Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Jim Martin Elementary -- The Green School
I invite your responses to the Jim Martin Elementary Visit with a posting of your thoughts, observations and reflections on that visit. I will respond to your responses and invite one other person to respond. Postings should exceed four linear inches and should reflect some original and thoughtful thing that you learned from this experience. dh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Marin Elementary school was great. They made the school “green”, but I really do not know if it is worth it. The cost is higher and what does the district really get out of it? Do they save money? I know he talked about using concrete parking lots vs. asphalt. It does absorb less heat, but I would use it because of the fact that long term it will last better. I know they used a light fixture that uses less energy and that is good but I really would not call that “green”. I know that this post may not be the most politically correct, but in the hard budget times we are in I think that districts should be looking at the bottom line instead of making public think they are saving the environment.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I don't know what a politically correct posting would look like. But I can only address the issue of green vs. non-green historically. The oil shortage of the 1970's led to more energy efficient construction...smaller and fewer windows, tighter seals using chemically based products, zoning of HVAC systems, automated and decentralized HVAC control limiting HVAC to certain times of the day and weeks of the year.
ReplyDeleteThe unanticipated consequence of this approach was not discovered until a series of lawsuits related to "sick building syndrome" occurred beginning in California during the 1990's. It was noted that these buildings while highly efficient were also generating higher levels of air pollution than outside polutants. High levels of moisture remained in tightly sealed, dark buildings leading also to high levels of mildew as well.
Part of the green concept was to keep the building tight, but to use materials that do not release polluting chemicals into the air. The architect for Jim Martin Elementary carefully matched green materials against non-green and did cost comparisons. The board went with those materials that were both cost-effective and green. That was what most impressed me about his work. The lighting was balanced so that every desk had some view of a window. The amount of window space was balanced with energy needs. While the building was not 100 per cent compliant with green recommendations, those aspects that showed cost neutral comparisons or cost saving comparisons went into the building. The trade-off studies were quite impressive.
What I agree with Jeff about is whether the differences we see have yet generated the green outcomes that are claimed. The green aspect is more localized than global. I dont think there are any pretensions of influencing global warming which in itself is still a controversial concept. The greenness has to do with human health, human comfort, and responsibility to the community.
The school is very impressive and much like Lopez and East Central High, a high level of attention to detail is given to fit student and staff needs. While all of the attention to cost efficiency in the building, I thought it was quite interesting that the component of the water tanks which probably could have been aesthetically covered with some fencing or shrubbery was left off when water is getting to be one of your higher costs. Once again as personal opinions enter, buildings can change quite a bit. The renovation to our building at Devine was also built with consideration for energy savings and after the renovation was retrofitted with the energy efficient lighting like the Martin school had. It has been hard to measure the savings with the cost of energy and utilities skyrocketing in the last two years. We have combined summer school to one campus the past two summers to help with utility bills. With the continuing talk of the cost of energy rising, I believe schools will face some budget challenges to maintain and control costs and find new ways to conserve energy for their buildings.
ReplyDeleteA follow up to both of your thoughtful reflections...the green notion of reducing petroleum and chemical based materials in construction had as much to do with releasing chemicals or pollutants into the interior spaces while energy efficient measures to make the building tight caused levels of interior air pollution, making interior air far more dangerous than outside emissions or other pollutants. Not sure I said it that way above.
ReplyDeleteTo say the least, a great deal more thought is going into buildings now. The gardens are standard in Northside ISD. The more the school integrates greenness (not sure that's a word)into the curriculum, the more points the campus is awarded on the green scale. I was amused that one Northside principal on an entireley diffent campus visit pointed out to me that the tomatoes don't start coming in until June and July, so they certainly have a different perspective than the students on just how great a thing the gardens are.
This was a beautiful campus and well laid out. Mr. Martin and the architects apparently did a lot of work to have this school meet the requirements necessary for a school to be called "Green". But after spending the morning in the library, I just wonder if spending money to ensure the greenness (using Herrington's new word) was worth it. I just tried to imagine students filling up the library, seems like a lot of empty space. And the height of the ceiling in the library actually seems to be way to high which to me would mean that the energy costs would be higher in order to heat and/or cool a room like that. Perhaps "green" is the new buzz word in building construction now, but I'm not sure just like everything else how long it will last. I think schools could be more "green" if we did more things like recycling and less waste of food.
ReplyDelete"Green" has become code for environmental issues, so the green school initiative is somewhat misunderstood. Finding alternatives to petroleum based products, finding recycled materials, finding materials that do not emit gases and chemical fumes into the air (synthetic carpeting, vinyl floors, oil-based paints, vinyl wall covering,pressed wood furniture) all produce toxic fumes that cannot escape air tight facilities. To find cost effective alternatives has been a socially responsible approach, especially when comparative cost analysis is done. When school districts model responsible choices in this regard and the product, schools like Jim Martin Elementary, can be used as a teaching model to explain social responsibility, demonstrate scientific principles, show mathematical comparisons of costs of comparative materials (the architect remains in close contact with the students, explaining and demonstrating the engineering and design principles).
ReplyDeleteI suppose Teresa's observation about the open space (wasted space is what they used to call it), the argument might be valid. Was there a green principle involved in having such a high ceiling in the library? That one was lost on me as well. That was a question we should have asked. dh
I have had more time to reflect on the Jim Martin School and will try to do a better job explaining the green concept as it seems to have been only partially understood. It is not tree hugging as Jim Martin pointed out. It is more responsible approach to building design and construction. As Scott pointed out, these conventions are also finding their way into the retrofitted schools smaller districts such as in Devine. The best example we had this year of building design closely matching educational need of diverse students at the secondary levels were Jose Lopez Middle School and East Central High School. Here are some restated principles connected with the debate we are having about the appropriateness of greenness is schools...
ReplyDeleteThe final site visit for the TAMUSA Taveling Seminar was well planned and well executed as a learning experience. Thank you Tracie Camp for setting that up for us. I resume and addend this posting with a retrospective on facility planning that came through as we toured the Jim Martin Campus and listened to the different perspectives of professional facility planner, architect, and the principal who opened the campus. Certainly we saw once again the importance of relationships among professionals in designing, building, and opening a campus. What was striking about this campus was the return to 1970's focus on energy efficiency without all the negatives that often are seen in buildings from that era. We saw fuel prices double and triple in a matter of one year during that time and building design took on the urgency of saving money on energy. We built facilities that were air tight, with smaller windows, insulating materials made from chemical sources not previously used, pre-stressed concrete, and centralized, automated HVAC (Heat, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) all were used to reduce the energy by a school facility.
By the 1980's we were beginning to notice the adverse effects of these energy efficiency measures. The airtight facilities would not permit air exchange between inside and outside air. The first law suits for "sick building syndrome" started in California and went nationwide by 1995-2000. Darkened facilities with little ventilation and automated controls that shut things off on weekends and shortly after the end of a school day, or even for greater periods of time during holiday and summer breaks provided ideal growing conditions for mildew in unseen places. Mechanical Engineers and environmental experts were measuring signficantly poorer air quality levels inside school buildings than outside in the open air.
Ten years after the initial discovery of the sick building effect, it is exciting to realize more thoughtful building design such as we were so privileged to see at Jim Martin Elementary. The criteria for building materials was that they produce as little toxic or extraneous chemicals into the air. For example concrete now replaces carpeting. Tiles were made of recycled non-petroleum based materials. Paints and other surface materials were selected in the same way. So now it is possible to reduce outside/inside air exchange without significantly adding to the interior air polution. This is such a thoughtful, mindful selection process. The challenge was getting school board members to sign off on the materials. The key was providing meaningful cost comparisons to show how more eco-friendly (ecology in this case referring to interior air quality rather than the more global concept of ecology) materials compared to other materials.
Visiting Martin Elementary was a great experience. It was interesting to hear of the different ways recycled materials were used throughout the school.
ReplyDeleteOften the cost of building a green school is higher than the more traditional school building. However, where savings was possibly lost in the construction, the district will recoup the money in savings over the life of the building in utility costs.
It will be interesting to see the number of green schools that are constructed in the next few years. There are several communities throughout the country that have incorporated the concept of going green. While visiting Boston recently, the idea of "going green" is integrated within their community. Most public restrooms have toilets that flush 2 ways and there are recycling cans on every corner (I had a hard time finding a "regular" trash can!) They have integrated "green" in their community and culture. It remains to be seen if this becomes a normal part of the San Antonio community or if it is a "passing phase". Exposing students to the green concepts may facilitate it becoming a part of our local community for a longer period of time.
Although the true impact on the enviroment may be limited, the fact that these schools are constructed with healthier materials for those who occupy them would warrant districts to reconsider the materials used in constructing buildings in the future.
I just wonder how the "green" products will hold up to use. Just look at what happened to car paints in the early 80s when they had to remove lead from the paint. I do not think there is a GM truck still around from them with blue or grey paint on them.
ReplyDeleteI love it! That is the nature of public policy. It's great to challenge assumptions. Sometimes we build fads into buildings that we must live with for 50 years +. That would be a great follow up in a few years to see what happens with those materials Jeff. btw...there is a significant branch of school administration that focuses on school facilities and construction management. After some time as a school administrator, you might look at that as a career direction, much as Jim Martin did. dh
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post Debbie. I thought you might comment on the Northside specs regarding location of counseling offices, arrangement of the principal's office relative to conference room, the space in the mailbox room. Do these kinds of things make a difference?
ReplyDeleteI did like the design of the office space. The open reception area at Lopez has always been an issue. During passing time, it is virtually impossible to answer the phones. I liked the enclosed area at Martin that was still conducive to monitoring the entrance and hallway but is contained. The layout of the administrative office area is very "user friendly".
ReplyDeleteSo while we were able to visit three newer facilities, this one was different not only because it is a "green" school, but because the facility looked more traditional in it's design. What I mean by that statement, is that whereas Lopez MS and East Central HS show many newer construction ideas, exposed cabling, air ducts, oilseed concrete floors, specialized "brick" for sound insulation, Martin looks like the more traditional buildings, with hidden support features. Of course what is really intriguing about Martin Elementary, are all the recycled materials used, both indoors (bottle glass on the walls) and outdoors (playground fibers).
ReplyDeleteI am particularly impressed with the way NISD standardizes it's operations. The documents brought to our class were impressive and very informative. Thank you, Tracie, Evelyn Covarrubias, and Jim Martin! Mr. Martin's historical perspective and details for this campus are one of a kind. When a district can be as methodical as NISD, it can also be efficient and effective. So while the expenses of this green school may have cost more upfront, there's no doubt much calculation and consideration for the long term life of this building were given. So, ideally the savings will be there over the long haul, but how many years will it take to prove it's worth and durability?
I really like the "green" concept primarily for the planning that must go into building a green school. All the details that are involved from the floor tile to the paint to the furniture that will be placed in the building are included in the plan to build a green school. At Martin Elementary School, all these green concepts, except for the shower, were planned. I am amazed at the amount of detail it takes to accomplish this. Even more amazing was the amount of organization in the district. Having notebooks of all the needs to be done and giving principals a noted book outlining what they need to do was truly impressive. It was eye opening for me working in a small organization that continues to grow. I was compelled to share the need for this level of structure with our superintendent. We are in a organization that is growing and wants to replicate the successes that we have enjoyed but was must have our outlines to success clearly documented so we will know exactly what we are to replicate.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a green school is a responsible approach to building design and construction and is such a thoughtful and mindful selection process. The criteria for building materials were that they produce as little toxic or extraneous chemicals into the air. That is why they no longer have carpet. Tiles were made of recycled non-petroleum based materials. Paints and other surface materials were selected in the same way. The planning for a green school is so much more time consuming than planning a “traditional” school. The materials are also more costly than your “traditional” school building, but in the long run the school district is expecting to get it back in energy savings. My only concern is that this really is the first green school so who really knows how great the savings really are. I know that building a green school isn’t all about energy savings and that it is about not releasing chemicals or pollutants into the interior spaces. I believe that there will be many more green schools going up all over our nation just simply due to the fact people can say it is a “green” school. Along with anything new, it takes trial and error to perfect it. So, I do believe that the “green” school concept is great but I also think that it will take a while before it is the perfect new concept for a school building.
ReplyDeleteThis school was stunning. I clearly remember when a school this size would have been a middle school! There were so many 'green' features, that I would find it difficult to recall all of them. Everything from light bulbs to floor tiles fit the bill. I do understand what several of the previous posters mentioned about whether or not this was a cost-effective build, but to that I say, it is the wave of the future. We can't continue to ignore that resources are becoming scarce and many are nonrenewable, therefore any new building technology must be considered for current construction.
ReplyDelete