58 through 1963-64, and 10 acres plus thereafter. -42- percent of the new elementary schools built in recent years have been under five acres in size. There are even a few one acre lots still bein; utilized for elementary raly indicatin: the construction of new schools on existing sites after removal of the old school 111”“iM' This more detailed charinetion indicates that, in spite of the excellent state ide Shem ing, a significant number of new schools each year are built on extremely sistems utili sing on- acre site (I) to be the larger urban centers in the state, such as Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor. These new schools are undoubtedly central city locations on sites already owned by the school district. Table 3 presents the averaje enrollment and site sizes for junior high schools in Richijan. The average school site size exceec ed the ICCSC recon neations in 4.? rs. However, b1 1e difference in the 9.) the nine ye recommended and actual site 3 was very slight except for 1962-63, when the actual average site was only 17.6 acres, cor 1 to the recommended 50 acre site. Inserar as ve fine; so, Ta lo 3 do on ates t e relatively strong Iichigan position in relation to the recommended standards. Again, to eliminate some of the inherent shortcomings of the avera3e, the fell win3 breakdown was prepared to indicate rnore exactly the number of e:: “excl small junior high school site s. -43- TABLE 8 AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN 1957-58 through 1966—67 Average Average NCOSC* Site Z§a£_ Capacity Site (acres) Size (acre§2_ 1966— 67 1, 013 26.0 31 1965-66 872 26.0 29 1964-65 780 26.3 28 1963-64 781 38.9 28 1962-63 935 17.6 30 1961-62 867 31.1 29 1960-61 749 31.9 28 1959-60 917 34.6 30 1958-59 Information not available 1957-58 829 24.1 29 Source: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan *Based upon 20 acres plus one acre per 100 pupils. (J) Jew Junior High -chool Sites 10 Acres 11-1q 15-19 Year fl under Acres Acres % under 20 Total 1966—67 1 - 2 20. 15 1965-66 1 - 23. 13 1064-55 2 — 17. 17 7 ll 17 [\J \‘lOKNflF-‘O \jJ H O C)\ N I u‘\ k1 thv h)k4 FJFV \ n \fi \0 O '3 T v: \m \J H O \n w I \n C. a I N H J a J O L \O The percentage of junior high school sites in Rich- igan of less than 20 acres varied from zero in 1959-60 to 59.0 percent in lTSZ-SE. Uith very few exceptions thes small sitea are located in the Detroit area. The average site size and caaacity for senior high ocnools in Michigan are shown on Table 9. The state aver- age exceeded tie ICOSC recommendation in each of the nine school years shown on the table. In fact, the actual practices as measured by the statewide average exceeded I ‘ O tne Standards substantially in all save a few years. Ir] :3“ m '5 lollowinj breakdown shows the number of extremely small senior high school sites in comparison to the stand- Year 1966-67 1965-66 1964—65 1963-64 1962-63 1961—62 1960—61 1959-60 1958-59 1957-58 AVERAGE SITE SIZE AND CAPACITY OF NEW SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN 1957-58 through 1966-67 Average Average Capacitz §ite (acres) 938 43.7 814 47.6 637 38.1 863 44.1 688 42.0 696 42.3 781 41.7 566 45-5 Information not available 480 38.3 Source: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan *Based upon 30 acres plus one acre per 100 pupils. NCOSC* Site Size (acres) 4O 39 37 39 37 37 38 36 35 -45- Yew Senior Rich School Sites 10 Acres ll-19 20-25 Via: “ under Acres Acres % under 26 Total 10fo-37 - 1 1 15.4 13 1965-ft - 1 - 7.1 14 1961;--65 - 1 2 16.7 18 1933-6h 2 1 1 23.6 17 1962-63 2 1 5 27.6 29 1o61-62 - 3 1 26.7 15 1030-51 1 1 2 19.0 21 lon-GO 2 1 L 20.6 34 1957-53 1 3 5 53.3 27 lflC percentaqe of senior high school sites under 26 acres in size varied from 7.1 percent in 1965—66 to 33.3 ercent in 1957-53. Very few high schools have been built *d \ on 0 Sites of ten acres or less in Hichigan in recent years, and the above figures indicate that the high school site under 20 acres in size is also something of a rarity. Very few high schools were built within the central cities in the period covered. A forty-plus acre site in an urban location would be nearly impossible to acquire from the economic standpoint alone. However, the high school, be- cause of the age of the students, can be quite flexible in its location, so there is rarely a real need to locate in the highly developed core area of the city. Perhaps this helps eXplain the absence of small high school sites. School Location Practices It is difficult to examine school location practices without the benefit of cost y and time-consuming surveys -47- to furnish arecise information. However, it is possible to make some geieral col.c we and observations about apparent trends. The educational p'ilosonny towards the school has chanfed gradually since he 1950's. The concept of the , 1 elementary 301001 as the focus of the neighborhood enjoyed nearly universal support during this time. Safety was the prinar* factor governing the 3 heel location. The elemen- tary school standards called for placement of the school on local streets in the center of the neighborhood. This insular position was designed to protect the child from traffic, among other reasons. It was assumed that the Child would walk to sch 1001. Consequently, the Optitmun enrollment standards were oas ed upon the numoer of school age children in the neighborhood. 1he Optinlum enrollment during this period usually ranged around BOO to hOO stu- In recent years tne concept of the neighborhood school has been abandoned in many areas. Perhaps more than any other factor, the utilization of busing gave a degree of freedom to the location of the school. -he school enroll- "ent could be based upon reasons other than safety. Many authorities be ,an to base the Optimum enrollments upon factors such as administrative efficiency. Approaches of this type include an enrollment st andai d based upon the number of teachers that a principal could reasonably -48- -v 1) a administer. 1he fichigan Department of Public Instruc- tion's official attitude toward high school enrollment, to use another ezza: Qle, states that an enrollment of 1,000 pupils is required before a full high school program is I 1e .1 nudjet standpoint. ‘1' .‘ H) k 0 feasible, n the per capita The specific location of the school has also been if the 131actice of busins, since a location on an arterial or ma or street facilitates bus acces—s to the site, whereas a minor street hinders access. Currently, tiere is no clear concensus among school authorities as to the Optim‘m enrollment of the school. The neighborhood school concept, still advocated by many, dictates one set of standards, while other concepts re- quire a different set of standards. ’V ant-“=13 13v Lational and Iichiean practices of school site selec- tion, as evidenced by school site sizes, have been ex- amined. Although certain shortcomings in the data were noted, these were unavoidable and do not materially alter the fi ltil TS- Iichifan schools have done quite well in s. lhis is true ard to meetinfi the school site stanrar< at the elementary, junior hish, and senior high school 17 . , . T . . JAnerican Plollc :Iealth Arsoc1ation, Som1Ht ee on the Ihvtiene ofTikmlsinf, IW'31n1thi3ue"eis“orV"W1‘ (Chi- cago, Public M :ini tratio; 1 :301vice ” 37 p. h). 1;. , ulCdl”&1 hendrtne t of Public IE tructio11, ”nifn School Status Teport”, (Lansing, Lichiian, 1917) p. l. -49.. levels. Schcols in Iichig an are still bein3 built on small si es, but they repre3ent a mi norit of the n w nools. The national picture is not quite as bri3ht as the local situation. As late as 1952 a substantial number elementary and secondary scnools riere located on sites uncer five acre . However, the overall condition had very i“3rovcd substa1tiall“r 1ro1 1971. :hat are the factor: behind this increase? It would be impossible to pinpoint the causal factors exactly, but some 3eneral observations can be made with at least a de- gree of accura y and validity. There are six basic factors underlying the increased school site sizes of recent (postwar) years: 1. The "H3a1y boom” which 1e3an in the ea1ly1940's h V and continued alter the Second World War gener- ated tremendous demands for new school facilities. 2 The ezzodus to the suburbx took on huee pronortions O --2 - .1. in the postwar years. Less expensive land avail- able in large tracts could be found in suburban locations. Council on Schoolhouse Co onst ruction and other 3. The site standards promulgated by the Iational Mutnorities were undoubtedly utilized as guide— lines when construction of new schoolhouses was contemplated. Suburban locations also made tn use 0: these stan‘ards much more feasible than -50- previously. (Perhaps an increased use of the ... Q (i. AlLLL-J ter plan and/or ma_ pe ed lancovewe its to re- s L) serve lar3e school sites should 3e added as accompanyin3 factor.) ) {\- O H t neens quite likely that a nu 3er of extremely F s all school sites were either abandoned or en- laréed to conply Viitl1 tne su~ee ted site stand- 9. The educational philos0phy chan3ed substantially eenltinr in the accep w.nce of a broader role for d- he school. In fact, the development of site fl) -t nde rds undoubt eily rests upon this change in ('l C)” asic onilosonhy. 6. For the res t part, econonic conditio have been quite good since XXII. As a result, more monies were available for school expend ditur— . It is suggested that one combination or another of these oa.' ic factors working together in ve ryin3 degrees, depending upon time and locale, are responsible for the increase in the size of school sites in recent years. A more precise and exactin3 statement of the forces beh nd the increase would be beyond the scepe of this report. These six observations do provide a 31in1pse, however brief, into the causal factors related to increase school site siz- (D (.3 J. CEAPTER FOL? EDUCATIOIAL CCICZPTS AJD THE SC"OOL 8 TE This will not oe an exhaustive study of currczit educati 0: al practices. It will provide an overview at a relatively general level, and, as such, it will provide an the sore snecific site needs to he covered in 4— insisht into the next chapter. Each policy r concept that might affect school site requirements will be disc ss d separately. Zhere neces- sary, a brief definition and/or description of the con- cept or policy will be given, followed by a discussion concerning the nature of the effect upon the site. One point which should be stressed here is the need for an explicit statement of each school system's position in relation to each of these concepts and poli— . cios. a prooer ccecriotioq of the site needed to help fc ctuate a school's educational program relies upon a Ff) e llorough Ciscussloa of the nnosraa's coals and objectives. Programs not contemplated and issues not 1a aced in the planning stages of schoolhouse and school site design are difficult, if not possible, to implement or deal with after site acquisition and develonxent. A conscious attempt to cndmi‘a each issue thoroughly is necessary. nis chapter and the following one are aise .L.‘ 1, 1, ' ° ,-..1.- J- . - .9 -, s a , ,, H ..,,‘.I, 4.' . c110 SCLIOOl {10.11111 ‘stL‘auOf “SOL“;OI‘YLI EDUCA Jul c-’:L.iillL1ab:LO:lo -51- 52- Enrollrent One 01 the nest obvious eleze nts of the site size is the en1woll1e11t. Tnfortunately, the optimum enrollment is '0 ' J‘ x "I‘ J‘ A "‘1 m ‘ r“ v 4- x -. - -\ ' ‘~ 6 -. '1‘ often not a stated scnool 3jste1 QOlle, as tne gleat it is not the purpose here to examine what the “ideal” or ontinun enrollment for a Civen school should be, hozever interestin3 and intriguin3 this question may be. d‘ J affice it LO sey that this is a question of concern to educators and no real concensus exists, as the discussion in the previous chapter pointed out It is the intent to emphasize the ovjoas: enroll- 1as a great impact upon site size. Chapter Two contains a great numher of site size standards, all of which rely unet1 o;1rollse11t as the chief determinant of space needs. If the school site size is to be respo1sive to the educatio nsl program, the ontinum and ultir1ate en- rollment must be explicitly included in the plannin, stages of the school pr031am. (The availability of busing allows some freedom in the 3electi on of OptL ‘.al e11roll- mont, sine Seepraphical restraints eased upon pupil pOpu- lation can be overcome.) A site designed to accommodate an educ atj01al program at one s ale cannot reasonably he CXpected to perform satisfactori l; at a much larger scale. I-i f the 3itc is not increased in size While u‘ollment ’ a 5 "PI“ '1'" ‘.“ T V' " J. - ~ Ufi‘z‘ "zw '.' ' ‘5 ~ (‘ ‘- 1:‘ ‘ 3 ‘r‘ J- SlOno, the only Jugs to acconnoeate the incieasec student ~ ‘1 ‘ J“ ' ‘ '1 ‘Y: ‘ L1 1" -. '1'. 1 as . 2"" '1‘" “/13“. ‘ poauleiaxx1 are to cxexrni u1e uUilQiJ.,limAD tie poltaxi1 of :7 “JJ the site d— evoted to play3round or to build 1p into the air space. 30th would result in reducin3 the e1°fectivenes-s of 1-1 I .3— Uile SELL/C. C3 ;_.4 :J C ) (D The question of Optimum class size is also related closelv to the question of Optimum enrollment. d3ain, no discussion of the actual class size deemed Optimal will be 1e class s ze does not have as pronounced an effect upon Sits requirements es does the total school enroll- ment. It uirectlv affects the \11loiem size and thus indirectly the site size. The number of classrooms needed 3 is determined by otal enrollment and class size. An ele- O mentary school desi3ned or 30 pupils would need ten .1. classro us for a 30 pupil cl- CWO more class- E.) as size, but rooms would be required if 23 were utilized as the desir— J- able class size. The effects of the class size in rela- tion to the total school system are especially far—reach- 4" ins. The question of total classroom needs for a school rsten of 35,000 s tudents is nr 01 ou dly influenced by the .1. d- size of the class. The nunher of classrooms in a par 10- ular school also influences site size if the standaris for .L.‘ outdoor activities are kept constant. Twelve classes re- quire more outdoor space than ten, even thoujh the enroll- ment is the same. This differe 1ce c_30nae rs when some unit other than the individual classroom is used as a basis for a physical educa tic n pr03rm Oreanizational format used here refers to the divi- ee into various STOUpS by level. For (L {.3 PS r:- O ,3 exemele, no elementarv trades might iiclude 12in through erade six, junior high migi through :;:e, and senior hi The actia format selected i'iflue1'1ces t The more diverfent the age 770u333 i.ncluded in a rindle school, the free ter tie need for a larger Site. Thie ip eefiecially true of (-6 J', ‘ (“fl 1“ ‘ A 1 1 -"| J- ? ‘ LQTLCJ claaeeu deuallj mave a seeaiate play area, for w, V -,, .v-1 ., ..,. .1.) -- .1-° ,. .c- .L‘ -,. .. 1;-1‘il 'becauee the iorial ECLlVlblCo oi bfllo age group, a: well as theiro e Weical size, require that they be sheltered from the older, more boietorioue, children. Similarly, a school housing kindergarten through grade e'x heel of the :eve e‘1roll- t hougir: fredeo fOHTM1TOl”1 e'x. Ph7sical separation of play areas is more ineortan at lower are firoupe, due to the fact that phvsical diifereucee are more pronounced. A 9-12 hi 7,11. school and a 10-12 h:':_i:h school of the same enrollment could be aCCOM“ooe ted on idert ica llv-sized sites, Since differences in physical CiZC as well a: edu- cational eroiraas won 1uildin7 aid Grouuds 1 I‘ ‘W l ‘ 1finlr‘1‘.‘ ~\ “3 f"‘/\ ‘Y\r‘.r‘~ “1'7 1‘1] LG IJCELOO Qkil \le—.‘1~_}) a.;& ,.L Oliiix‘u) ,_. 1' LILAC b community-at-- ar”e i1iclud—e, at lea; t pot entiallv, a wide -55- (‘t' the library, use of the si e for recreational purposes (including adult, pro-school, and school age groups at C- 1‘4 ,_J 0 various time periods), use of swimming pool by all age groups at all so sons, use of the shon lacilities fox hobbies and cra I ts, adult education prejr Us, and so on. any of tnese uses require special facilities to help Q: (L) provide for c0111nic7—1L use. For exc1nl a separate entrance to the school lisrary, plus a ground floor loca- tion, would facilitate its use by non-school persons dur- ing school hours by iinimiVWn: the impact of the extra traffic to aid from the library. A laryer -ibrarv facil- tv may also be reguired. Uearlv all or these "extra" :3. bu, uses or the school building and :rounds would require ditional automobile parking space, althougn alter-school and ofr-season uses could utilize teacher an. staff park- ror the sake of convenience and simplicity, the space neels associated with the various recreational activities will not be Lisc175el here. These space needs have been adequately oocuhe.t d in a number of source. nhicn are readily available, including several already referred . . 1G »in tnis study. ’ se uses nus t he antic- It is irni ortant to note that ipated before pla11sfo the school and site a re finali ed. ‘3' ,v L- ‘”The ch 145‘“ De <1'm*ent of‘thaljc 12ml tructi 011 Study The Cnl1iolnia State Department of ILduca tion Tm1.3l.1.c.w.on, The Zetroit City Plan Comx'ssien Report, Op. Cit. -56« 'ghether or not cougunity—at-larje use of the school and ted should he a decision made early ne planning stares for the new school. If the entire community is to he allowed use of the school property, th uses permitted nlus an estimate of the axount or volume of use snould he inclzae so that space needs as well as special facilitr needs can be spelled out. A library lacility on the sec nd floor of a high school would not .' .- '1 ' .L , .C‘ " J. ..—. - .. ‘ -9. ., J CflSllU lens itself to adult use, e pOClallf during senool t~m1w~lqfi -—.\/v\_‘. J. Co"hiratien Schcrl-:e:h Sites Connination school-park sites nave seen utilized by ies in a nunser of areas. Proper- ‘ 13 used, the conaination facility presents economies to . .1, :ool aze para aut ‘J Iorities while at rrovidins a larder onen sauce for bO’ '— ~._ - 1 school and commun- l ity recreational use. The s hool would stil provide v v --. I'M - a 0v ‘n 1a. J—o 1 . 1 paved play a eas ane slag apparatus out tne field areas " ‘ 1 fr fl -. 1 ‘l fi.\' ' T - 1— m‘ -, 3 .C‘ - - MOde a0 pLOVieee s7 tne purl. (The practice or seoarat- ‘I in; corbined school-park facil’ties a; a woven wire fence, I._. V ‘L' ”a ~~ - f‘ . 1 ' - fi- -, 3‘ ‘ J- r“ - 1 -\ an all-bOO-COMLOJ sifnt, is o patentlv assure and d69101- “ ‘ ~ .O~‘-1 ‘~ ‘5 "a -. V 1‘ -. J“ '\ A". ‘ "~ fi aalx: tn:fi:.no irnqt e; :HOUtlflkl Oi -L' noel. oe ignie.) . 1 . '0 4‘ _o . ‘ 1 _ J- lne adul ional land no. ot school can he used for recreational space. In addition L .1— 'l x u - ‘ w r.‘ _fl ‘ -. ~.-. I. ’ I- D n __ _o (N scaool recreationa needs, plOJleiOH oi tot-lo laCilities .. -, ,5. . . .2.- . - .° :1. ,i .. .. J - .n -- 1- as well as adult recreational Taoilitie- u ale com ollJ so ..‘ .5 (“ r‘ -l .'- »: ‘ -, t -_I .’ “ .0 '0 -l '0‘ _O F‘ ' _‘I ‘l _- . -0 . ‘ ~ ‘ 1Hade. nueitlonal iuudaar, laCilities, ascending unon anticipated user volumes, may also be desirable. -57- The educational park has also been referred to as the sc :1ool villa.te plat, ca pus plan, aid the school within a heel. Alt oujh it is still a relatively untried idea, many - ol systess are beginning to use it. One defini- tion of the edu ational park that seems to fit most of the current efforts fairlv well is: "...the clu ;t erine on one site of la 3e groups of students wit1 wide afe differences and varying ;ocio-economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Student Groups are decentralized Within the total site which shares use of specialized Sb taffs, pro- "ran , support vervices and facilities. The cultural educational park provides educational, cultural, recreational and social se1vice 1 to public, private, and parochial students and co— ordinate ‘ these procrams with other public service institutions: city planning, public housing, trans- it SISDV13, parks, libraries, museums, hisher edu- cation, health, hi37ways, and so forth."10 Althoufih scale economies in the use of site, facili- ties, and per onnel are normally associated vith the edu- cational oarh, they do not represent the sole rationale for the concept. It would also bring t gether students from a wide array of socio—economic backgrounds, help to reduce inequalities inherent in ”neighborhood" schools, nd provide more program flexibility, among other reasons. Crucial to this study are two elements that are in- herent in the educational parli concept. The first of these is the large site requirement. A total enrollment 1:: 7'1 —‘r 0 Leu, Donald J., " ducational Park s--The rational Scene”, undated nimeOfraphed monoara ph, Kichigan State Uni- versity School of Education, ha 1st Lang i ins, tichifan, pp. 2-3 0 . . ,,. .'_- . 1 .1, p f r, ,- 1,. r1 .L.‘ ., 11 one Cod etieaal 1a“ o1 , Add to 19,000 tude1ts mould " J“ I . ' WV 4"“-7 ,-. w ~ '1... . - ..‘ W. J." net as unnsual. (oviou1l', an on re el' large tract Cl 0 V fl lane would be requiree, erfectivoly rlling out ce n al w . 4'" f" 3‘ ‘I A (\ I..:~ -. —\ j A -. ‘ :- - J“: rs ‘ . \ Cit; locati-1 . lAls leads directly to tne second pOint. *‘ a: 1." -1 . ,-. r. J- 1, 1 - :1 .n. , e .. .-. ._. J. 1. ..... 4. ' . Wuulgd, or home ot er _erm 01 mass transpom1t t1e1, would .Nl". ‘1 ’3 1 1. 7’5an .. ._. J“~ -« a nr; r3 1:? .-—~1 ‘1 1‘1“: '1‘. l at: 1" 03‘qu t‘1 UL. I. Lq-l_l__ 1-1,. '1',‘ LC __-(,;C1_,.-1 '1 nJL1>)I..4.)L/k-1 OCL. -'-O-.- (A._\.'\ “C 4. 4-1 4- 4.1 A .q... A..- . 4.. m. 4.. ‘ 1-, 1-. " ~ . lace tna t1e la -e c1roll one must no cased upon a lar no fGOfrauhical area except in very (en:el"-'1ilated uroan -' ‘ —. .. J- ' ‘A - J, \‘ ‘ §' ~‘ N ‘ .9 ~ '1‘ areas. ”filfLTf to the 1eer11 r1oo od ecnool would we ’T‘ i J C) ' ‘5 ) 1 J x) ) f a o1o1erlv developed Site is virtually end- . -L. Q ~ less, some of the commonly provicea :acilicies include a a hrusn1lle for (‘l‘ cl‘ 1 J O (—1. E—d. :5 :vl’] L) A D nature trail, wildlife ha hi small animals, a pond, and a harsh), a class-walled nature - Iv‘. - - 7‘ < 'I' 4- , . Iter unere students can haccn nil dlife Ic—J. nterp: tati01 (D O O , I while unoLserve], tree speciuens and an ou‘door classroom or more forval instructtion. This list could eaallY DC 17 F’) expanded. Although the size of an outdoor resource serVice - .1. , '~ - J- ,, __._- '1“ . .‘ w - .H. .. . . ~ ~'— !,/'\ center could so quite Va lMplC, a ninmlul or alone Wu acres seems appronriate. :or compari o1 purpose 11 ‘~ niFCOfrODh d rCDOrt avail lo 1“ H Lai- I ‘ . ~"1 '- ;~" w°~ 'fJ 1iller James A., and Jerrv :313, U“ ml in? Sature C1 1 om.- 11 I“. N f I to cold .ater, Lich {'V‘d‘,‘ ‘VA,L‘.-L . Goldwater site comprises 110 acres in addition to the ele- mentary school site, although a city park and the county 0 i J fairrrounds are also included. An 80 acre tract adja- . . . . l. ,. . . 10 cent to tne school site in Gw1nn, nicnigan, was utilized. ’ :thletic Prefirans .L Perhans the hifijest space users of the modern school are the various facilities for inteeschool athletic pro- grams. Although most school systems provide for football, basketball, baseball, and track, some of the larger sys- tems also include swimming, tennis, solf, and so on. Al- though many of these facilities would be required in con- junction uith the required (in hichigan) physical educa- tional prowrams, some are not. A stadium for football is perhaps the most obvious extra. The provision of adequate parking facilities must also be considered in conjunction with the athletic program. Since the cost of both the additional land and the facility can be great, some consideration to the desir- ability and advisability of a varsity sports program should he given in the planning stages of a new high school. (The current trend in education is to play down the junior high school in favor of the middle school. Sports pro- grams, junior proms, and other typical high school events lBIbid., p. 11. 19University of hichigan, "School Site Planning proj- ect Seeks Full Use of Educational R sources", in LETTER TO SCHOOLS, Volume XV, Jo. 2, November, 1962, (Ann Arbor, Iichigan) p. 3. -60- are discourafied at the middle school level. Accordingly, the athletic prosrams will be discussed only at the senior high school level.) Given current attitudes and values now prevalent, it is assumed that such a consideration would produce a position in favor of an a hletic program. Especially in the case of larger school districts which have more than one h'eh school, the sharing of cer— tain facilities may be possible, so that costly duplica- i U} 0) tion of facilities may be avoided. Sharing of system of involvenen cf' also an avenue worth eXploring. The exten in the high school athletic pronram is something that should be subject to a policy decision when a new school is being contemplated. Aéain, for the sake of convenience and simplicity, the specific space needs of these programs, all of which are available elsewhere, will not be discussed here. Curricula The type of curriculum emphasized by the h'gh school and, to a more limited degree, the middle school, affects the site requirements of the school indirectly. A tech- nical or vocational preparatidn program would require different facilities than the typical college preparatory curriculum. host of these differences would be in the provision of additional space in the form of shops and buildings housing other special equipment or facilities. This type of consideration is of more concern to the architect who would be required to translate the curricula -61- requirene‘11tt into build in33. Althouqh the curriculum would affect site size requirements, the degree or extent of the effect would best be determined by the school ar- chitect. Since schoolhouse desi3n is a field separate Pi) ror, but related to, site planning, no attempt will be made to ascertain the site effects. The assumption that the architect will act upon the educations specifica- tions presented to him will be made instead. The main exceptions to the statement that the curric- ulum affects the schoolhouse directly but the site only iLiirectly concerns two special pro3rams. Wuoc ational agricultural cours s require, quite ot viously, agricultur- al land. The laid need not be onneC by the school but could be rented, nor does the land need to be adjacent to the school. Consequently, his will not be considered as of pri e L ports nce to the question of adequate site size. he State of Kichi3an requires that all public hi3h schools provide a course in driver's education. Alt hou3h a drivin3 ra.n3e is not absolutely essential, it is desir- able. One set of educational specifications reco1ien a .C‘ L .t‘ . ' - . , . 1 1 1 _- 1 _, 2-0 m1 four acre tract ief a driVin3 range and parning. lne Detroit City Plan uon: 1iss ion leCOh IlCfldS a two and one-half acre minimum area for the driving range only. Zyw ‘ P'J. sau t ate. Iarie School Svctsu "Epecifications for Education Plaza” undated nincograpied report, Sault Ste. ‘ nar e, Lichiran. 21" n: 3.. fl P1 Yaw". fie 'tv-N ‘ A] 3'1 fV Zietroit oitf rlan bOmmlSolOD, riouuceu a ublic Education Facilities”, Detroit, Lichifian, 1963, for I n. Lil. -62- ?usin3 The effects of busing upon site location have already been discussed under the headings Enrollment, Educational Park, and Inteeration. This discussion will center around the space requirements of the bus. The snace needs of the bus may be divided into three cateéories. Loadinr and unloadin3 space, parking and storafe space, and shes space for maintenance and repair must be provided. Cnly the first of these need be on the school site. The Californie itate Department of Education recom— mends a loadin3--unloadin3 area of 15,000 square feet for busses, exclusive of parking an storage space.22 When storaqe of husses is included on the school site, approx- imately 700 to ”71 square feet per vehicle should be pro- / / 1 vieed (based upon a storaje area of 12 by >0 feet, plus Parkine The question of school related parking areas has been touched upon brief y in several of the above sections. Parkin3 needs for the school can be divided into several types, including space for faculty and staff, students, visitors, special events (such as athletic events), and community use of the school building and site. An esti- mate of the number of space required for each of these types of use should be made, and approximately 350 square California State Department of Education, ”School Site A alys‘s and Bevelepment", (Sacramento, California) 1 .rr 1900, D. 11. feet per parkiai space should be allocated. This figure or the auto as well as the access F?) v". ~ vv. 1 . ulll QFOleG space A? an example of one approach to providing parking ’“b or the school, the previously mentioned Detroit study estimated that a senior high school with an enrollment of 1:709 to 2,000 students would rGQuire, based ufiou 1.5 persoas per auto, 33 to £0 spaces for faculty and staff, . ; I r tea spaces for visitor use and exceptional demands, 200 to 230 spaces for student parkiuq and adult use during non- school hour?, and ,,000 square feet of lanu for service areas. The total are for these uses, which includes an allowance for access drives, ranges from 55,500 to , 23 97,000 square feet. ’ The size of the school buildius itself has an effect upon the site required. Although the actual size of the schoolhouse would be determined by the school architect based upon the educational specifications, the Lichigaa Department of PuUlic Instruction has kept rather detailed records of all new schoolhouse construction since 1055-55. These records can be utilized to give a rourh approxima- tion of the area per pupil provided in the new schools, as , \ well as tae treads. ’3 ‘1‘ C. ‘V‘, ' ' T“ v. . .w. ' ~ ‘ . a». 7’: “oetrOit City ylan COflmlsSlOfl, Op. Cit., pp. 11-34. .L ‘Jhetner 0: not the school is a one or multi-sto1r3 building would affect how the rough measure afforded by Eagle 10 is u3e. In any event, the table can give only a General view, through a twelve 3ear time span, of school- an. It cannot be L.) O 53' O (L) O onstruction practices iL Kichi: used as a substitute for an architect's detailed analysis. ie Department of Public Instruction also lists all the co plete school buildings built each year according to tvpe, i.e., elementary, junior high, and senior high. The 'ata is not summarized in this detail, however. c3ed unon Taele 10 and the more detailed information provided by the Department of Pu lic Inst1uction, it was decided to use 70 s uare feet per M1e1»ent ar3 pupil, 100 1 ' 1 1 square feet per junior nigi pup i1, and 150 square feet per senior high pupil as reasonable indices of current trends in schoolhouse construction. Each of these ligaces is slightly in late d in recognition of the trend, most evi- dent in uGCOl(1P’ sc :ools, towards providing more space per child. Tnnove tions There are a number of educational concepts now in the t are worthy of mention, even though ,0.) experimental stares th their unique nature lifts th 16d out of the realm of school standards. All of these innovations are intended to alle- viate the situation created by the high cost and scarcity n 0 ‘ ~ 2"!— OI land in tne central City. ‘ ”>1. L.»~ « ‘All 0 I April, 19 devoted entir- e; awnl have been e: {tracted from the of - roe1essive architecture, ahich is so chools. ole Held' 0. e. -65— TABLE 10 PER PUPIL AREA OF COMPLETE SCHOOL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED IN MICHIGAN 1955-56 THROUGH 1966-67 PER PUPIL.AREA IN SQUARE FEET Year Elementarx Secondary (7-12) ill 1955-56 60.4 113.1 81.7 1956-57 59-2 114.9 81.2 1957-58 62.4 131.8 94.2 1958-59 62.4 134.4 106.0 1959-60 63 .1 136.8 96.5 1960-61 62.3 135.7 98.2 1961—62 63 . 6 134.2 100 .2 1962-63 63.3 126.3 102.3 1963-64 61 . 6 130. 5 94-3 1964-65 64.7 118.1 95.3 1965-66 62.4 140.6 96.2 1966-67 66.0 123.0 98.0 Source: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan. -66- In Chicajo and few York CitY, school authorities are utilizing the air space above schools to provide apartment and Office facilities. The income derived thus is used for debt service on the school bonds. Plans in Taltiuore have seen fort ulated to build an educational park to house 6,000 students from the pre- kindergarten (age four) level to the grade nine level on air rights above file interstate highwar s ically, air rights amounting to 5.5 acres over the highway, 5.9 acres of adjacent land, and 10.0 acres of terraces, decking play area 3, and other space created on the struc- tural platform combine to make the equivalent of a 21.4 ‘3 " 3 York City innovation is the utilization of rooftop space for play area. E'levatin ” the school on stilts to gain a covered playground area underneath the school is a related feature ouilt into a IseJ 0:=leans school by architect Charles Colbert. A ceinoination of these two rethods could also be utilized to provide playground space. T re are t'o relevant points derivative from the above discussion. First, the attention heinfi devoted to he pr Ilene of the cc e;1tral cit:¢ sch 001 is resulting in innovations that have potential for tne alleviation of those problems. Secondly, the very uniqueness of the inno*ations precludes the development of standards. Eacn N concept rust he applied individually to the specific nqn. .Kv Soverninfi circumstances. —67— IV a . v .‘ ,1 «News -' .J w-..o..s-~... M J- r" A number of concepts and Lolicies that can afrect the school site were discussed b_ief17 in this chapter. Ianv U n J‘ ‘ .~~ - v--1 -- "\ -~~ f“ -' r" -'v‘—-. ‘ r‘ ~ '1‘ ‘. 1‘ 'L, t" 01 b.'J..)C C130 ‘4' -‘~' LOI..‘)lUJ: .LSsuGS ~..:-.LC;l CO AOL, 10110 c.104- v‘ —~ '4. L A 1 -- v a 'l' (“u‘ ’« ‘x-fl . ~- ' fl' ,- . ‘y 'L . -' A ’ -A '3- -. h ‘ . V_Cl‘f€.-u c0 ,;'.lC L Cl 041-31. €3-Cc1.::l_'lflclO.1. n €03.le CCG CLLoCUfJSlOH ’2) ’— HQ ’J. O F?) *d S.) s m L 3 s f.) “-1 ) Q; 1) < 0 Cl‘ 0) '(D ("1' O }_J (— )— .J I (D H (D u .1" a, A! .,“ ~"‘h"'fi v - ‘ ("F- ‘1." .‘ _¢' ,5 I - '_‘ ‘fi ‘. ‘ ‘ LO}: veilingfile. AJUU‘V'CL", Of HOCSD-swlbj Lilia) U-LAJC11£DCJ.LO..1 1151:: -- ‘- - ‘\~ -' -’-‘ "'4— ... . ‘ ' .1- ..v.. .1. I ‘1- - JCCI ”ego sclel. it ”as not tie lnbelb CO tnorougnlj 1e manr concepts and poliCies discussec. The in --.' A . .0 An, .0 .v. -qh 4.1 A - .i .1. . ,s' View oi Jne iaCcois tiat could alicct he sciool site. 71‘-‘-: p. y ta . nfl- I " -_f.-_'_-..> 3:51..) Jv'vl uO‘LG. _I_ A 1. . .L 1ap er its aeen LO f‘ 1 . 3e scqool is ‘ w r'- 1 '9 Vs y“ 1 . "3 r'~ ‘ ‘ 1“ . ‘~ I.“ ‘L I“ to s- usec LO a speCific purpose or purpos s, it must he .. - - or . J- J- ‘ J4 - - 1 “a a Q ~ ‘-‘ g . ~ - . r I ' planned Ulcfl that ourpose or purposes n wind. ; L’nw- fine F n -it°“°tel t're “4 9s—°‘ th“ ueh Ht Eh.“ Luz]. '.O _-..~.(.o.-_) 488... 1‘0“ 9‘ (ALI L. bln.b a-;U. “bald “l OL.;.)-tOc.b lo 3 - *‘u 7“: '~ ' '7 ‘ 'v "v. 4" m \ T11 r3 -: 'L . (q \. 7- . rfi cnaetei. aeduneancd notwitnstalclnp, "b is an OCVious and important principle that is Often ignored by citizens and school officia s alike. CHAPTER FIVE A PROPOSED GUIDELINE FOR USE IN DETERMINING SCHOOL SITE SIZES The following guideline has been develOped in an attempt to help the school planner make reasonable esti- mates of the site size needed for schools in suburban locations. Use of the guideline helps the school planner be eXplicit about the educational philOSOphy and policies envisioned for the school. The guideline serves as a tool to help translate these philosophies and policies into site requirements. Nine factors are utilized in the guideline. Empiri- cal evidence has been used to make the use of these as realistic as possible. However, reliable data simply do not exist from some factors, while Michigan data were relied upon for some others, simply as a matter of conven- ience. The utility of the guideline derives from two sources: the accuracy of the standards use, e. g., the recreational area per pupil; and the fact that the school planner is forced to be eXplicit about the school program. It seems quite likely and desirable that use of the guideline could lead to future improvements to both. In the first in- stance, empirical data could be used to help strengthen the space standards. In the latter, additional factors may be added to the original nine. -68- -70- Tennis, one court (60' x 120') Swimming-Outdoors Layout Factor-Percent Enrollment Elementary Junior High Tb 300 15 25 300-—6OO 10 2O 600-l,200 10 20 l,200—-2,000 2O 2, 000 and over '7, 200 25,000 Senior High 25 20 2O 15 10 Recreational Area Athletics Area Subtotal X's Factor a Driver Education Range (2.5 acres) 113,600 Park Neighborhood (3 acre minimum) Community (20 acre minimum) Outdoor Resource Service (40 acre minimum) Total Acreage Required Building and Grounds Recreational Areas Athletic Programs Layout Factor Driver Educ . Range Parking Park Outdoor Resource Total Square Feet Acres -71- A brief discussion of the nine factors selected for use in the guideline follows. Enrollment and Class Size The ultimate enrollment and class size, according to the grade level, are the first data to be supplied on the form. The number of pupils by grade level is probably the main determinant of the required site size. If the school is to be built in stages, it is important that the ulti- mate enrollment be used so that sufficient site will be acquired initially. Hepefully, the school system will have set an optimum enrollment and class size by type of school as a matter of official policy. For the present purpose, however, the main point is that a reasonably accurate estimate of the ultimate enrollment be given, whether or not this is the Optimum enrollment according to official policy. A number of subsequent steps in the guideline are dependent upon accurate enrollment figures. The class size is used primarily to determine the size of the staff upon which to base parking needs. Building and Grounds The building size is dependent upon the number of pupils and the type of educational program. It may also be tempered by unique and unpredictable site factors, such as drainage and topography. While the standards used in the guideline cannot be substituted for specific information from the school architect, they can be used to give a general idea of building size which would be useful for -72- long range planning where specific details from an archi- tect are necessarily lacking. The figures also assume a one story building, so would have to be adjusted to re- flect any change in this state. When more specific in- formation is available, the suggested standards should be ignored. Lacking detailed information, however, the standards should provide a reasonable basis for estimating the size of schools based upon Michigan eXperience.25 To estimate the total requirement for building and grounds, a 2:1 ratio is suggested. This provides the additional space necessary for courtyards, lawn areas, walkways, and the like.26 Recreational Areas The area in square feet required for each 100 pupils, according to grade level, is utilized to estimate the total outdoor recreational area needed for the school. These standards are derived primarily from studies by the Cali- 27 28 fornia State Department of Education, and the American Association of School Administrators. Because of the differences in requirements due to size (age), the enroll- ment must be broken down to fit the format shown, even 25Michigan Department of Public Instruction, unpub- lished annual statements, Lansing, Michigan. 26 California State Department of Education, p. 10. 27California State Department of Education, pp. 16-20. 28American Association of School Administrators, PLANNING AMERICA'S SCHOOL BUILDINGS, (Washington, D. C., 1960) pp. 142-144. -73- though the organizational format selected for the school may differ. The area for the kindergarten is based upon a 50 pupil class. It could accommodate two classes of this size if half day sessions are utilized. This factor should be borne in mind when using the guideline to help prevent overestimating space needs. The space for recreational areas has been based upon outdoor recreation. Unless unusual circumstances such as a severe climate prevail, the provision of outdoor recrea- tional facilities allows more space at a lower cost. How- ever, more intensive activities could be accommodated with- in the school plant itself. From an economic viewpoint, great additional building expenses would be incurred by providing that all recreation take place within the build- ing. For this reason and others, the guideline assumes that outdoor facilities will be utilized. Athletic Programs Standard areas for various sport activities have been utilized to estimate the required space needs. Football, track and field events have been combined since this is customarily done. In addition, the area for a football practice field has been included as a desirable feature to help preserve the game field. The dimensions for the prac- tice field are smaller because no provision for spectators need be made. Baseball, tennis, and swimming are the only other activities included. The dimensions for these areas were extracted from one of the standard textbooks on -74- 29 community recreation. Golf was omitted because it is a great space user and because of the general availability of golf courses, which eliminates the need for the school to provide one. Other sports, such as soccer, archery, and field hockey, have been omitted due to their lack of pOpularity in the United States. To reiterate an earlier point, space for athletic events need not be provided on the school site proper. If economies can be obtained by using existing facilities elsewhere or by acquiring land elsewhere, there are no compelling reasons why this should not be done. Layout Factor The dimensions listed under recreational areas and athletic programs only provide for the specific activity under consideration. Extra space is needed to provide a buffer between the various activity areas and to allow the various components to be fitted together in a logical manner. For example, space needs based upon safety may require that a buffer be provided between a field area for playing softball and an area containing gym apparatus. Since the specific activity areas mentioned do not provide extra space for a buffer, the extra layout factor is re- quired. To accomplish the site layout, the guideline ZgMeyer, Harold D., and Charles K. Brighbill, COMMUNITY RECREATION: A GUIDE TO ITS ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION, (D. C. Health and Company, Boston, 1948) pp 0 l+l+8'l+49 o -75.. -utilizes a layout percentage factor. A percentage of the site area devoted to recreation areas and athletic pro- grams is used to provide the space needed for proper site layout. Depending upon enrollment, the suggested factor varies according to the following table. Layout Factor Enrollment Elementary Junior High Senior High to 500 15 25 25 500--600 10 20 20 600-—1,200 10 20 20 1,200--2,000 20 15 2,000 and over 10 Source: California State Department of Education, "School Site Analysis and Development", (Sacramento, California. 1966) pp. 16—20. Driver Education Range If a driver education range is desired, a minimum area of 113,600 square feet (2.5 acres) should be provided.30 The State of Michigan requires that all public high schools provide driver's training, although a special range is not absolutely necessary. Parking The space needs for parking can be obtained by multi- plying the total number of parking spaces needed by 500 square feet, a figure that includes a factor for access drives. Estimating the number of parking spaces needed is a bit more difficult. 30Detroit City Plan Commission, "PrOposed Standards for Public Educational Facilities", mimeographed report, (Detroit, Michigan, 1960) p. 51. ~76- The faculty and staff parking needs can be estimated by assuming that normal occupancy is 1.5 persons per auto. The national average is 1.5 persons per vehicle, but it varies from 1.2 persons per auto for a work trip to 2.0 persons per auto for a social-recreational trip.31 The 1.5 figure should be regarded as minimal. Parking for faculty can be estimated by dividing the enrollment by the average class size, while parking for visitors and excess demand can be estimated at approximately 20 percent of the faculty-staff spaces. Parking for events to be held in the auditorium or stadium can be estimated by providing one parking space for each four seats in the auditorium or stadium, which- ever is greater. If these facilities are separated by a great distance, parking for both should be provided. This figure is based upon the aforementioned Detroit study,32 plus a conversation with Dr. Lloyd Fales of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction. The space requirements for bus loading and unloading and the services area are 15,000 and 7,000 square feet, respectively, as discussed in the previous chapter. 31Detroit City Plan Commission, "Proposed Standards for Public Educational Facilities", mimeographed report, (Detroit, Michigan, 1960) p. 51. Goodman, William L., and Eric C. Freund, editors, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF URBAN PLANNING, International City Managers' Association, (Chicago, Illinois, 1968) p. 152. -77- Adult parking, based upon use of the library, adult education classes, use of the building for meetings, and the like could be accommodated in the space provided for special events and/or faculty-staff parking, assuming that adult use takes place during non-school hours. Parking for students could be accommodated in the area provided for special event parking. If this type of parking is not provided for, additional space for student parking would be required. A ratio of one space per 20 students is suggested, if local knowledge concerning the number of students with cars is lacking. Park Area A minimum site of three acres is suggested for the park portion of a neighborhood school-park facility, based, upon a pOpulation of 2,500.33 A playfield designed to serve a pOpulation of 15,000 to 20,000 should have a mini- mum area of 15 acres}!Jr Both of these figures have been reduced slightly in recognition of the trade-off benefits accrued because of the adjacent school site. Outdoor Resources Service If outdoor resource is to be provided, a minimum site area of 40 acres is recommended, as discussed in the pre- vious chapter. Use of the Guideline To demonstrate the use of the guideline, several 33Detroit City Plan Commission, Appendix. 3“Meyer and Brightbill, p. A54. -73- theoretical examples will be used, one each for the ele- mentary, junior high, and senior high levels. The theoretical elementary school will have a total enrollment of 550 pupils, with 50 in a single kindergarten class and two sections each of grades 1-6 with an average class size of 25, or 150 each in grades 1-5 and 4-6. No provision for a combination school-park or outdoor re- source is intended, since these are not commonly provided. The building size is obtained by multiplying 350 by 70 square feet, the per pupil building size for elemen— tary levels. This figure is then doubled to determine the space needed for the building and grounds. This equals 49,000 square feet. The recreational areas can be estimated by multiply- ing the enrollment in grades 1-5 and 4-5 by the respective factors and adding these totals to the required kinder- garten space. This amounts to 188,850 square feet. The layout factor, which is ten percent in this in- stance, is then applied to the recreational area, adding an additional 18,850 square feet. The sections dealing with athletic programs and the driver education range do not apply to the elementary school, so these can be ignored. The parking is estimated by first determining the number of teachers and staff. Two kindergarten teachers, 12 elementary level teachers, one principal, and one custodian equal to a total of 16. Utilizing the 1.5 -79- persons per car ratio, the number of parking spaces needed for the faculty and staff comes to 11. Two additional spaces (20 percent of the faculty and staff) for visitors brings the total to 15. Applying the 500 square feet of parking space standard, it can be determined that 5,900 square feet of parking space are needed. To this figure must be added the 15,000 square feet for bus loading and unloading and the 7,000 square foot service area, making a total of 25,900 square feet. Since the school in the theoretical example will not utilize an area for outdoor resource nor for a park, these two factors will be ignored. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Factor Area in Square Feet Building and Grounds 49,000 Recreational Areas Kindergarten 7,000 1-5 69,000 4-6 112 00 188,500 Athletic Programs N. A. Layout Factor (10%) 18,850 Driver Education Range N. A. Parking, Bus, and Service Area 25,900 Park N. A. Outdoor Resource Service N. A. Total Area Needed 282,250 or 6.5 acres The junior high school will have an ultimate enroll- ment of 800 students in grades seven to nine, with an av- erage class size of 28. No facilities for athletic events will be provided, nor will park, outdoor resource, and -30- driver education areas be utilized. The following table summarizes the space needs for this school. Junior High School Factor Area in Square Feet Buildings and Grounds 160,000 Recreational Areas 608,000 Athletic Programs N. A. Layout Factor (20% 121,600 Driver Education Range N. A. Parking, Bus, and Service Area 50,400 Park N. A. Outdoor Resource Service N. A. Total Area Needed 920,000 or 21.1 acres The senior high school has an ultimate enrollment of 1,400 students with an average class size of 50. A full athletic program is planned, including a 1,500 seat sta- dium for football and track/field events, a practice field, and a baseball field. A driver education range will also be provided. No provision will be made for a park or out- door resource service. The space needs for this school are summarized below. Senior High School Factor Area in Square Feet Buildings and Grounds 410,000 Recreational Areas 651,000 Athletic Programs 248,900 Layout Factor (15%) 154,985 Driver Education Range 115,600 Parking, Bus and Service Area 59,700 Park N. A. Outdoor Resource Service N. A. -81- Total Area Needed 1,744,685 or 40.0 acres Comparison With Other Standards One method available to test the reasonableness of the site sizes derived from the guideline is to compare its results to other standards. Since the most widely accepted standards are those of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, they will be used for compara- tive purposes. Comparative Site Standards, in Acres Grade Level NCOSC Guideline Elementary (550 pupils) 14 6.5 Junior High (800 pupils) 28 21.1 Senior High (1,400 pupils) 44 40.0 As the above table illustrates, the guideline pro- duces consistently smaller site sizes than the recommended NCOSC standards. This disparity is especially noticeable at the elementary level. Assuming that the guideline is reasonable, are there valid reasons why the NCOSC standards should be excessive? Several possible reasons or pressures for excessive stand- ards are listed below: 1. Past eXperience with extremely small sites, many of which are in use today, created an over-reac- tion in favor of larger sites. 2. Similarly, past eXperience with numerous additions to existing school plants has produced pressures to acquire a site large enough to provide for all -82- possible contingencies. 5. Uncertainty about the future role of the school—- enrollment, type of program offered, changing educational concepts, etc.--has made the "better too much than not enough" philosophy easy to accept. 4. Site needs have rarely been broken down into components and critically analysed to ascertain real needs. 5. The psychology of having high standards for com- parison purposes may be additional reason. There is no effective way to quickly test the authen- ticity of these points. However, they do appear to be logical arguments and therefore, acceptable. CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was premised on the notion that school site standards could be improved if they were made both more flexible and more eXplicit. Based upon this notion, a rather detailed study of current school site standards and practices was made. This was followed by an examination of some educational concepts and policies thought to affect the school site. The study culminated in the development of a procedural guideline to help in the determination of school site sizes. The examination of school site size standards accord- ing to school facility planning literature, urban planning literature, and master plan reports revealed four distinct approaches: 1. A flat acreage requirement based upon the grades to be served. 2. A ratio between school site size and the ultimate enrollment. 5. A combination of the first two methods utilizing a minimum site size and enlarging this by applying a ratio between site size and enrollment. 4. A flat acreage requirement based upon a more eXplicit statement of the facilities to be provided. The National Council on Schoolhouse Construction espouses the third approach summarized above, and, due largely to their influence, this is the most widely quoted method. -83- -84- The study of school site practices as evidenced by national data showed that the size of all public school sites in use in 1951 and 1962 fell substantially short of the standards. However, the 1962 situation was noticeably improved over the earlier period. Iichigan data on new public schools built between 1957-58 and 1966—67 indicated that, for the most part, new schools were built on sites which met or exceeded most standards. Because these data dealt only with new schools built in recent years, it was impossible to compare Michi- gan practices with national ones. A number of reasons were advanced to help explain the increase in school site sizes: the postwar baby boom; growth in the suburbs where land was at the same time less eXpensive and more available; the relatively good economic conditions; a change in educational philOSOphy towards a broader role for the school; school reorganization; and, finally, increased recognition of the school standards. A brief examination of a number of educational poli- cies and conceptswas made to assess the effect of each upon the school site needs. Factors studied included ultimate enrollment and class size, building size, use of the site for outdoor resource service, athletic programs, recreational areas, community use of the school, busing, and parking. Several recent innovations such as the educational park and the use of air rights were also -85— A final phase of this study was the develOpment of a guideline for use in the determination of school site sizes. The guideline focuses upon nine factors basic to the school site; enrollment and class size, building and grounds, recreational areas, athletic programs, the addi- tional space needed to logically arrange the components on the site, driver training, parks, and outdoor resource service. The guideline shares two basic shortcomings with the other standards. Basic research upon which to base the standards is lacking. This is especially true in the case of recreational area. Unfortunately, it appears that many of the existing standards must take part of the blame for this lack, since they have been widely advertised and accepted as authoritative statements of what the school site should be. Hence, the need for such research was not made clear. Secondly, the guideline cannot be applied to the special needs of the school in a highly urbanized locale without reducing the standards. Patently, a minimum stand- ard that can be reduced is not a minimum standard. This further points out the need for basic research dealing with minimal requirements. Finally, as with the other standards the guideline provides little assistance to the educator contemplating the utilization of one of the innovative approaches, such as the use of air rights. It is difficult, if not -86- impossible, to encompass the unique within the framework of general standards. Use of the guideline offers several potential advan- tages. l. The guideline requires some rather basic policy questions be answered before it can be effectively utilized, thereby helping to formulate an explicit statement of the school's educational philos0phy. 2. The school planner using the guideline can be more flexible in the application of the standards, since the guideline reduces the site to basic components. If no facilities for drivers education are required, for example, the site size can reflect this. 5. The guideline can be self-corrective. If the school administrator sees that the guideline provides too much or not enough land for a specific purpose, a correction can be made so similar errors can be avoided in the future. Additionally, the guideline could be improved by adding to the original factors, based upon experience gained from using the standard. By examining in some detail a rather specific phase of educational facility planning, it is hOped that this study will offer insights to both urban planners and -87- educational facility planners. The prOper delineation of school site area needs is a prerequisite to the reserva- tion of adequate school sites to serve the community. This study can be used to improve one important input to school and urban planning. Use of the recommended guideline should suggest improvements to it. The guideline should not be regarded as a "finished" product. Only through use can it be re- fined and made more useful. IO. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Association of SChOOl Administrators, Plan- ing America's School Buildings, Washington, D. 5.: 1960. American Public Health Association, Committee on the Hygiene of Housing, Planning The Neighborhood, Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1960. Caudill, William W., Toward Better School Design, New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1954. Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr., Land Use Planning, Urbana, Illinois: University of IIIinois Press, Second Edition, 1965. Engelhardt, N. L., Engelhardt, N. L. Jr., Legget, 8., School Planning and Building Handbook, New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1956. Leu, Donald J., Planning Educational Facilities, New York: The Library of Education, 1965. McLean, Mary, editor, Local Plannigg Administration, Chicago: International City Manager's Association, Third Edition, 1959. National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Guide for Planning School Plants, East Lansing, Michigan, 1964. National Facilities Conference, 5 Guide for Planning Facilities for Athletics, Recreation, Physical, an Health Education, AmericanIAssociation for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, National Education Association. Perkins, Lawrence B., and Cooking, Walter D., Schools, New York: Reinhold Publishing Company, Third Print- ins, 1957. Sumption, Merle R., and Landes, Jack L., Planning Functional School Buildings, New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1957. Bulletins, Pamphlets, and Unpublished Material "A Checklist On Better Uses for School Sites", Ann -88- -89- Arbor, Michigan: Bureau of School Services, the University of Michigan, 1967. 15. A Guide for Planning Secondary Schools, Fox, Donald R., Ann Arbor, Michigan: Bureau of School Services, the University of Michigan, 1965. 14. "A Park-School Contract", Barr, Charles W. East Lans- ing, Michigan: School of Urban Planning and Land— scape Architecture, Michigan State University, un- dated. 15. "A Study of Long-Range School Plant Requirements, 1965", Jackson, Michigan: Union School District, mimeograph report. 16. "Basic Planning Document Elementary Schools", Sacra- mento, California: California State Department of Education, undated. 17. "Basic Policies for the Comprehensive Plan of Chicago", Chicago, Illinois: Department of City Planning, 1964. 18. "Beauty and Beautification in School Buildings", Guffey, Lester, Ann Arbor, iichigan: class paper for Administration of the School Plant, University of Michigan, 1967. ' 19. California School Buildings, 1960-1965, Sacramento, California: California State Department of Education, 1966. 20. "Community Facilities Plan", Beloit, Wisconsin: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., memorandum report #7. 21. "Comparing Costs-Caution", Lansing, Michigan: Michi- gan Department of Public Instruction, 1967. 22. "Complete New School Buildings Approved for Construc- tion", Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1957-58, 1959-60 through 1966-67. 25. "Educational Jargon", Miller, Milton, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids Board of Education, undated. 24. "Educational Parks-The National Scene", Leu, Donald J., East Lansing, Michigan: College of Education, Michigan State University, undated. 25. "Educational Specifications and Design Manual for Ridgemoor Elementary School and Ridgemoor Middle School", Miller, Milton, J., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids Board of Education, 1967. 26. 27. 29. 50. 31. -90- Exploring Nature's Classroom, Miller, James A., and and Fair, Jerry, Goldwater, Michigan: Fair Associ- ates, undated. "High School Status Report-July, 1967”, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1967. "Ideas from A-Z for Improved Utilization of the School Site for Instructional Purposes", Conklin, Phillip D., Ann Arbor Michigan: Class paper, Ad- ministration of School Plant, College of Education, University of Michigan, 1967. "Master Plan of Schools", Norwalk, Connecticut: Norwalk Planning Commission, 1960. "Master Plan; Schools, Parks, Recreation", Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 1956. "Pasco School District Study, A Plan for Growth", Pasco, Washington: Franklin County Regional Planning Commission, a mimeograph report, 1965. Planning Outline for Secondary Schools, Lansing, Michigan: Warren Holmes Company, undated. Planning Together for Better Schools, Lansing, Michi- gan: Michigan Department of Public Schools, Bulletin #412, 1965. "Proposed Policies and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools", North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Chicago, Illinois, 1967. "PrOposed Standards for Public Educational Facili- ties", Detroit City Plan Commission, Detroit, Michi- gan, April, 1960. "Policies and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools", North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Chicago, Illinois, 1967. "Public Schools in the Kingport Area", Upper East Tennessee Office, Tennessee State Planning Commis- sion, June, 1956. "Report of the School Plant Planning Committee", Union School District, Jackson, Michigan, 1955. "Schools-An Inventory", Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan, April, 1965. 40. 41. 42. 1+4. 47. [+80 49 . 50. 51. 52. 53. -91- "Schools for 1980", MetrOpolitan Planning Commission, Nashville and Davidson Counties, Tennessee, mimeo- graphed report, 1964. "School-Park Plans", Toledo-Lucas County Planning Commissions, 1960. "School Park Study", East Lansing Planning Commission, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. "School Plan, Flowing Wells District 8", City-County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, mimeographed report, 1964. "School Plan for East Providence", Department of Planning, East Providence, Rhode Island, mimeographed report, 1965. School Site Analysis and DeveIOpment, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, Califor- nia, 1966. "School Site Deve10pment Bibliography", Ray Kesler, College of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. "School Site Selection", Kenneth Johnson, Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, undated. School Site Selection, Planning Advisory Service #175, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Illinois (August, 1965). "School Standards", Detroit Board of Education, Detroit, Iichigan, (1966) pp. 55—56. Shelter for Physical Education, Architectural Re- search Group, The, A. and M. College of Texas, 1961. (Supported by a grant from the Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.) "Specifications for Education Plaza, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, undated. "Standards for New Urban Development", Inter-County Regional Planning Commission, Denver, Colorado, mimeographed report, 1960. "Standards for School Planning", Pulaski County, Arkansas: MetrOpolitan Area Planning Commission, 1957. -92- 5A. The Middle School, Mills, George E., Michigan Asso- ciation of SChool Boards, undated. 55. "The Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital", National Capital Planning Commission, 1967. 56. "The School Site, Asphalt-Jungle or Open-Space", Philipson, Richard L., Ann Arbor, Michigan: Class paper for Administration of the School Plant, College of Education, the University of Michigan, 1967. 57. "The San Diego General Plan Study", San Diego, California: San Diego Planning Department, 1961. 58. "Towards Adequate Educational and Socio-Cultural Data for Continuous Educational Planning in Large School Districts", Chicago: paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, February, 1968. 59. "Trends in Cost and Design of School Buildings", Tuth, C. Robert, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids Board of Education, undated. Magazines and Newspapers 60. A Divisible Auditorium, Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1964. 61. "Chronology of a Conservation Laboratory", Letter £2 icgggls from the University 9; Michigan, (NovemEer, 9‘ 13-4. 62. Ferendino, A. J., "High Honors for the Educational Park", American Institute 2: Architects Journal, (December, 1967) reprint. 65. Aiddle Schools, Educational Facilities Laboratory, T965. 64. "Milwaukee: How Public Parks Boost Values of Neigh- borhood", Milwaukee Sentinel, (September 21, 1967) p. l. ff. 65. "Nature to Teach in Unique School at Goldwater", Toledo, Ohio, Blade (date unknown). 66. Progressive Architecture (April, 1968) entire issue is devoted to schools. 690 70. -93- School Construction Systems DeveIOpment, £2 Interim Report, Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1964. "School Site Planning Project Seeks Full Use of Educational Resources", Letter 39 Schools from the Ugiversity 23 Michigan, (November, 1962) p. 5. Wilson, Russell E., "What Happens to Land, Happens to People", Letter to Schools from the University 2: Michigan, (January,—I965) p. 1. Wilson, Russell E., and June 3. Brown, "The Green Island Vision of School Site DeveIOpment", Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, (Spring, 1965) pp. 4- l2. ”'1 11111111 (111111 1111111111“