teenager's architectonics sarah scott

So much of the teaching in early learning revolves around the importance of a child’s environment on their

development. Over the last 100 years, many divergent philosophies have evolved with a wide breadth and

depth of thinking and with an equally wide range of architectural responses.

Children are a unique client with heightened sensory needs, special scale considerations and a totally different

way of moving through and perceiving space to adults. The different educational programs and the consequent

needs of the staff also impact on the architectural outcome and on how children’s needs are managed.

In April and May 2009, a Churchill Fellowship enabled the author to explore the design of exemplar early

childhood centres around the world, covering 50 complexes across 10 countries. These included Scandinavia

with its government-provided childcare and outdoor forest schools; Italy, home to the highly influential Reggio

Emilia pedagogy; Germany and Switzerland, for Steiner, Froebel and Environmentalism; Japan’s adventurous

architecture and Shinto roots; and the UK with its comprehensive Sure Start program combining early learning

and adult outreach. All of these countries place a high emphasis on the environment as educator and have

produced some beautiful and award-winning architecture.

This book is aimed at anyone who is interested in the design of built environments for children. It is an

exploration of the many different kinds of early learning experiences that are available and the innovative

and inspirational building designs that have developed out of each pedagogy. This visual book is about what

architecture can offer early learning and also, what early learning requires from architecture.

Daycare centre

Preschool

Creche

Nursery school

Kindergarten

Adjunct care

Occasional care

Vacation care

COVER IMAGE

Ebenholz Centre,

Vaduz, Liechtenstein

architecture for childrensarah scott

SARAH [email protected]

Sarah Scott is an architect and partner at Scott & Ryland Architects, Sydney.

For the last 6 years she has specialised in designing children’s centres,

and in 2008 was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to explore the design of

exemplar early childhood centres across the world, seeing 50 centres

across 10 countries in April and May of 2009. Sarah is married with two

children who are now much too big to attend a children’s centre.

How can architectural form respond to the unique needs of children and support and reinforce the pedagogy of a children’s centre?

ISBN 978-0-86431-854-1

9 780864 31854 1

AUTHOR IMAGE

Sheridan Nilsson

Japan

UK

Italy

France

Switzerland

Liechtenstein

Germany

Sweden

Finland

USA

WHAT IS A CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP? The Churchill Trust was established in 1965 to honour the memory of

Sir Winston Churchill by awarding overseas research Fellowships

known as ‘Churchill Fellowships’.

Since its inception The Churchill Trust has awarded Churchill Fellowships to

over 3,300 Australians who, like Churchill, are innovative, filled with a spirit

of determination and possess a strong desire to benefit their community.

Churchill Fellowships allow everyday Australians to design their

own research project, travel the world and further their knowledge in

their chosen field, before returning to make a real contribution to

Australian society.

www.churchilltrust.com.au

First published 2010

by ACER Press, an imprint of

Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd

19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell

Victoria, 3124, Australia

www.acerpress.com.au

[email protected]

Text and photographs © Sarah Scott 2010, unless credited otherwise

Design and typography © ACER Press 2010

This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted under the current statutory licence scheme administered by Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any form or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher.

Edited by Elisa Webb

Cover and text design by David Gilbert-Kent

Typeset by David Gilbert-Kent

Printed in Malaysia by Thumbprints Utd

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Author: Scott, Sarah.

Title: Architecture for children / Sarah Scott.

ISBN: 9780864318541 (pbk.)

Note: Includes bibliographical references.

Subjects: Architecture and children.

Architecture in education.

School buildings.

School environment.

Other Authors/Contributors: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Dewey Number: 727.1

CONTENTS

Introduction

PHILOSOPHIES OF EARLY

YEARS EDUCATION

Friedrich Froebel

Rudolf Steiner

10 Maria Montessori

12 Loris Malaguzzi and the Reggio

Emilia approach

16 Influences from the North

19 The great outdoors and

neuroscience

22 The competent child

24 Post-modernist contextualism and

where we are today

THE CHILDREN’S CENTRE ENVIRONMENT

28 Context

33 Community, inclusion and the spaces

in between

37 Space

40 Transparency and nature

48 The great outdoors

54 Detail, texture, colour and ceilings

59 Scale

65 Interaction

68 Furniture

72 Art rooms

74 Bathrooms

78 Eat-in kitchens

80 Storage

86 Offices

Outreach

Sustainability

Regulations

CASE STUDIES

Japan

Fuji Kindergarten

Machida Shizen Preschool & Nursery

100 Maibara Cho Preschool

UK

104 Kintori Way Children’s Centre

106 Fawood Children’s Centre

108 Lloyd Park Centre

110 William Bellamy Children’s Centre

112 John Perry Children’s Centre

114 Ashmole Preschool & Primary School

116 Lanterns Nursery School &

Children’s Centre

118 Hampshire Prefabricated Centres &

Mobile Centre

120 Cowgate Under 5’s Centre

Italy

124 Loris Malaguzzi International Centre

126 Paulo Freire Preschool

128 Rodari Centre

129 Villetta Centre

130 Giulia Maramotti Infant–

Toddler Centre

France

134 Marmoutier Preschool

Liechtenstein

138 Ebenholz Preschool

Switzerland

142 Steinmürli I & II School

144 Goetheanum

Germany

148 Kindergarten Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse

150 Kindergarten Nussackerweg

152 Kinderhaus Violetta

Sweden

156 Mobil Pedagogik

158 Klisterburken Nursery School

160 Tom Tits Experiment Daycare Centre

162 Mulle I Ur Och Skur Preschool

164 Mulle I Ur Och Skur Primary School

Finland

168 Ebeneser Centre

170 Arkki Daycare Centre

172 Soinisen Koulu Primary School

174 Ruusutorppa Montessori Preschool

176 Hosmarinpuisto School & Daycare

USA

180 Buckle My Shoe Nursery School

182 Apple Seeds

184 The Children’s School

186 References

2

7

8

88

91

92

96

98

INTRODUCTIONThis book is aimed at anyone who is interested in the design of built environments for children, but it has been written specifically from an

architectural perspective. I am an architect and I embarked on this project with the aim of exploring the best that architecture has to offer for early

learning environments. Along the way, I discovered that architects can learn a lot from the discipline of early learning teaching. So much of the

teaching in the early years revolves around the importance of a child’s environment on their development. Over the last 100 years, many divergent

philosophies have evolved and the depth and breadth of thinking, is quite simply, amazing. I became interested in designing for children when I

had children myself—inspired not just by a mother’s love but also by the sheer originality and responsiveness of children generally. Children are

a unique client with heightened sensory needs, special scale considerations and a totally different way of moving through and perceiving space to

adults. Different educational programs and the consequent needs of staff also have an impact on the architectural outcomes and on how children’s

needs are managed.

So this book is in part what architecture can offer early learning, and in part what early learning requires from architecture. As most people (other

than teachers) are not aware of the many philosophies that support our children’s learning, I have included a chapter that provides a brief synopsis

of those philosophies that I have come across so far. This is meant as an introduction only; it is not exhaustive and I am sure that there exist whole

branches of which I am oblivious.

The catalyst for this book was a Churchill Fellowship that I was awarded in 2008, providing for a two-month trip to 10 countries and about 50

children’s facilities in April and May 2009. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust was set up at the request of Sir Winston Churchill on his deathbed.

He wanted to provide ‘something like the Rhodes Scholarship, but for the common man’, so the fellowship is open to anyone, regardless of their

qualifications; it cannot be used to attain academic credentials and must be relevant to that person’s field of expertise. Each Fellow writes and

researches their own program which provides a unique opportunity to research something that is directly tailored to their own needs while still

being relevant to the Australian community. Further information can be found on the website: www.churchilltrust.com.au

I tailored my trip around ten countries with very different approaches to early learning design:

Japan

This is an architecturally imaginative culture in which the inventiveness and freedom of the design shines. Shinto roots focus on pared-down

essentials and natural materials.

UK

The Government’s Sure Start comprehensive outreach program combined with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)’s

influence provide a diversity of designs, creating enrichment where it is most needed. An emphasis on the right of children to have a voice in design

has resulted in some unique collaborations.

2

Italy

The Reggio Emilia approach is highly influential, with its emphasis on large volume space, self-expression through art and fluid open-plan facilities.

France, Liechtenstein and Switzerland

These are architecturally sophisticated and formal cultures, producing highly contextual and beautifully designed centres—a result of their open

tender-by-design competition process.

Germany

Roots in Froebel, Steiner and a focus on the environment provide centres that allow real freedom of movement and connection between indoors and

outdoors.

Sweden

The growth of the outdoor schooling movement and further evolution of the Reggio Emilia curriculum have provided new directions in Sweden.

Finland

Government architects have been patrons to an interesting range of combined schools on one campus, while the research arm of the Department

of Education has focused on implementing the science of the growing brain.

USA

The centres that I saw were eclectic and individual, drawing on the philosophies of Europe with some interesting results.

As the aim of the Fellowship is to bring relevant knowledge back to Australia, there is no exploration of design in Australian childcare centres in

this book (although some comparisons have been drawn). There are many other countries that I would have liked to add to my list but they will

have to be in the next book! This report consists of my opinions based on my observations of the centres listed. There well may be reasons for

the way things are that are beyond my knowledge. I did not always speak with the architects or with the centre managers of all the centres.

I would like to thank all the architects and teachers who I did meet on the trip, for so generously sharing their knowledge and creativity.

The following chapters outline the key design principles and issues that the many centres I visited shared. At the end of the book there is a

photographic summary of each centre.

Children’s artwork in

pedestrian tunnel to

Loris Malaguzzi

International Centre,

Reggio Emilia, Italy

3

Philosophies of early years education

ARCHITECTURE FOR CHILDREN

6

Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852)

Friedrich Froebel was one of the most well-known exponents of the early 19th century push for social change through education. Froebel

invented the word ‘kindergarten’ and is often referred to as the father of preschool education. He had intended to study architecture, but

changed his mind and became a teacher in 1805 at the then famous Frankfurt School, under Pestalozzi.

Fundamental to his pedagogy (this is teacher-speak for ‘teachings’) is the premise that play is a necessary development phase in the

education of the child. This was a radical idea in a time when play was seen as idleness and children were viewed as miniature adults

to be moulded as rapidly as possible into economically productive members of society. Froebel was one of the first to advocate a child-

centred education.

Froebel was born in the forest area of Thuringia, Germany and he believed in the importance of providing children with a beautiful natural

environment. He promoted the principle that there is a fundamental (Christian) unity that exists between all created things and their creator,

and between beauty and goodness.

Froebel emphasised the importance of learning through meaningful activities, and discovering and learning through play (such as cooking,

gardening, looking after animals, recycling and creative expression). ‘Children learn by doing’ was one of his famous axioms. It is still possible

to buy ‘The Gifts’, a series of geometrical block toys which he designed in the 1840s as a stimulating alternative to the decorative show toys

of the day.

Another of Froebel’s famous phrases is ‘Children should be encouraged to think for themselves’. He viewed the child as an autonomous

individual, able to take risks and shoulder responsibilities, and not just a passive receiver of information. In Froebel’s schools, children are free

to move to where they need to go, and they are encouraged to be as self-sufficient as possible, hanging up their own coats, etc. They use real

tools for gardening and cooking and help with the work of each centre such as looking after the pets and helping organise the recycling.

Froebel’s pedagogy travelled fast across Europe and America, spread by teachers who came to train at his schools and then set up new

schools, many of which became the first training colleges for preschool teachers in each country. Much of his teaching is now an accepted

and integral part of our general education, regardless of any school’s philosophical allegiances.

Photo of child in drama group,

circa 1910, Ebeneser Centre,

Helsinki, Finland

7

PHILOSOPHIES OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION


Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925)

Rudolf Steiner is another forefather in the early learning movement and the creator of one of the more

resilient philosophies to emerge out of the melting pot of manifestoes and new ideas that evolved in the

early 1900s.

Rooted in Christianity, the main thrust of Steiner’s theory is that people are threefold manifestations,

having intellect, soul and body. He strongly believed that any educational system would fail unless it

addressed all three aspects and he held the failure of his contemporary education system in addressing

these spiritual and physical aspects in equal measure to the intellectual as the root cause of WWI.

Steiner developed a complex series of ‘languages’ and programs to aid teachers in teaching spiritual and

physical expression. These focused on art, music and movement, and aimed to realise:

the important task of awakening people to their true worth as spiritual beings, setting forth ideas that

would prevent societies from disintegrating and giving foundations for a new social fabric for the

changed conditions of the time. Rudolf Steiner was convinced that much social unrest … amongst

the working classes was not due, as popularly supposed, to frustration in political and economic

matters, but to cultural deprivation. (Childs 2003, p. 62)

8

Steiner programs and products

Eurhythmy is a stylised series of moves that resonate with our breathing patterns when we speak or sing, thus achieving ‘soul gymnastics’.

Anthroposophy is Steiner’s theory of a threefold universe.

Anthropometrical relates to the proportional measurements of the human form, and applying or uncovering these qualities in the

man-made environment.

Colour theory Goethe’s experiential colour theory inspired Steiner to explore the spiritual nature of colour.

Geometry is viewed as an expression of the intangible and abstract or spiritual. Steiner’s educational theory was holistic rather than

reductionist, and based on ethical individualism and participation in a free spiritual life.

The Goetheanum is the famous architectural realisation of Steiner’s theories. First built in Dornach, Switzerland in 1913, it was an organic

synthesis of his principles of symbolism and the physical manifestation of the spirit through colour, geometry and anthropometry. It was as

important a pioneer of modern design as the concurrent avant-garde movement, Expressionism, which resulted in many structures similar

to Steiner’s work, such as the Einstein Tower designed by Erich Mendelsohn and built in 1920.

Unfortunately this first Goetheanum was burnt down by an arsonist in 1922. It was an older and more cynical Steiner who built the second

Goetheanum, wrought from the ‘unwilling insurers’ in the ‘dead material’ of concrete between 1924 and 1928. Now classified as a Swiss

National Monument, it embodies Steiner’s principle of metamorphosis, whereby physical form is representative of the spiritual and living

processes of nature.

Apart from the worldwide Rudolf Steiner organisations that now exist, and the more than 1000 schools that are run strictly in keeping with

his principles, Steiner’s influence is also felt throughout general education circles. He was a prolific writer, with more than 24 books to his

name (according to the online Rudolf Steiner Archive, www.rsarchive.org) and 6000 lectures and articles. Plus there are literally thousands

more texts about him and his work.

Close-up of painting in

the Goetheanum, Dornach,

Switzerland

9



Maria Montessori (1870–1952)

Dr Maria Montessori, the first woman to graduate as a doctor in Italy, focused on how children learn.

An anthropologist and physician, she observed that children have different developmental stages that can

be defined by age. She was not alone with this theory—Steiner had a similar series of developmental

stages and so did the biologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980).

The Montessori approach posits that there are four developmental stages:

• Ages0–6—theabsorbentmind;absorbingfromtheenvironment,cultureandlanguage.

• Ages6–12—thereasoningmind;abstractthoughtandimagination.

• Ages12–18—thehumanistmind;enquiringaboutsocietyandthewhole.

• Ages18–24—thespecialistmind;concernedwiththeirrolewithinthewhole.

Continuing with the theory of child-centred education initiated by Froebel, Maria Montessori believed that

if education followed the natural development of a child, then society would gradually move to a higher

level of cooperation, peace and harmony. Montessori education is designed to help children with the task

of ‘inner construction’, and is based on the belief that the child is self-directing, and knows their own

needs best.

In 1896, Montessori was appointed director of the Scuola Ortofrenica, an institution devoted to the care

and education of the mentally disabled. Here she developed her theories and practice with great success,

teaching children who had been deemed unteachable. In 1907, she opened the ‘Casa dei Bambini’

(Children’s House). This was a children’s centre in a new housing project in a poor neighbourhood of

Rome. She focused on teaching the students ways to develop their skills at a pace they set themselves:

Scientific observation … has established that education is not what the teacher gives; education is

a natural process spontaneously carried out by the human individual, and is acquired not by listening

to words but by experiences upon the environment. The task of the teacher becomes that of preparing

a series of motives of cultural activity, spread over a specially prepared environment, and then

refraining from obtrusive interference. (Stephenson 1998, p. 11)

10

In a Montessori school, rooms are pre-prepared by teachers, permanently set up with predefined and specified activities in separate

areas, and the children can move between them at will. The role of the teacher is that of observer and facilitator. If the children don’t

know what to do the teacher can make suggestions. Observation of the child in the prepared environment is the basis for ongoing

curriculum development. The setup and program follows precise guidelines and utilises Montessori equipment and furniture (bought

online from Association Montessori Internationale).

In each Montessori preschool, areas are set up for children to discover maths; language (including music); the senses (primarily touch);

practical life (such as tying shoelaces, kitchen skills); culture (including geography and biology); and art.

In keeping with the developmental stages, the environment is carefully controlled. Some of the principles that are adhered to are:

• workingatthechild’slevel.Asthisisgenerallyonthefloor,thereareoftenfewchairsandthegroundplanebecomesquiteimportant.

• breakingdowntheschool’sscaletoprovidesmall,child-sizedenvironments(microcosms)inwhicheachchildfeelsfullycompetent.

• valuingartmoreforitsprocessthanfortheproduct.Artcanbetakenhomeorstoredawaybutforthemostpartitisnotdisplayed,

as this distracts and inhibits further development.

• allowingvisibleandphysicalaccesstothenaturalenvironment.

• designingbuiltenvironmentswithsimplicityinmind.Anaturalorderisdesired,andtheaimisaspacethatisunclutteredandpeaceful.

Generally the storage is extraordinarily organised and out of sight and everything is highly ordered.

Maria Montessori was an influential theorist; she published several books and travelled the world as a speaker, visiting the United States,

London, Helsinki and India. With the establishment of the American Montessori Society in 1914 and the Association Montessori Internationale

in 1929, the Montessori approach became a founding movement in preschool education across the world.

Equipment at the Ruusutorppa

Montessori Preschool, Espoo,

Finland

11



Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994) and the Reggio Emilia approach (post-WWII)

The Reggio Emilia schools have their early roots in the 1940s ‘People’s Nursery Schools’ set up by

women’s organisations that developed in a period of local history dominated by the Italian left-wing

National Liberation Committee. However, the principles and practice of the movement really began

in earnest in 1963, when the local council in the town of Reggio Emilia took over the running of the

nurseries and they became a public service. The council employed a young pedagogist, Loris Malaguzzi,

as their advisor from 1963 until his death in 1994. It was his innovative ideas that brought Reggio Emilia

Schools to international attention. In 1994 Reggio Children, an organisation that promotes this educational

experience, was born.

Reggio Children are now the biggest provider of childcare in Italy, with 21 preschools and 13 toddler

centres. They also run a publishing company and a clean recycled materials distribution centre, and

hold regular exhibitions and international study groups.

Every year they have 16–20 study groups with anything between 80 and 400 delegates, from all over

the world. There are Reggio Children branch organisations in about 20 countries, which help to spread

the pedagogy. In Sweden, the national early childhood curriculum has been based on Reggio principles

for the last 30 years. In Australia, it has been popular since at least 1995. The Reggio Emilia pedagogy

is amongst the most influential of early childhood philosophies in the world today.

Under the guidance of Malaguzzi, the Reggio Emilia approach continued the thread of a child-centred

education and, in particular, held the belief that children have a voice to be heard. Children are seen as

active participants in their own education and it is the teacher’s role to facilitate and promote the child’s

voice with particular emphasis on children’s active, constructive and creative learning processes

(Reggio Children 1998).

12

While on my fellowship tour, I attended a week-long Reggio course in Italy. It was very intensive and as one of only two architects at that

course (surrounded by the totally different discipline of teaching) I found it very enlightening. The following seminal points are what I gleaned

from two talks, the first given by Paola Cagliari:

• Educationisaright:torecognisesomeone’srightsistorecognisetheirpotential.

• Everyonehastherighttobeaprotagonistintheirownexperiences.

• Educationisasocialactivity.

• Schoolisaplacewhereeveryoneissharing,discovering,inventingandparticipating;itisanexchangeofideas.

• Childrenarethebuildersofaculture,expressingimportantvalues.

• Itisimportantthatchildrenareabletoexploretheirownideasandtheirownimages.

• Reggioaimstogivevisibilitytochildrenandtheirexpression.

• Achildhas100languages.

• Whoisteachingwho?

and the other by Carla Rinaldi:

• Reggioisvalues-basededucation.Tolistengivesmeaningtotheotherpersonandchildrenareparticularlysensitivetothis:‘Icannot

exist without your listening’.

• Theaimistomakelisteningvisiblethroughtheprojectswithacyclicalprocessofobservation,documentationandinterpretation.

Town of Reggio Emilia, Italy

13



In a Reggio preschool, the notion of harnessing a child’s many different means of expression has evolved

into a program of projects. Initiated by the children’s interests, generally as a group, an idea is explored

and expanded upon through many phases and much collaboration. A vast amount of work is produced,

and because it is an expansion of one ‘spark’ and developed by a team, the level of detail is impressive.

The final work becomes an exhibition, thus affirming the children’s visibility.

It is worth mentioning here that these Reggio principles operate against the backdrop of Italian culture

and education, which is a lot more formal than that of countries like Australia, thus freedom is a relative

concept. The children are free to move within the structures set up around them. Each centre has

a morning assembly, specified drop-off and pick-up time periods and a loosely timetabled day. If a

preschool child chooses an activity to go on with in the morning, they are generally expected to continue

with that theme for the rest of the day. And being outside is usually timetabled and involves the group

rather than children being free to roam in and out at will.

Architecturally, the environment is an important part of the whole Reggio pedagogy. While acknowledging

the influence of Froebel and Steiner (a child’s environment should be beautiful and the child should be

autonomous and open to lots of enriching experiences), Reggio Children have developed the theme.

The resultant architecture is clearly defined by three concepts:

• Achildshouldbefreetothinkforthemselves(andmovefreelyaround).

• Thecentreshouldoperateasacohesivecommunitywithopendialogue.

• Theinterpretationofplayasaformofwork—asciencethatneedsalaboratory,

an art that needs a workroom—the playroom should fulfil these criteria.

1

2

3

14

There is an attempt to provide a range of experiences within the centre. Within one playroom is found: a single- and double-storey space

with loft; a designated art area; a music area; a science area; eating and sleeping areas; a winter garden or bay window; stairs and perhaps

a ramp with play area underneath; a series of amphitheatre steps; and recently, technology has been incorporated with a projection screen

and computer area.

Reggio Emilia teachers I spoke to gave the following insights into their work:

‘Children’s personalities develop as they interact with the environment.’

‘Give the child space to give energy to their own ideas.’

‘We do not see objects as objects but as subjects, they interact.’

‘These places are not fixed. They undergo change and evolution.’

1 Piazza del Duomo, town of


2 Play and furnishings exhibition

in the research space at the Loris

Malaguzzi International Centre,

Reggio Emilia, Italy, photograph

courtesy of Reggio Children

3 Computer artist’s impressions

of future renovations to the Loris

Malaguzzi International Centre, on

billboards surrounding the site

4 Water project, Villetta Centre,


4

15



Influences from the North

For the last forty years, Scandinavia has led the world in providing government-funded comprehensive

early childhood education and childcare. In Sweden at the beginning of the 1970s, an official state

commission called ‘Barnstugeutredningen’ (The Child Care Survey) published its work, which proposed

an education based on communication and dialogue.

In 1988, Sweden developed its first national guidelines for preschools, called Educational Program

for Preschools. In 1998, this was updated to become The Preschool Curriculum and the authority

for preschools was shifted from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Education.

The new curriculum adopted much of the Reggio Emilia pedagogy, and the shift in authority ensured

that preschools in Sweden are part of the education system, and are viewed as the foundation for all

education. They are as intrinsic to a child’s upbringing as primary school is in countries like Australia.

As such, the facilities and programs are equal to primary and high school facilities in their scope

and sophistication.

From the 1960s through to the 1980s, children’s preschool facilities in Sweden were built as little

house-like compartments. The standard arrangement was four identical units, each unit consisting

of two rooms and a shared kitchen. But now a more multivalent approach has been adopted, with space

for art, craft, science experiments and computers. The teacher’s role has changed as well: they have to

do much more research to help the children with their projects, and there is generally more paperwork

associated with documentation of the projects and of the children. Because of this, in newer centres there

is often a rear zone of staff service rooms with offices, staffroom and photocopying and printing areas.

There is also a focus on providing additional communal areas, for teachers to discuss their work, for

children to interact and for parents to become involved. Preschool is, ideally, a place of encounter.

A typical Swedish preschool is arranged in a similar fashion to a primary, or even a high school. It is

generally arranged in three-year blocks. Each block has a ‘homestead’ with the possibility of eating in

and there are three playrooms for each age group that open onto these homesteads. A main kitchen,

an assembly area and a dining room are shared. Playground and specialty rooms such as for craft, music

or science are also shared. In the newer centres there are no corridors, but each room opens onto the

next and onto a central courtyard, so there is an interconnectivity, fluidity and sense of openness.

16

Instead of outside consultants or ateliers, the Swedish preschool system makes the teachers into specialists, letting each teacher define and

expand their particular strength. Each preschool may have an art teacher, a language teacher and an outdoor teacher.

Provision of a free lunch to all the students was introduced in the poor 1940s. It will probably remain a feature of Swedish education, as all

the schools have the necessary facilities, but providing the kitchen and dining areas is a big part of a school’s budget. Many schools also have

community services attached, such as an area for nurses and consulting outreach and health services.

Apart from taking early learning seriously and providing for it, the other big influence from the Scandinavians is their focus on the importance

of the natural outdoor world and incorporating it into everyone’s everyday life, including preschoolers.

Dining room in Klisterburken

Nursery School, Stockholm,

Sweden

17


18


The great outdoors and neuroscience

It is very much a part of Swedish and Norwegian culture that to be outside in a natural state, in a natural environment is an ideal. In Sweden,

the ‘Friluftsfrämjandet’ (Outdoor Life Organisation) was set up in the 1950s to promote and encourage outdoor activities—particularly with

the young—through weekend ‘forest schools’. The schools were inspired by the Mulle stories of Gusta Frohm, a leader in the Friluftsfrämjandet

organisation. These are popular stories about likeable half-child, half-animal elf creatures, the main one named Mulle, who befriend the

animals and look after the environment. It is estimated that one in four adult Swedes participated in a ‘Skogsmulleskola’ (Mulle Forest School)

as children.

It wasn’t until 1985 that Siw Linde and Susanne Drougge, working with the Friluftsfrämjandet, applied the Skogsmulleskola concept to daycare

and preschool, creating the first Mulle ‘I Ur Och Skur’ (rain or shine) preschool. There are now more than 180 such preschools and 18 primary

schools across Sweden, and a high school is currently being planned.

The approach and aims of the ‘I Ur Och Skur’ schools are twofold:

1. We were designed to be outside, not in a classroom and children much prefer to be outside

than in. The main aim is to make learning fun and stimulating and get children out into the best

environment for them, not to destroy their patterns or interrupt their natural learning cycles with

unnecessary classroom rituals (like dressing and undressing in warm clothes).

2. The schools seek to teach environmentalism: cycles of life, recycling, making things from scratch,

enjoying nature, observing nature and being a caretaker.

Thus the schools function almost entirely outside all day, every day. Architecturally, they have provided only minimal installations within the

natural setting. But the natural setting is still very much designed and manipulated to provide a variety of options to keep everyone busy.

It includes child-scaled alcoves and secret cubbies, as well as more challenging physical courses and structures encouraging practical skills.

The teachers, parents and children have built all the structures in working bees. This was an important part of the process, involving them

all first-hand in the principles of the school. Although as the teacher I interviewed stated, it takes a long time to set up a playground this way.

Many of the structures are quite simple: rope mazes, log horses, tree stump rings, etc. The attached buildings are still required to provide

storage and some respite. If the weather is awful (at –10 degrees Celsius everyone is required to come inside!) the children can play indoors

and they have a comfortable indoor setup to allow this, but the indoors is seen as the supplementary play area rather than the other way

around. The focus has shifted to providing the complexity in the outdoor environment rather than inside.Children’s artwork depiction of

‘Mulle’, I Ur Och Skur Preschool,

Lidingö, Sweden

19


The children have small group outdoor assemblies each morning to establish the main activity of the day, and then they are free to go and do

what they want. The teachers may have set up activities but the children are also free to get equipment out themselves and do their own thing.

The teacher’s job is to inspire. Sometimes they eat inside but often they eat outside. Sleeping cubbies or tents are set up outside too, and the

children use sleeping bags if it is cold. Three out of five days they will make an expedition to the woods. It does not, the teacher explained, have

to be far. A little woods is enough! Clothing is very important, as without the correct clothing, the children will just be uncomfortable and unhappy.

Drama and music—art that does not require a permanent physical product—is often used to fulfill the Swedish curriculum requirements for

arts development.

The advantages of the forest schools are numerous:

1. Nature provides a constantly changing and detailed environment full of enrichment to stimulate children’s minds. There is a wealth of

spontaneous possibilities to explore, e.g. a frog seen by chance needs an immediate response, so the teachers and the students explore the

topics together, finding the questions and the answers together, not just being led by the teacher.

2. The outdoors provides a healthy environment where children can run, climb and be physical to their hearts’ content. Records indicate that

the occurrence of accidents is much less at an outdoor forest school than at a typical indoor centre. Studies in Sweden have concluded that

sun protection is better at outdoor schools because they have set themselves up to address this issue. Grahn (1996) concluded that children

at outdoor centres were healthier than the norm: they ate better, slept better, and had better motor coordination, more muscles and better

physical competency than children attending more traditional schools.

3. Because they are not limited to a setup in a room prescribed by adults, children are not limited to stereotyped roles. So boys set up bead

shops with stones for money and girls climb trees. They develop along the lines of their own interests, becoming individuals.

The influence of the forest schools has extended to Finland, Russia, Latvia, Japan, Scotland and even urban London. Many schools are adapting their

weekly program to become outdoors-focused for two or three days a week. Some are taking a more daily approach, with two to three hours a day

focused on the outdoors. Further developments in Scandinavia are the networks of ‘mobile pedagogik’ (mobile bus centres) that focus their days’

activities in the National Parks that surround Scandinavian cities. In Denmark there are currently about 60 bus schools, while in Sweden and Norway

there are about 14. Some fixed-site schools have bought themselves buses to extend their service and enable an outdoors focused program.

It is of particular interest that current neuroscientific thinking supports the forest school philosophy. The Canadian neuroscientist Carl Bereiter quotes:

The key to understanding how the modern mind works is to realize that its circuits were not designed to solve the day-to-day problems of a modern

American—they were designed to solve the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. (Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby 1992, p. 56) View of lake below ‘I Ur Och Skur’

Preschool, Lidingö, Sweden

20


Bereiter (1992) goes on to discuss what the educational implications of ‘rediscovering’ human nature

will be, such as educational curricula building on the innate knowledge of a Stone Age brain, while

recognising (and thus overcoming) its inherent obstacles to new ways of thinking. He also posits that

our natural behaviour patterns may well be ill-adapted to the quite recently created environment of

the classroom.

If we acknowledge the prehistoric environment as our natural environment, then we accept that we

were designed to operate outside and on the move, and that our brains work better when we are outside

in nature, surrounded by wind and plant movement, temperature differentials, complex shadows and

variable light qualities, with a variety of sensory experiences such as scents, tactile qualities and sounds

and an ever present sense of not just our immediate surroundings but also the larger context around us.

But in the contemporary urban context in which most of us live it can be difficult to access natural

outdoor environments, so there is a need for indoor environments to more directly emulate outdoor

qualities if they are to be effective learning areas. Our educational interiors must provide a variable

ambient environment, sensory enrichment, a contrast of scales, a lack of enclosure and allow for

movement. Or in the words of the designer Ezio Manzini:

Designers have to be aware of ecological problems of a general kind … to propose possible

and attractive ecological settings … to propose new valuable criteria primarily constituted by

‘environmental quality’, to present new settings suggesting the possible existence of a world in

which a new ecology of the artificial environment may be accomplished: a world in which the

discovery of limits no longer appears as a reduction of possibilities, but as the source for new ones.

(Manzini 1992, p. 4)

But if it were possible to access the natural environment, wouldn’t it be simpler to follow the Scandinavian

leadandjuststayoutside?

21



The competent child

The current focus on humanistic educational philosophy with the child at the centre—initially posited by Froebel and re-asserted by each

consequent philosophy so far—reaches its natural conclusion with the child as a democratic equal; where the child is an expert on what a

child needs, so should be given a political voice and be heard.

In the last 20 years there has been a surge of interest in researching how children perceive and respond to their world:

This new sociological—or rather interdisciplinary childhood research—is characterized by a move away from seeing children as passive

recipients of adult socialization. On the contrary, children are recognized as social actors in their own lives as well as in other people’s

lives, and in the societies in which they live. (Warming 2003, p. 815)

The Mosaic approach, which has been developed by two early childhood academics, Alison Clark and Professor Peter Moss, is an example

of this type of research. Influenced by educational thinkers who promote the idea of a ‘competent child’ and in particular ideas about the

gathering of documentation discussed in the preschools of Reggio Emilia in Italy, it is not so much a pedagogical program as a way of

measuring and exploring children’s participation in their environment. This research framework for listening and reflection has been developed

and adapted through three research studies carried out in the UK (Clarke 2010; Clarke & Moss 2001, 2005). While it is not an educational

philosophy in the same way as Froebel’s is, it is a research approach which articulates particular values about young children and adults.

In 2007, Alison Clark undertook a study assisting the architects designing new additions at Ashmole Preschool and Primary School, London

(Clarke 2007), to incorporate preschool and primary-aged children as active clients helping to define the brief. This has led to the customisation

of a fairly typical inner-London school building to provide specific microcosms within the whole that have radically altered the way the school

is used and perceived. It has become user-friendly with more interfaces between the usually segregated communities within the school and

with more attention to the links between inside and outside. The work done on the school was not statement architecture; it was about creating

relevant child-friendly spaces and creating relationships between those spaces and the rest of the building.

22

The specific requests of the children (described in detail in Clark 2007) were outlined in an interview with

Alison Clark and Jennifer Singer (project architect) as being all about the importance to the children of

personalised spaces and the way the children drew attention to any personal markers about themselves

in the space. Particular emphasis was placed on:

• transparency;beingabletoseeparentscomeandgo,seewhattheotherchildrenaredoing,

know where they are within the school

• moreoutdoorspace;moretoexplore

• spacethatiseasilycustomisedoradaptedforplay

• beingabletoconnectwiththeoutsidefromtheinside

• relevantdetailingwhereitisappreciated(suchasinterestingceilingdesignsaschildrenareoften

looking up; more types of lights as children are intrigued by sparkly lights, etc.)

• astage;justasmalloneintheclassroom(itisusedalotandisconstantlybeingcustomised)

• asharedspacetomixwiththeotherchildren(preschooltoreception)andwiththeparents.

These were all implemented at Ashmole and the result is a happy, cohesive and successful school in a

deprived part of London where such things are not necessarily expected.

23


External play area additions,

Ashmole Preschool & Primary

School, London, UK


Post-modernist contextualism and where we are today

Current emergent thinking, while not moving away from the child-centred approach of all the philosophies

presented so far, is now embracing a bigger picture. Early learning approaches are looking not just at the

child, but at the child’s context of family and community and the role of children’s facilities in contributing

to this interface. Part of this thinking is the current emphasis on integrating children’s facilities with family

services and outreach facilities. Feeny (2006) explains that:

Evidence from around the world suggests that strengthening the family as an essential unit of

society and promoting the regeneration of communities are the most effective ways to ensure

children develop into healthy and responsible adults. (p. 2)

There is widespread consensus with regard to child and family wellbeing (see ARACY 2009), that

prevention is much more effective than cure or, more precisely, prevention is more effective than

interventions made later on when the problems and issues are more entrenched and complex. So

providing support within the normalised setting of the school and community centre—as a universal

service rather than a targeted service—is desirable, creating a more natural and less stigmatising

way for families to receive assistance.

This focus on the community has architectural implications. For instance, in Stockholm, Klisterburken

Nursery School aims to provide not just a centre for children on a domestic scale, as in the past, but to

provide a school with a more public face; a place of connections, or as the head teacher described it,

a house of possibilities. The preschool and long daycare centre are built around a central communal

space that can be utilised by all and provides transparency between the various components. This model

is also used in Finland, where several schools are combined on one campus but with a central and

transparent communal space that is often a dining area and gallery or library combined. These buildings

are designed to have an impact on the neighbourhood and to be seen as a feature and focus, a beacon

within the community.

24

The importance of both a child’s connection to their context and how a children’s centre fits within its context are current preoccupations.

The next chapter explores contextual design in further detail—a common aim of each centre is the desire for a clear identity as an integral part

of its community’s culture.

With this emphasis on community and context, as well as the importance of education in the early years, and with child-centred education

being similar in practical application to the self-guided research of the adult world, is the future of children’s centre design becoming closer

tothatofcommunitylearningcentres?Arechildren,teenagersandadultsallequallytheclient/student?

There is a shared need for central communal areas with libraries, cafés, displays and interactive scenarios, plus a need for smaller, more

private alcoves for individual activities and break away groups. With interactive play now viewed not as a way of passing the time, but as

a valid part of all education, there is a need for fluid movement and transparency between the various components, putting resources on

display for the learner to access at will. There is a need for the centre to act as a focal point within the community and also as a reflection

of its culture, with an equal emphasis on the design of the outside as on the inside of the building.

Whiteboard in staffroom,

Walthamstow Children’s Centre,

London, UK

25


The children’s centre environment


Context

A sense of place and belonging within a precinct helps children with their own sense of identity.

A children’s centre, especially one with additional integrated services, is an important focus for the

community and the community needs to ‘own’ it and identify with it, for it to be truly successful.

The most successful centres I visited don’t just ‘fit in’. They create a dialogue with the existing local

fabric and precinct character, drawing out and expressing some aspects and contrasting with others.

Texture, colour and materials highlight the contrast between old and new, inside and out, public and

private. Site relationships are reinforced by highlighting existing views, sightlines and pedestrian

access and maintaining a scale and form that is in keeping with the precinct.

At each of the centres in Vaduz, Machida (pictured on p. 30), New Canaan and Villetta the building form

is responsive to the natural landscape, echoing site contours, being low and discreet against the horizon,

using natural materials and feathered edges (i.e. the outside perimeter of the building steps in and out

to meet the landscape in either elevation or plan). The landscaping dominates, with large expanses of

green and the use of planting for screening. In all cases this contextual responsiveness is contrasted by

the unusual built form of the structure, whether it is a curved concrete roof, oversized roof lanterns or a

highly orthogonal and structured fenestration.

Other centres, such as the Cowgate Under 5’s Centre in Edinburgh, the Loris Malaguzzi centre in Reggio

Emilia and Apple Seeds in New York City, are responsive to their local culture. Reflecting the local

architectural language and scale, they embrace and reflect the community context but their interiors,

glimpsed from without, are in complete contrast.

Lanterns Nursery School and Children’s Centre in Winchester (p. 30, image 3) responds to both landscape

and culture. Designed to be in keeping with the local Hampshire farmhouses, the roof pitch of 48 degrees

is a direct mirror of the roof forms of the houses opposite. The Marmoutier Preschool in Alsace (p. 31,

image 5) is built as a discreet extension of the 10th century abbey garden walls, low, dark and copper

clad. Internally, it unfolds into a contrasting burst of colour and light. Each of these centres is clearly

identified as being an integral part of that community’s culture while still asserting their own identity.

28

Another important aspect of contextual design is the threshold between the centre and its surroundings. The entrance is a celebrated junction.

It can be full of enticement through subtle transition—such as the long garden wall of Lanterns—or surprising, like the sudden revelation

of the inner oval through the low keyhole entry at the Fuji Centre. At the Cowgate Centre, the juxtaposition of wide, hidden terraces and the

narrow close that leads to it adds interest.

Contrast of the unusual can draw attention to a centre, while the built form, its scale and materials still conform to the local precinct’s

character. The Tom Tits centre in Stockholm is housed in an existing old warehouse typical of the area, but it is overlaid with the weird and

wonderful; a bicycle contraption within a wheel and an over-scaled air balloon act as a beacon. The Fawood centre in London—a simple

rectangular grey shed against a backdrop of oppressive grey 1960s housing commission buildings—conforms with its precinct in alignment,

scale, form and even materials, but it is covered with bouquets of coloured plastic petals, translucent yet beautifully colourful and very

cheering to a primarily migrant clientele caught in a grey London climate.

External entry building, Tom

Tits Experiment Daycare Centre,

Södertälje, Sweden

29



EXTERIORS

1 Ebenholz Centre,


2 Machida Shizen Preschool &

Nursery, Tokyo, Japan


Children’s Centre, Winchester, UK

4 Cowgate Under 5’s Centre,

Edinburgh, UK

5 Marmoutier Preschool,

Alsace, France

6 The Children’s School,

New Canaan, NY, USA

7 Paulo Freire Preschool,


8 Maibara Cho Preschool,

Shiga, Japan

9 Fuji Kindergarten,

Tokyo, Japan

10 Waldorf Steiner Goetheanum,

Dornach, Switzerland

11 Fawood Children’s Centre,

London, UK

12 Loris Malaguzzi International

Centre, Reggio Emilia, Italy

13 Kintori Way Children’s Centre,

London, UK

14 Apple Seeds,

New York City, USA

1

2

30

3

31


4 117

8 12

5 9 13

6 10 14


32

Community, inclusion and the spaces in between

Creating architectural relationships between spaces fosters people’s relationships with each other. Education is a social activity and a

children’s centre must facilitate this sociability, at both a micro level—child to child—and at a macro level, from community to community.

To be a place of connections, many centres provide a central communal space that can be utilised by all and provides transparency between

its various components. This can be external such as the Fuji Kindergarten, Tokyo, central oval (pictured overleaf, images 6 and 7) or internal.

In Finland, several schools are combined on one campus but there is a central and transparent communal space that is often a dining area,

gallery or library. At The Children’s School, New Canaan, a preschool of 110 pupils, a fluid open plan of staggered play areas without barriers

achieves a similar unity through its openness.

At a more micro level, relationships are made in the spaces in between, such as the transition zone of the undercover external wings of

bubbletecture at Maibara Cho Preschool, Shiga (image 10), or the verandah at Lanterns, Winchester (image 11). These spaces are neither fully

open and exposed, nor closed away and offer a perfect neutral territory for overlapped and mingled play. These transitory spaces are made

more special and highlighted by a sensory use of material, a change in light quality and colour, or the provision of a few props such as benches

or blocks, etc. to encourage children to linger longer.

At Kindergarten Nussackerweg, Ludwigsburg (image 8), an in-between space is created and given definition by its geometrical form.

The cylinder within a box expresses a microcosm within and a sense of a context beyond; while windows and openings let the children

consciously play between the two. At Paulo Freire Preschool in Reggio Emilia (image 14), a circular court sweeps around and off to the side

of dense landscaping, extending the entry path into a small court with seating. The geometry alone implies the containment and creates a

place to commune.

The Fawood Centre, London (image 9) provides a clear realisation of democratic use of space. It is basically a winter garden enclosed

within a large steel mesh shed; the various facilities are arranged in smaller enclosures within the shed. Some are high, and others are

low, such as the soft yurt tent structure which is used as a home base on the ground floor. All the facilities are informally gathered within

the large communal play space and accessed by an open structure of stairs, bridges and decks, which afford the user a view of the totality

and encourage encounter.

At Ashmole Preschool and Primary School in London, a simple entry alcove is created by a covered way and some masonry partitions with

viewing windows and seats along the main circulation route, painted a special colour to highlight the area’s uniqueness.

The Children’s School,

New Canaan, NY, USA

33



34

1

2 6

7

9

10

11

5

3

4 8

10 Transition space, Maibara Cho

Preschool, Shiga, Japan



12 Several entry points, Soinisen

Koulu Primary School, Helsinki,

Finland

13 Ashmole Preschool & Primary

School, London, UK

14 Entry area, Paulo Freire

Preschool, Reggio Emilia, Italy

SHARED SPACES

1 Klisterburken Nursery School,

Stockholm, Sweden

2 Hosmarinpuisto School &

Daycare, Espoo, Finland

3 Dining room, I Ur Och Skur

Primary School, Stockholm,

Sweden



courtesy of Tiziano Teneggi

Architect, Reggio Emilia

5 Ruusutorppa central space,

Espoo, Finland

6 Manager’s desk overlooking

oval, Fuji Kindergarten, Tokyo,

Japan

7 Rooftop, Fuji Kindergarten,

Tokyo, Japan

8 Kindergarten Nussackerweg,

Ludwigsburg, Germany

9 Open circulation, Fawood

Children’s Centre, London, UK

14

12

13

35



36

Space

Space is not just about storage. Children’s centres require space to sleep, to eat, to work and to move. Multipurpose space is important, but

so is public and private space, and activity-specific space such as laboratories, libraries, art rooms, children’s kitchens, etc. There is a direct

correlation between the stress levels of children and staff and the amount of space available to them within a centre. Spaces that are too large

and multi-purpose can lead to noise and confusion, however spaces that are too small can create heightened levels of stress and anxiety. In

the article, How big is too big? How small is too small?, Gary Moore proposes 42 to 50 square feet per child as the ideal. He suggests providing

a generous amount of space subdivided into ‘resource rich pockets’, stating:

We have also known from as early as the mid 1960s (from environment behavior studies by Hutt and Vaizey) that too little space and too

high a density of children (less than 35 square feet of useable activity space per child) not only leads to a feeling of being in a closet, but

more fundamentally is associated with more aggressive/destructive behavior, less constructive interaction, and less quiet, solitary play.

(Moore 1996, p. 21)

The discipline of architecture is all about how we manage space as well as acoustics, colour, light, scale and access to the natural environment,

to create environments that are stimulating, protective, comfortable and beautiful. And a sense of great space can be achieved architecturally,

with soaring lofty ceilings contrasted against smaller structures, by flooding open voids with natural light and by drawing the eye up, out and

beyond, into ‘borrowed’ space beyond windows or openings.

Current neuroscientific thinking (outlined on p. 20) requires that our educational interiors emulate outdoor qualities if they are to be effective

areas for learning. So perhaps the ideal is an ever-present sense of not just our immediate surroundings but also the larger context around us,

of the universe above continually contrasted against our small cave below.

Circulation void at Kindergarten

Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse, Heilbronn,

Germany

37



SPACE

1 Maibara Cho, Preschool,

Shiga, Japan


London, UK

3 Giulia Maramotti Infant–Toddler

Centre, Reggio Emilia, Italy,

photograph courtesy Lapis

Architetture Studio Associato,

Reggio Emilia



photograph courtesy Tullio

Zini Architect Studio and

ZPZ PARTNERS, Modena




New Canaan, NY, USA




Zini Architect Studio and ZPZ

PARTNERS, Modena

1

2

38

3 5

7

6

4

39


Transparency and nature

Spatial extension, views out and beyond, and a visual sense of the collective, create a sense of inclusiveness rather than enclosure.

To be able to see the sky and have a visual connection with the natural environment outside is fundamental to us all for both a sense

of calmness and normalcy. Children in particular—not yet trained to ignore their instincts—yearn for that outside connection.

At Tom Tits Experiment Preschool in Sweden (image 1), the corridor is not enclosed by walls but by open framed storage screens.

It is transformed into a learning street that merges and takes on the character of each room that it passes, becoming an extension

of the art room, of the wet area or of the main dining room.

In the Machida Shizen Preschool, Tokyo (image 2), a low child-scaled locker area and play loft is transformed into an open and

light filled oasis by the translucent coloured Perspex used in place of walls.


1 Tom Tits Experiment Daycare

Centre, Södertälje, Sweden

2 Machida Shizen Preschool &


40

2

The Children’s School, New Canaan, extends the feeling of space inside by ‘borrowing’ the space and

scenery of the beautiful woods outside with high glazed clerestories, skylights and glazed curtain walls.

The centre is flooded with indirect ambient natural lighting (image 1).

In Hounslow, London, the harsh urban context is filtered by the multicoloured façade screen while still

letting in lovely natural light and glimpses of sky (image 2).

At the Cowgate Under 5’s Centre, in Edinburgh (image 3), the extra-wide corridor acts as a multipurpose

transition space between the outdoors and the interior. On one side it is flooded with light from full, floor

to ceiling glazing and on the other side the solid masonry wall is an open-weave membrane of ad-hoc

framed openings to the playrooms behind.2

3

41



New Canaan, NY, USA


London, UK


Edinburgh, UK

1


42

3

4

5 8

1

6

7

2

Ashmole Preschool and Primary School in London uses a bay window that pushes out into the landscape as a

‘waving window’, to allow the children to see the comings and goings of parents (image 3).

In Kintori Way Children’s Centre, low openings cut into fences or partitions let children see through to the

other side (image 2).

At the Reggio Emilia Rodari Centre (image 1), they have extended glazed ‘winter gardens’ from the playrooms

out into the garden. These outdoors–in rooms have paved floors and internal planting, and borrow the external

scenery while providing respite from the weather. This concept is further explored in the Maramotti Centre

(image 4), where open steel pergola structures attached to the playrooms can be wheeled along paved paths

out to the end of the garden, extending the playroom’s territory to its furthest limits.

Circulation bridges in centres in Finland and Germany link through the voids above communal spaces,

allowing the movements within the community to be seen while also providing an overview of the whole

space (images 5 and 6).

In Heilbronn, the cubic volume of the centre is cut into by open cubic voids of the decks that abut each

playroom, giving a sense that the outside is physically cutting into the built form (image 7).

In Hosmarinpuisto School and Daycare, Finland, it is possible to see from one level through to the next and

beyond through a layer of open screens (image 8).

1 Rodari Centre,



London, UK

3 Ashmole Preschool & Primary

School, London, UK



5 Ruusutorppa central space,

Espoo, Finland



7 Kindergarten Friedrich-Ebert-

Strasse, Heilbronn, Germany



43



1

2

44

On a subtler level, at the Maramotti Centre in Reggio Emilia, semi-opaque skylights are scattered

across the high ceiling in a linear path that follows the movement of the sun from sunrise to sunset

to encompass its light within the main hall (image 1).

At Soinisen Koulu Primary School, Finland a lightweight glazed roof that lets sky and air seep in

through wide gaps underneath screens the internal courtyard (image 2).



photograph courtesy Lapis

Architetture Studio Associato,

Reggio Emilia

2 Soinisen Koulu Primary School,

Helsinki, Finland

45



The Children’s School, New

Canaan, NY, USA, with its borrowed

space and scenery of the woods

outside flooding in.

46

47



The great outdoors

There is a fine line between leaving the environment as natural as possible and yet designing it to

provide tools for the many different ways that children play. Below are some examples of the ways

in which children play, and some of the tools and spaces these different playing styles might require:

Social play: public and private areas and circulation links, interaction games area, somewhere

just to run.

Imaginative play: scenarios, props and a flexible environment that can be customised.

Constructive play: sandpits, blocks and twigs, loose soils and pebbles.

Experimental play: water and sand sculptures.

Exploration: paths, bridges, woods, small slopes to roll on, wild and ‘secret’ places.

Sensory experience: variety of planting that stimulates the senses, mobiles and wind vanes.

Challenging play: involving physical and mental challenges, complex climbing, paths through hedges

and tunnels through hills.

Learning skills: vegetable gardens, flower beds and animal care.

Left to her own devices, nature provides tall trees, big open spaces and a variety of materials that can

be used in play. But often the site has been swept clean before building, so these dramatic elements are

lost and have to be reinstated over time. The most successful outdoor play areas manage to recreate the

drama of nature and supplement it with child-scaled components.

1

2

3

48

1 Kinderhaus Violetta,




3 Ebenholz Centre,



New Canaan, NY, USA

4

49



1 2

50

1 Fuji Kindergarten, Tokyo, Japan





London, UK


Shiga, Japan

3 4 5

51




2–4 Cowgate Under 5’s Centre,

Edinburgh, UK


4

2

3

52

1

To allow for interactive, industrious play and to teach environmentalism, life cycles, recycling, making things from scratch, enjoying nature,

observing nature and being a caretaker requires a landscape full of enrichment. Pets such as a rabbit, a donkey or chickens are a popular

way of exposing children to the cycles of life and encouraging nurturing.

A greenhouse and tool shed have pride of place in the centre of Edinburgh’s Cowgate Under 5’s Centre. Tokyo’s Fuji Kindergarten features

a super-long slide in among the trees. Reggio Emilia schools are famous for their water play and wind sculptures (image 2), while building

blocks are scattered outdoors in permanent box/bench units at the Ebenholz Centre, Vaduz (image 4).


Tokyo, Japan

2 Villetta Centre,




4 Ebenholz Centre,




1

4

5

2

3

53



Detail, texture, colour and ceilings

Attention to detail and cultural relevance in the following areas provides for playfulness, invention

and enrichment.

Colour: can delineate areas and activities, and attract children, whether the aim is to create calming

environments or bright focal areas.

Lighting: should aim to emulate the variability and flexibility of nature, from soft, subdued and shadowy

to bright task areas. Lights are also eye-catching elements: children love them as a sparkly feature.

Texture and pattern: can help to provide spatial differentiation (such as variety of floor finishes),

tactile entertainment, as well as acting as a learning tool.

Smell: such as the beautiful smell of cooking, garden flowers on the breeze, wood joinery. Avoid

chemical paints and plastics.

Sound: Providing sound absorption materials and sound insulation to delineate quiet areas can make

a significant improvement to the ambient quality of a centre. Musical features, if used judiciously, can

provide hours of amusement such as the musical ‘soft metal’ stairs at the Maramotti Centre in Reggio

Emilia (see p. 65).

A dynamic and interesting ceiling plane: Because of their small stature and many ways of moving

other than just walking, children are constantly looking up, so the features of the voids above take on

particular significance.

1 Ebenholz Centre,


2–3 Machida Shizen Preschool &


4 William Bellamy Children’s

Centre, London, UK

5–6 Mouse hole at Lanterns

Nursery School & Children’s

Centre, Winchester, UK







10 Façade cladding, Lloyd Park

Centre, Walthamstow, UK

11 I Ur Och Skur Preschool,

Lidingö, Sweden

12 Buckle My Shoe Nursery

School, New York City, USA

13 Marmoutier Preschool,

Alsace, France

54

55


1

4

8

9

10

7

13

2

5

3

6

11

12


CEILINGS

1 Arkki Daycare Centre,

Helsinki, Finland

2 Buckle My Shoe Nursery School,

New York City, USA

3 Lloyd Park Centre,

Walthamstow, UK


New Canaan, NY, USA


Centre, London, UK


Shiga, Japan





PARTNERS, Modena


Edinburgh, UK

1 2

3

56

84

5 7

6

57



58

Loris Malaguzzi International




PARTNERS, Modena

1 John Perry Children’s Centre,

London, UK




Stockholm, Sweden




New Canaan, NY, USA


Stockholm, Sweden


New York City, USA

Scale

Children are small—it is their most obvious difference to adults. It is how we identify them and how they identify themselves.

Their smallness can make them vulnerable and insecure, so they are naturally drawn to small cubbies and small-scaled areas

where they can feel competent to cope with new challenges. Providing small microcosms within the whole gives children a sense

of safety, control and belonging.

Small-scale furniture and equipment, cubbies and hidey holes, low-level small windows that only children can use, breaking up a

larger volume into smaller components and contrasting the big picture against the small all help children to come to terms with the

world around them.

In Japan, many of the centres have built small child-scaled spaces into the architecture to great effect, while in Italy they have relied on

freestanding furniture installations with a dual role as cubbyhouse to provide the microscale. The most famous of these is the padded triangle,

open at both ends (image 4). Every centre I visited had something, from the internal tree-house of Buckle My Shoe (image 7) to the mouse

hole cut into the skirting in Winchester (see images 5 and 6 on p. 55).

1

2 4

3 5 7

6

59




Tokyo, Japan



3–4 Fawood Children’s Centre,

London, UK

4

1

2

4

3

60


Shiga, Japan


London, UK


Edinburgh

4–5 Lanterns Nursery School &


61


51

2 4

3


3 41

2

62



2 Ebenholz Centre,






5 Ashmole Preschool &

Primary School, London, UK



5 6

63



1–6 Kindergarten Friedrich-Ebert-





9 Musical stairs at Giulia

Maramotti Infant–Toddler Centre,

Reggio Emilia, photo courtesy

Istituzione of the Municipality

of Reggio Emilia



courtesy Tiziano Teneggi Architect,

Reggio Emilia

1

3

5

6

4

2

64

Interaction

Children love a challenge. They do not move in straight lines from

A to B as adults do, they like obstacle courses and hide-and-seek,

mazes, secret ways and myriad options. Children do not just walk,

they hop, skip, shimmy along on their bottoms, run, jump and

meander, sometimes backwards. Any prop that can be used to

extend the scope of movement is seized upon; a wall for balancing,

a slippery surface, a secret tunnel or a tiny door.

In Reggio Emilia, the teachers stated that they did not see the built

environment as an object but as a subject, because it interacts

with the children, whether it encloses them or it challenges them.

Many of the centres I visited used components that compelled more

challenging ways of moving to engage both children and adults.

At Fuji Kindergarten in Tokyo (image 8) slippery slides and rope

ladders provide access from the roof play area to the central outside

play space. The Kindergarten Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse in Heilbronn

(images 1–6) has climbing frames linking the cube-like playrooms

on the ground and first floors, while a floodlit rear corridor provides

adult access.

At the Maramotti Centre, Reggio Emilia, the playroom stairs are

designed to be musical instruments (image 9). Soft metal makes

a pinging sound, which changes if you run, walk or roll over it.

Initially parents were very concerned about children hurting

themselves on the stairs, but the teachers met with them and

persevered. Within a month, the parents could see that the stairs had

improved their children’s motor skills, and no one was hurt.

8

7 10

9

65


1–2 Stairs to the sky

at The Children’s School,

New Canaan, NY, USA

3 Ramps and curved

roofscape at Ebenholz

Centre, Vaduz,

Liechtenstein

4 Amphitheatre steps,

ladders and lofts at Arkki

Daycare Centre, Helsinki,

Finland

5 Central ramped

circulation at Ebenholz

Centre, Vaduz,

Liechtenstein

6 Stepped floor plane at

Loris Malaguzzi

International Centre,

Reggio Emilia, Italy,


Zini Architect Studio and

ZPZ PARTNERS, Modena


1

66

2

3

4 5

6

67



Furniture

Furniture is supposed to fill a practical need: a chair the right size to sit on, a table for doing craftwork,

a storage unit for toys. But often in children’s centres, the rooms can become repositories, with so much

oversized, under-utilised and incompatible bits and pieces that the room’s usability is much reduced.

So when discussing furniture’s compatibility with the architecture it inhabits, I am not just referring to style

and colour (although these are important), I am referring to fully coordinated design: where the furniture has

been thoughtfully considered to complement the space or the space has been designed with the furniture in

mind, in terms of use and style.

Bedding is a particularly difficult area. Often the temporary bed mats necessary to maximise the use of a

space are so small and low that they look like refugee encampments within the architectural voids, while

cot rooms are notorious for being undersized and unable to fit the desired number of cots.

Some solutions include the creative bed nests of the Pen Green Centre for Children and their Families in

Northamptonshire, England (see www.pengreen.org), or building the beds into the design such as the

wall cots in the Arkki Centre, or the concealed wall beds at Hosmarinpuisto School and Daycare, both

in Finland (see p. 80).

1 Mobile Bus Outreach,

Hampshire, UK


Shiga, Japan


Stockholm, Sweden




Helsinki, Finland

6–7 Fuji Kindergarten,

Tokyo, Japan


Shiga, Japan


New York City, USA

68

1 4 7

2 5 8

3 6 9

69







PARTNERS, Modena


Stockholm, Sweden


New York City, USA


Edinburgh, UK


New York City, USA

6 I Ur Och Skur Primary School,

Lidingö, Sweden

7–9 The Children’s School,

New Canaan, NY, USA

1 3

2 4

70

5 7

6

9

8

71


Art rooms

The font of self-expression and developing fine

motor skills, the art room is a key component of any

self-respecting children’s centre. It is a practical wet/

messy activity area, a place of inspiration and often an

Aladdin’s cave of resource materials.



New Canaan, NY, USA



3–5 Arkki Daycare Centre, Helsinki,

Finland

1 3

4

5

2

72




Shiga, Japan


Stockholm, Sweden


New York City, USA


Stockholm, Sweden


Helsinki, Finland

1

2 3

4

6

5

73



Bathrooms

Often under-celebrated in design, the children’s centre bathroom is

a necessary service. But it is also the place where children learn not

just toilet training, but that their bodily functions are normal and that

cleanliness is important. Much time in a children’s centre is spent in

the bathroom and it is very much a social educational activity, so the

design is as important here as it is elsewhere.

1–2 Marmoutier Preschool,

Alsace, France

3–4 Tom Tits Experiment Daycare


74

2

1

4

75

3




Shiga, Japan

2 Machida Shizen Preschool

& Nursery, Tokyo, Japan

3 Ebenholz Centre,



Centre, Södertälje, Sweden.

The wheelchair access toilet is

completely round and yet it still

complies with regulations. It

has facetted mirrors all the way

around the interior at wheelchair

eye level.




London, UK


New York City, USA



1

2

3

4

76

5

6

7

8

77


Eat-in kitchens

Cooking is one of the fundamental activities of life and is an integral element of any home-like environment.

Providing a kitchen that is accessible and useable by the children not only allows the development of important

life skills (such as understanding healthy eating) but it also provides a warmth and sense of home and hearth

to a centre.

Many of the centres I visited had both an eat-in kitchen and a separate, more commercially viable one

(usually required by that country’s building codes). But many others survived very well with just the eat-in

kitchen, involving the children in the daily task of preparing sandwiches and salads and simple cooking

for lunch.





Edinburgh, UK

3 Ebenholz Centre,


1

2

3

78



2 Mobil Pedagogik, Huddinge,

Sweden


London, UK





1

3

5

2

79


4


Storage

Good storage solutions are critical to the smooth running of every centre. The first thing that any teacher

or centre manager asks of an architect is ‘more storage, please’. Toys, art materials, artwork, paperwork,

play equipment, sleeping gear, clothing and personal items, nappies and associated products, strollers,

shoes and wet weather gear and still more toys all need a home, otherwise a children’s centre can end up

looking like a disaster zone in which no one can breathe, let alone think calmly and creatively.

Easy access for adults and for children is a key issue. The storage tends to be front and centre rather than

hidden away in a back room. To be successful, it needs to be incorporated as part of the overall design.

DISCREET IN-WALL STORAGE

1–2 Beds hidden in the

wall in Hosmarinpuisto School

& Daycare, Espoo, Finland

FREE-STANDING STORAGE

3 Low cupboard units in

Ruusutorppa Montessori

Preschool, Espoo, Finland

4 Cubby clothes lockers

of The Children’s School,

New Canaan, NY, USA

1

80

2 3

4

81



DISCREET IN-WALL STORAGE

1 Lockers become part of the wall design at

William Bellamy Children’s Centre, London, UK

2 Art materials, toys and learning tools orderly

stashed away in the white walls of The

Children’s School, New Canaan, NY, USA

STROLLER STORAGE

3 External stroller shed at William Bellamy

Children’s Centre, London, UK

5 Strollers on rolling track at Apple Seeds,

New York City, USA

FEATURED STORAGE

4 Child documentation folders and drawers in

an important-looking cabinet in the centre of

the playroom at Kindergarten Nussackerweg,


6 Personal belongings in little sacks artfully

scattered across a wall, where the children

can reach, Tom Tits Experiment Daycare


1 5

43

82

2

7 Rows of masking tape suspended

decoratively above bowls of scissors and

other stationary items. Any opportunity to

make processes clearer has been relished;

scissors are stuck to the scissor drawers, pens

to the pen drawer, etc. Tom Tits Experiment

Daycare Centre, Södertälje, Sweden

8 Broom cupboard with a door made from

brooms. This was the only room off-limits

to the children and the designer wanted it

to be self-explantatory. Tom Tits Experiment

Daycare Centre, Södertälje, Sweden

9 Climbable personal lockers along Cowgate

Under 5’s Centre corridor, Edinburgh, UK

10 Open shelves used as semi-transparent

room dividers and storage, Ebenholz

Preschool, Vaduz, Lichtenstein

11 Drawers full of treasure at child

height, Kindergarten Nussackerweg,


6 8 10

1197

83



How furniture and storage can go wrong!

84

85



Offices

An interdisciplinary approach to early learning is best served by a communal office space, often arranged

around a central table to encourage communication.

In centres today, high levels of documentation are required, for quality assurance, health requirements,

occupational safety, legal requirements plus the documentation of the actual program. Evidence-based

research and the Reggio concept of documenting the child’s creative process have further added to the

paper trail; there is lots of computer work, photocopying, compiling reports and presenting information.

So a full office setup is required, often as a rear wing to the centre.

Offices are generally separate from the child-accessible area, but staff still need to be able to supervise

the children.


New Canaan, NY, USA. Perhaps

controversially, the open plan

office is hidden behind one-way

obscured glass so that the children

can be supervised and observed

discreetly.


Daycare, Espoo, Finland. More

like a dining room than an

office in feel.


Children’s Centre, Winchester, UK.

This office acts as a rear spine to

the main playrooms and is a hive

of activity.

1

2

3

86

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 Maibara Cho Preschool, Shiga, Japan. A very communal

office with a strong sense of everyone working together.

2 William Bellamy Children’s Centre, London, UK. Another

communal office, utilising hot-seating to make up for lack

of space.

3 Lanterns Nursery School & Children’s Centre, Winchester, UK.

An additional office nook is provided near the main play area

for the centre manager.

4 Fuji Kindergarten, Tokyo, Japan. The main office doubles up

as reception area.

5 Fuji Kindergarten, Tokyo, Japan. The manager’s office

oversees the main play area and also can be seen from

all the playrooms.

6 Hampshire Prefabricated Centres, UK

87



Outreach

Health, nutrition, emotional, social and cognitive development are not separate issues in the infant brain. All need to be addressed in Early

Learning and Family Centre models. (NIFTeY 2009, p. 1)

In the past, outreach services have targeted only those who clearly seem to need them. This is logical and is still a necessary part of an overall

outreach program. But services have adopted a more holistic approach in recent years. Anne Cairn, manager of the Victoria Park Centre for

children at risk in Edinburgh, Scotland, explained:

I’ve been doing this for a long time, in the old days we used to get the children only, wash them, clothe them, feed them, play with them,

then send them home and do it all over again the next day. Nothing ever changed. Now we focus on the parent first, develop a relationship

with them and form a contract, the message being that you can have what you want but you have to give something too. Of course we

ultimately have more power in the relationship than they do, but they do have some scope. It is much more successful.

The Victoria Park centre is set up with playrooms, plus services and additional outreach rooms, interview rooms and most importantly a parent

community room which seems very welcoming and quite the focus of the centre.

An even more holistic approach is the idea of ‘universal services’, which provide families with the support they need before they become ‘at risk’.

Universal services are aimed at the general population and are accessible to all. In London, the William Bellamy Centre (a government-run

centre) provides long day care, preschool, before-school care and vacation care. These are all catered for separately in different parts of the

building. It also places a great emphasis on its additional community services which include co-located health services, antenatal midwives,

teenage pregnancy midwives, pre-infant mental health therapists (working with attachment theory), speech and language therapists, play

language workshops, playing communication workshops for kids, parenting programs, jobs in training focus, job broker, benefits advice and

outreach for travellers.

Because they are not targeted at anyone in particular, universal services can avoid stigmatisation, and this means that people are more likely

to use them. But it is important to maintain the child-centred focus of universal service centres—if the additional services dominate, there is a

danger of creating an ‘institutional’ feel to the buildings where it then becomes necessary to overcome parents’ perceptions that the children’s

centre is linked to social services and will take their children or their benefits away.

88

In Tasmania, Australia, in 2009, the Department of Education commissioned a design brief for 30 new integrated family and children’s

centres. While local communities will participate in a high degree of consultation over the design of each centre, the working party for the brief

was made up of representatives from the various health, education and outreach groups, as well as architects (I was part of the working party).

In this brief, there is a strong focus on the centres being welcoming and user-friendly family places, designed specifically for children and run

by the community for the community. The brief specifies that the built form reflect these qualities; there are no suites of offices or segregated

facilities, rather, communal shared spaces are front and central with tangible links between the various disciplines and scope for customisation

and flexibility built into the design to meet the changing needs of each locality. The bulk of the brief is taken up with describing ways of

achieving child-friendly design.

Meanwhile, in Hampshire, England, the County Council has built 16 identical prefabricated family and children’s centres in the last five years

(see pp. 118–119). Each one is sited carefully with a unique setout of landscaping, access and outdoor play area. One centre has a large yard

with a custom-built timber play ship; another has no yard at all. These centres are about providing outreach facilities within areas of need

rather than expecting those in need to seek help out. The maximum number of children catered for is about 10, depending on the outdoor

facilities provided. These centres are designed to draw the parents in. The managers love the multipurpose rooms, cosy sitting rooms and the

kitchen feel of the foyers. The fit-out feels luxurious, with nice materials and fashionable contemporary detailing. From a child’s point of view,

the best thing is the range of wall toys from the popular Rosco play equipment catalogue, and the window alcoves. The compactness allows

the centres to slot in almost anywhere and be non-threatening and discreet, while the open reception and sitting rooms are definitely meant to

encourage adult encounter while the children play safely in the back.

Also in Hampshire, a modified bus is being trialled as a form of more targeted outreach that can go to those deprived areas where the parents

need help, but are suspicious of government services and unlikely to utilise them. The idea is to send the education and resources to them

in small, non-threatening sorties. This is an expedient way to get educational services to the difficult to reach, but it requires patient and

dedicated staff to go where they are not welcome and try to build relationships.

The bus provides a small contained safe zone for a maximum of 5 children to play in one area while around 5 adults can have a meeting in

the other. This is an exercise in dressing up an unwelcome concept in appealing packaging, so the bus has been styled to look fresh, luxurious,

contemporary and fun. For children, it has window alcoves and the novelty factor, plus colourful, interesting nooks.

89



Mobile Bus Outreach, Hampshire, UK

90

1

2

3

91



Tokyo, Japan


Centre, London, UK


New Canaan, NY, USA

Sustainability

Sustainability in building is a huge topic with many books devoted entirely to its development. Likewise,

teaching environmental consciousness at the preschool level has been extensively documented (see

www.eceen.org.au). It would be interesting to explore the expression of green building practice in forms

that are also legible to children, and how environmental sustainability can be incorporated in buildings

in a way that has a positive impact on the children.

Many of the centres I visited were built along green principles and had environmental education as part

of their program in some form or other, but the interface of the two was much more difficult to uncover.

At Fuji Kindergarten, Japan, the children use pumps to get drinking water, a novelty that also leads to an

understanding of its source. At the Children’s School, New Canaan, there is a visible water tank that captures

water from the roof. The children fill their water cans from this tank to water the garden. At many of the

schools, the program was focused around recycling and growing a vegetable patch, but the most tangible

expression of environmentalism was the materials used in the centre’s construction, whether recycled,

renewable or just ‘natural’.


Regulations

The benefits of good design are measurable. Research from the UK and abroad has demonstrated the link between quality design and the delivery of high

quality services. This link is particularly clear in the field of education. (CABE 2007, p. 3)

Part of the initial brief that I set myself for the Churchill trip was to look at the impact of regulations on the success of the built product. This proved to be a difficult

thing to pin down; however, across the 50 or so centres that I saw in the two-month period of my travels, some themes did emerge:

Impact of regulations The more detailed and exacting the regulation, the more it seemed to interfere with a natural response to site and community. In Japan, for instance, only flat area

is included in the play area calculations. This has forced the construction of flat playing areas, which are not necessarily an improvement on the natural topography.

In many countries, a playroom is required for each age group. This forces an age regiment on a centre and can put emphasis on segregation. Using detailed

guidelines combined with minimal code requirements can enable greater flexibility and creativity in design.

Space requirements per child Space had the biggest impact on the quality of the centre. Centres with too little space were much more stressful, being cramped and overcrowded with equipment,

toys and people, and thus difficult to operate. The centres that did have space stood out as beacons of calmness.

It is not enough to have space recommendations only, as economics will nearly always win and reduce the amount of space per child to a minimum. This is one

thing that does need to be code-required. But, how it is applied can be varied. In Britain and Australia, the calculation is based on the play areas only. Thus in

Australia it is 3.25 m² per child internally, not including fixed furniture and door swings, and 7 m² externally. In Britain they use the same system, only it is 2.3 m²

internally and 9 m² externally. This system often results in ‘surplus’ furnishings and spaces being eliminated so that the maximum number of children for profit can

be achieved, resulting in a very poor environment.

In Japan, while the area requirements are tight, they have a dual measuring system. A preschool playroom must be a minimum of 53 m² and should have a

maximum of 35 children; thus, 1.5 m² per child is the basic rule. But there is also an overall sliding scale depending on the number of classes and students in a

centre, which is applied to both the internal and external areas. This works out to approximately 5–6 m² per child internally and the same again externally. Space

regulations in Finland are similarly complicated by the use of a sliding scale depending on the number of children in total. Smaller schools have higher space-to-

child ratios.

In Sweden and Italy, although not required by law, the space per child ratio is applied to the whole building. The requirement of a standard area of space per child

has been abolished in Sweden, but good practice tells Swedish architects that 10–12 m² per child inside and 45 m² per child for the total site is the minimum.

However, as this space ratio is not regulated, budget issues often undermine it. There has been some controversy with schools built recently having inadequate

outdoor space. In Italy there is no national regulation of areas. Reggio Children pushed for a regional regulation, which resulted in allowances of 7.5 m² per child

for internal playrooms (plus auxiliary spaces) and 30 m² outside. However, Reggio Children makes a point of always using more space than this. These generous

allowances can include auxiliary spaces such as multipurpose transition zones, art rooms, joinery and door swings and all support spaces and furnishings.

92

In Vaduz, Liechtenstein, there were 12–20 children per class and about 90 m² per classroom, which gives a ratio of 4.5 m² per child. There are guidelines in France,

but no area requirements. At the Marmoutier Preschool in Alsace, there were 28 children allowed per class, with 65 m² of space per classroom, giving a ratio of 2.3 m²

per child. The architects who designed this centre were working on another in Paris with a playroom of 16 m² for the same number of children, which is a

much smaller playspace ratio per child. In Ludwigsburg, Germany the calculation is 2.5 m² per child, per playroom, while in Finland, the Arkki centre was built on

the basis of 5 m² per child, although by choice they never operate with the maximum number of children. All of these centres had additional shared facilities for the

children such as art rooms, dining areas and gymnasiums, so the calculations are not direct comparisons with the regulations in Australia.

Maximum number of children per centre

In Australia, preschool and daycare centres are limited to no more than 90 children at the centre at any one time. This is not the case elsewhere. In Japan there is

no limit as long as the space-to-child ratio is met. Fuji Kindergarten had a maximum of 600 children on site, while Machida Shizen Preschool had 350, but these

are unusually high numbers for Japan, as most centres do not have the necessary space for this many children. Most of the European countries I visited had centre

populations that sat between 40 and 100 children.

Populations varied significantly in Finland, because they combined more than one school on site. At Ruusutorppa, the Montessori preschool was quite small but the

site population was over 1000. At Hosmarinpuisto, the preschool population was about 100 children, but the school population was 350. There is no maximum limit

to school size in Finland—even 1000 pupils are permissible so long as the campus is built as a village. The average size is 300 students (primary only), but when

combined with high schools, the population can be much bigger, almost like universities. My experience of this was that anything over about 350 students began to

become impersonal, as the divergent groups on site did not mix.

Occupational health and safety

I was surprised to find that Sweden is only now catching up on providing wheelchair access to all centres and schools. In Britain there seemed to be an

emphasis on providing the equipment but not necessarily on making the building comply, thus there were plasma televisions and computers in every room plus

lavish sensory rooms for special needs, but in many cases the whole centre was not wheelchair accessible. In Australia, the comprehensiveness of codes and

standards is commendable, but there is a danger of over-regulating and being overzealous with regard to safety, and inhibiting the development of stimulating

curriculums and play.

Funding

In Europe, preschool is a child’s right. In Sweden and Germany it is provided for a very minimal subsidised fee. In Britain only 2 hours of preschool each day is free,

worked in two shifts in busy centres. This has resulted in an imbalance where the centres are extremely crowded for 2 hours, and then under-utilised. They have

had to find ways to entice people to the centres, opening the space up to the wider community.

93



FUJI KINDERGARTEN, TOKYOTezuka Architects

96

97

JAPAN


MACHIDA SHIZEN PRESCHOOL & NURSERY, TOKYONAF Architects

98

99

JAPAN


MAIBARA CHO PRESCHOOL, SHIGA Shuhei Endo Architects

100

101

JAPAN


KINTORI WAY CHILDREN’S CENTRE, SOUTHWARK, LONDONCottrell & Vermeulen

104

105

UK


FAWOOD CHILDREN’S CENTRE, HOUNSLOW, LONDONAlsop Architects

106

107

UK


LLOYD PARK CENTRE, WALTHAMSTOW, LONDONCottrell & Vermeulen

108

109

UK


WILLIAM BELLAMY CHILDREN’S CENTRE, DAGENHAM, LONDONDSDHA

110

111

UK


JOHN PERRY CHILDREN’S CENTRE, DAGENHAM, LONDONDSDHA

112

113

UK


ASHMOLE PRESCHOOL & PRIMARY SCHOOL, BRIXTON, LONDONGreenhill Jenner Architects in consultation with Alison Clark

114

115

UK


LANTERNS NURSERY SCHOOL & CHILDREN’S CENTRE, WINCHESTERColin Jackson of Hampshire Council

116

117

UK


HAMPSHIRE PREFABRICATED CENTRES & MOBILE CENTREColin Jackson of Hampshire Council

118

119

UK


COWGATE UNDER 5’S CENTRE, EDINBURGHAlan Murray Architects

120

121

UK


LORIS MALAGUZZI INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, REGGIO EMILIATullio Zini Architect Studio & ZPZ PARTNERS, Modena

124

125

ITALY


PAULO FREIRE PRESCHOOL, REGGIO EMILIATiziano Teneggi Architect

126

127

ITALY


RODARI CENTRE, REGGIO EMILIATullio Zini Architect Studio

128

VILLETTA CENTRE, REGGIO EMILIATullio Zini Architect Studio

129

ITALY


GIULIA MARAMOTTI INFANT–TODDLER CENTRE, REGGIO EMILIALapis Architetture Studio Associato

130

131

ITALY

France


MARMOUTIER PRESCHOOL, ALSACEDominic Coulon Architects

134

135

FRANCE

Liechtenstein


EBENHOLZ PRESCHOOL, VADUZJon Ritter

138

\

139

LIECHTENSTEIN

Switzerland

STEINMüRLI I & II SCHOOL, DIETIKONKen Architecton


142

143

SWITZERLAND


GOETHEANUM, DORNACHRudolf Steiner

144

145

SWITZERLAND

Germany

KINDERGARTEN FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STRASSE, HEILBRONNBernd Zimmerman


148

GERMANY

149


KINDERGARTEN NUSSACKERWEG, LUDWIGSBURGBernd Zimmerman

150

151

GERMANY


KINDERHAUS VIOLETTA, LUDWIGSBURGCounty Architects

152

153

GERMANY

Sweden

MOBIL PEDAGOGIK, HUDDINGEHelianthus Mobila Förskolor


156

SWEDEN

157


KLISTERBURKEN NURSERY SCHOOL, STOCKHOLMSWECO Architects

158

159

SWEDEN


TOM TITS EXPERIMENT DAYCARE CENTRE, SöDERTäLJEPeter Sirkin

160

161

SWEDEN


MULLE I UR OCH SKUR PRESCHOOL, LIDINGö

162

163

SWEDEN


MULLE I UR OCH SKUR PRIMARY SCHOOL, LIDINGö

164

165

SWEDEN

Finland


EBENESER CENTRE, HELSINKIWivi Lonn

168

169

FINLAND


ARKKI DAYCARE CENTRE, HELSINKIPihla Meskanen

170

171

FINLAND


SOINISEN KOULU PRIMARY SCHOOL, HELSINKIIlmari Lahdelma and Teemu Seppälä

172

173

FINLAND


RUUSUTORPPA MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL, ESPOOArkkitehtitoimisto Tilatakomo Oy

174

175

FINLAND


HOSMARINPUISTO SCHOOL & DAYCARE, ESPOOYrjö Suonto

176

177

FINLAND


BUCKLE MY SHOE NURSERY SCHOOL, NEW YORK CITYLinda Ensko (Centre Director), teachers and parents

180

181

USA


APPLE SEEDS, NEW YORK CITYEllen Honigstock Architect PC

182

183

USA


THE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL, NEW CANAANMaryann Thompson

184

185

USA

REFERENCESAs I travelled and met with people, they gave me pamphlets on their centres, books on their pedagogy and even children’s services design manuals, all of which

I read with great interest. I have listed the books and reports that are available from those organisations, as well as other further reading that may be of interest.

ARACY 2009, Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems for protecting children, Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, Canberra.

Barkow, JH, Cosmides, L & Tooby, J 1992, The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bereiter, C 2002, Education and mind in the knowledge age, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

CABE 2007, Creating excellent secondary schools: A summary for clients, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London.

Children in Scotland 2003, ‘Designing spaces for children and young people’, Out of the Box conference report, Children in Scotland, Edinburgh.

Children in Scotland 2005, Making space: Award winning designs for young children, Children in Scotland, Edinburgh.

Childs, G 2003, Rudolf Steiner: His life and work, Floris Books, Edinburgh.

Clark, A 2007, Early childhood spaces: Involving young children and practitioners in the design process, Bernard van Leer Foundation, The Hague.

Clark, A 2010, Transforming children’s spaces: Children’s and adults’ participation in designing learning environments, Routledge, London.

Clark, A & Moss, P 2001, Listening to young children: The mosaic approach, National Children’s Bureau, London.

Clark, A & Moss, P 2005, Spaces to play: More listening to young children using the Mosaic approach, National Children’s Bureau, London.

Feeny, T 2006, The case for investing in early childhood: A snapshot of research by Professor James Heckman and Dr Richard Tremblay, The Smith Family Research

and Development, Sydney, <http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/webdata/resources/files/Heckman_Tramblay_Snapshot_April_2006_B4F68.pdf>.

Grahn, P 1996, ‘Wild nature makes children healthy’, Journal of Swedish Building Research, no. 4, pp. 16–18.

Hellman, L & Sunnebo, S 2009, Mobil pedagogic: Nya aventyr varje dag, Studentlitteratur, Stockholm.

Hodgson, R & Leicester, G 2003, Designing schools for the future: A practical guide, Children in Scotland, Edinburgh.

LeBlanc, M n.d., Friedrich Froebel, 1782–1852: His life and influence on education, Cowgate Under 5’s Centre, Edinburgh.

Manninen, J, Burman, A, Koivunen, A, Kuittinen, E, Luukannel, S, Passi, S & Sarkka, H 2007, Experiments that support learning: An introduction to the learning

environments approach, Finnish National Board of Education, Helsinki.

Manzini, E 1992, ‘Towards a new ecology of the artificial environment: Design within the limits of possibilities and the possibilities of limits’, EcoDesign Foundation,

Sydney, <http://changedesign.org/Resources/Manzini/ManziniMenuMain.htm>.

186

Manzini, E & Cullars, J 1992, ‘Prometheus of the everyday: The ecology of the artificial and the designer’s responsibility’, Design Issues, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 5–20.

Moore,G1996,‘Howbigistoobig?Howsmallistoosmall?’,Child Care Information Exchange, July, pp. 21–24.

Nair, P & Fielding, R 2007, The language of school design: Design patterns for 21st century schools, Designshare.

New Canaan Historical Society 1998, ‘My impressions of the hour: A diary of an early New Canaan teacher’, New Canaan Historical Society Annual, vol. 12, no. 1.

NIFTeY 2009, minutes from discussion paper meeting, in possession of the author, Sydney.

Opetusministeriö 2006, Education and science in Finland, Ministry of Education, Helsinki.

Opetusministeriö 2008, Education and research 2007–2012: Development plan, Ministry of Education, Helsinki.

Powell, K 2001, Will Alsop: 1990–2000, Lawrence King Publishing, London.

Reggio Children & Domus Academy Research Centre 1998, Children, spaces, relations: Metaproject for an environment for young children, Reggio Children,

Reggio Emilia.

Scottish Traveller Education Programme 2004, Case studies: Building educational bridges for gypsy/traveller pupils, Department of Educational Studies,

University of Edinburgh.

Skutch, M & Andrews, S 1988, Taking children seriously: Proven strategies for building self-esteem, Word Books, Texas.

Skutch, M & Hamlin, WG 1971, To start a school, Little, Brown, Boston.

Stephenson, SM 1998, Michael Olaf’s Essential Montessori: School edition for ages 3–12+, Michael Olaf Montessori Company, California.

Sulonen, J 2009, Finnish schools, Publications in Architecture, Helsinki.

Thompson, M n.d., The Children’s School: Leadership in energy and environment design, Maryann Thompson Architects, Massachusetts.

Warming, H 2003, ‘The quality of life from a child’s perspective’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 815–829.

Montessori Australia <www.montessori.org.au>

Reggio Children <www.reggiochildren.it>

Rudolph Steiner Archive <www.rsarchive.org>

Tom Tits Experiment <www.tomtit.se>

187

Japan

UK

Italy

France

Switzerland

Liechtenstein

Germany

Sweden

Finland

USA

WHAT IS A CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP? The Churchill Trust was established in 1965 to honour the memory of

Sir Winston Churchill by awarding overseas research Fellowships

known as ‘Churchill Fellowships’.

Since its inception The Churchill Trust has awarded Churchill Fellowships to

over 3,300 Australians who, like Churchill, are innovative, filled with a spirit

of determination and possess a strong desire to benefit their community.

Churchill Fellowships allow everyday Australians to design their

own research project, travel the world and further their knowledge in

their chosen field, before returning to make a real contribution to

Australian society.

www.churchilltrust.com.au

So much of the teaching in early learning revolves around the importance of a child’s environment on their

development. Over the last 100 years, many divergent philosophies have evolved with a wide breadth and

depth of thinking and with an equally wide range of architectural responses.

Children are a unique client with heightened sensory needs, special scale considerations and a totally different

way of moving through and perceiving space to adults. The different educational programs and the consequent

needs of the staff also impact on the architectural outcome and on how children’s needs are managed.

In April and May 2009, a Churchill Fellowship enabled the author to explore the design of exemplar early

childhood centres around the world, covering 50 complexes across 10 countries. These included Scandinavia

with its government-provided childcare and outdoor forest schools; Italy, home to the highly influential Reggio

Emilia pedagogy; Germany and Switzerland, for Steiner, Froebel and Environmentalism; Japan’s adventurous

architecture and Shinto roots; and the UK with its comprehensive Sure Start program combining early learning

and adult outreach. All of these countries place a high emphasis on the environment as educator and have

produced some beautiful and award-winning architecture.

This book is aimed at anyone who is interested in the design of built environments for children. It is an

exploration of the many different kinds of early learning experiences that are available and the innovative

and inspirational building designs that have developed out of each pedagogy. This visual book is about what

architecture can offer early learning and also, what early learning requires from architecture.

Daycare centre

Preschool

Creche

Nursery school

Kindergarten

Adjunct care

Occasional care

Vacation care

COVER IMAGE

Ebenholz Centre,


architecture for childrensarah scott

SARAH [email protected]

Sarah Scott is an architect and partner at Scott & Ryland Architects, Sydney.

For the last 6 years she has specialised in designing children’s centres,

and in 2008 was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to explore the design of

exemplar early childhood centres across the world, seeing 50 centres

across 10 countries in April and May of 2009. Sarah is married with two

children who are now much too big to attend a children’s centre.

How can architectural form respond to the unique needs of children and support and reinforce the pedagogy of a children’s centre?

ISBN 978-0-86431-854-1

9 780864 31854 1

AUTHOR IMAGE

Sheridan Nilsson