Fall 2017 | CoDesign Collaborative https://codesigncollaborative.org A Creative Lens for Change Tue, 19 May 2020 17:36:48 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 https://codesigncollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/cropped-Website-Favicon-32x32.png Fall 2017 | CoDesign Collaborative https://codesigncollaborative.org 32 32 From Pod to Place https://codesigncollaborative.org/issue/from-pod-to-place/ Wed, 22 Jan 2020 01:44:51 +0000 http://designmuseum.wpengine.com/?post_type=issue&p=15518 The post From Pod to Place appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /nas/content/live/designmuseum/wp-content/themes/child-theme/templates/articles.php on line 20

Notice: Trying to get property 'slug' of non-object in /nas/content/live/designmuseum/wp-content/themes/child-theme/templates/articles.php on line 20

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /nas/content/live/designmuseum/wp-content/themes/child-theme/templates/issues.php on line 17

Notice: Trying to get property 'slug' of non-object in /nas/content/live/designmuseum/wp-content/themes/child-theme/templates/issues.php on line 17

The post From Pod to Place appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>
From Pod to Place https://codesigncollaborative.org/from-pod-to-place/ Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:49:56 +0000 https://codesignforstg.wpenginepowered.com/?p=16139 The post From Pod to Place appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>

From Pod to Place

Village-Making Through Participatory Design

Todd Ferry guided students in the process of building a neighborhood of homes for some of Portland’s houseless community.

Images Courtesy of Mark Stein and NashCO. Photography

By Todd Ferry, Associate Director & Senior Research Associate, Center for Public Interest Design, Portland State University

I arrived at the Kenton Women’s Village for its official opening. For the first time in a long while there was nothing to be done; no housing to build, no students to lead, no decisions to make, and no trees to plant. The project would inevitably and necessarily evolve with time, but my part was complete. I glanced at the clusters of people peppered throughout the village and could hardly believe that the majority of these people who had recently become such close and valued collaborators were strangers just a year ago. In that short time, we had formed an incredible coalition and utilized an inclusive design process to address houselessness — it resulted in policy changes, new models for serving Portlanders, and a built pilot project to house 14 previously houseless women.

With a moment to finally pause and reflect, the question that came to mind was, how did we pull this off? With a moment to finally pause and reflect, the question that came to mind was, how did we pull this off? Of course, I know how we “pulled it off” and still had the sunburn, text message chains, and coffee receipts as reminders. After four years with the Center for Public Interest Design (CPID), it should no longer come as a surprise.

The CPID is a research, education, and design center that uses the power of design to address the needs of traditionally underserved populations worldwide. Recent projects at the CPID include a sustainable community center in Inner Mongolia, a mobile stage for the Portland Opera to bring opera and the arts to more communities, and resiliency planning and building efforts on the Northern Cheyenne reservation in Southeastern Montana, just to name just a few. In each case, the team of students, faculty, and community collaborators managed to accomplish an incredible amount in a short period of time. But the Kenton Women’s Village project feels distinct somehow. Perhaps it is because it happened so quickly, or maybe it is the sheer number of project participants, which is easily in the hundreds. In any case, it is a potent reminder of the incredible power of participatory design to address difficult social problems like houselessness.

In the fall of 2015 the City of Portland declared a state of emergency on homelessness due to a shortage of affordable housing and an increase in the number of unsheltered individuals and families. A point-in-time report from that year identified over 3,800 houseless Portlanders on any given night. Using an expanded definition of homelessness, to include those “doubled-up” in insecure and inadequate housing due to financial circumstances, increased the number to over 16,000.

In the spring of 2016 there still were few reasons for hope, with the exception of intentional communities — or villages — that the houseless were making to support themselves. Housing advocates, activists, and people with houseless experience formed a group called the Village Coalition in order to help support these villages and promote the village model as a potential solution to houselessness. After several Village Coalition meetings, and visits to existing villages, it became clear that: a) self-governed villages were having great success in providing safe spaces in supportive communities but needed help with physical infrastructure; b) design had a significant role to play to aid in these efforts, but simply handing over designs for tiny houses would be insufficient; and c) initiatives to change perceptions about houselessness in Portland would be essential for successfully integrating a village into the urban fabric.

Two villages had been operating in Portland for several years without the help of the government, and a third, Hazelnut Grove, had recently formed and been granted temporary use of a wooded swath of land along Interstate Avenue. There, some of the approximately 18 residents had already begun working together to build small wooden shelters around their tents — without city approval — and constructed a shared kitchen which served as the heart of the community. From its beginning, Hazelnut Grove demonstrated a vibrancy and inspiring sense of community that is rarely found elsewhere today (including traditional neighborhoods), which is perhaps part of why it attracted such strong advocates and was not immediately “swept” like many other nascent villages.

Residents of Hazelnut Grove approached us at CPID to develop plans for tiny houses and we began talking with other designers involved in the Village Coalition. Together we decided to pose a challenge to the larger architecture community. The CPID and partners at City Repair, Communitecture, and Open Architecture formed the Partners On Dwelling Initiative (POD) to launch a call for design solutions that could support an engaged houseless population.

On October 1, 2016, the POD Initiative organizers held an open charrette at Mercy Corps in downtown Portland that brought together architects with houseless individuals to explore how thoughtful design could support the village model. Over 100 people attended and after hearing from a range of speakers, including residents of Hazelnut Grove, teams were formed and tasked with designing micro-dwelling units called “sleeping pods” that together could form a village complete with shared cooking, bathing, and gathering facilities.

The term “pod” allowed designers to avoid expectations and requirements associated with established building forms like “tiny houses.” New design parameters were established: each pod had to be fully insulated, have lockable doors and operable windows, and be easily transportable with a forklift and flatbed truck. The minimum allowable footprint would be 6’x 8’ with a maximum footprint of 8’x 12’, with a maximum height of 10’6”, in order to fit under bridges.

By the end of the design charrette a wide range of ideas emerged — 14 teams agreed to submit designs and build their pod in space made available by the POD Initiative organizers, aided by funds for materials. At the time of the charrette, however, the project had no funding, no clear political support, no place to construct the pods, and no site for them to form a village once they were built.

Fortunately, then-mayor Charlie Hales had attended the charrette. He was inspired by the architecture community’s willingness to explore innovative solutions to houselssness, and agreed to provide $2,000 for materials for each pod. While it was modest funding, this was a crucial step — it marks the beginning of the city investing in the village model.

After finding a suitable building site for the pods, the design teams spent several weeks in November and December working side-by-side in Portland’s oldest warehouse. Despite the bitter cold, spirits were high — passing around Thanksgiving leftovers through the scaffolds of a dozen newly-framed structures over the holiday weekend will remain particularly memorable. The teams consisted of many of Portland’s leading architecture firms: Holst, SRG, SERA, and LRS, to name a few, as well as two teams from PSU, which included my architecture students, in their penultimate undergraduate design studio, and a group led by the CPID Student Fellows.

The pods were finished on December 9th and transported — not without difficulty — to a site in downtown Portland next to the Pacific Northwest College of Art, where they remained on display for several weeks. Portlanders from around the city were invited to visit and enter the pods, attend panel discussions on houselessness, experience the village model, and learn what it might mean to have a village in their neighborhood.

We identified a site in the Kenton neighborhood in North Portland to form a village from the newly built pods. The one-acre site was on an industrial lot, but directly adjacent to a residential area and neighborhood park — it was also within walking distance to light rail and multiple bus stops.

Pieces began falling into place and a potential site for a new village was identified. While the City of Portland could have moved the pods to the site immediately, the project partners agreed that it was important to work with residents of the Kenton neighborhood to ensure the village would be a welcome part of the community. In fact, we promised to meet with stakeholders in Kenton regularly until they were ready to take a vote on whether or not to allow the village into their neighborhood, and their decision would be respected. Over several months, the project partners worked with members of the Kenton Neighborhood Association to develop the village. The City-sponsored village would be proposed as a community of all women, operated by Catholic Charities, supported by the Village Coalition, and designed by the Center for Public Interest Design. CPID Director Sergio Palleroni and I worked with students in a graduate architecture studio on the design of the village, hosting community charrettes and workshops in Kenton — we also gathered feedback from partners in the houseless community, including our expert advisors on village-making at Hazelnut Grove.

On March 8th, over 300 people filled a small room where the neighborhood would cast their ballots to discuss the proposal. There were several speakers from the City of Portland and the partner organizations, but the most moving speeches, by far, came from neighborhood residents that had been involved in the village design process. Each one spoke of going from skeptic to enthusiastic advocate as they learned about houselessness, about the village model, and as they participated in the co-creation of the village design itself. In the end, Kenton decided to welcome the village into their neighborhood in a decisive vote of over 2-to-1. We all breathed a massive sigh of relief and then got to work creating the village.

When I arrived on site for the opening on June 9th, 2017, the village was complete. The site had been bustling with dozens of PSU students, volunteers, and Kenton neighbors for the previous 10 days as we worked on placemaking efforts to prepare the site for its 14 new residents, and it was hard to shake the feeling that I should still be doing something. But the project was ready. We had co-created a village that serves as a model for the City of Portland to replicate, a coalition was formed that values the importance of a thoughtful process in creating change, and, most importantly, 14 previously unhoused people now had a safe place to call home.

Our design charrette was on October 1st and we opened the village on June 9th, an incredibly fast turnaround for a project dealing with such a politically-charged social issue. The speed of the process was proportionate to the urgency of the crisis. Together we showed that a village — one of many models needed to address houselessness — could be done quickly, affordably, and beautifully.

It is easy to feel overwhelmed when confronting a massive issue like houselessness — but identifying the smallest unit of a given problem can often provide an entry point for people to take immediate action while working toward larger systemic change. In our case, that unit was the pod. Individually each component is important, but together they form something that’s greater than the sum of its parts, in our case, a village.

Design is an iterative process, and the Kenton Women’s Village is just the first of many villages in Portland. With an incredible coalition of partners, we’re looking forward to the next two villages, envisioned and built through inclusive and participatory design practices to serve the whole community.

From Design Museum Magazine Issue 005

DEFINE

Houseless

The term houseless is used in place of homeless, as it is preferred by our project partners as a more respectful term that both acknowledges that home can be a community, neighborhood, city, etc., and more directly addresses what the need is: housing. The terms homeless and homelessness are used when referencing policies or organizations that use this term.

The post From Pod to Place appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>
Human Operating System https://codesigncollaborative.org/human-operating-system/ Sun, 03 Sep 2017 17:00:52 +0000 https://codesignforstg.wpenginepowered.com/?p=17252 The post Human Operating System appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>

Human Operating System

Design Thinking for Sustainable Healthcare

The U.S. healthcare system is dangerously complex — it is past time for design thinking to chart a new, human-centered course.

By Bill Hartman, Partner, Essential Design

The business of healthcare, which has the ultimate goal of sustaining wellness, is not on an economic trajectory anyone would call sustainable. Although expanding knowledge in life sciences and diagnostic technology has boosted therapeutic choice and overall sophistication, we continue to increase our spending on healthcare year over year. In fact, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country — $9,237 per person per year according to a report in The Lancet (1).

Despite the highest costs in the world and flashy medical breakthroughs, the United States ranks 12th in life expectancy among the 12 wealthiest countries (2). Compounding this problem, the U.S. has fewer practicing physicians per capita and fewer patient visits per year than most other medically advanced countries. So where is the money going? We’re paying the most, and we have nothing to show for it except shorter, sicker lives.

We need a new system. Costs are increasing, but day-to-day delivery of healthcare hasn’t changed much. Design and innovation can play a critical role in creating and implementing an advanced, sustainable system that maintains a healthy equilibrium between costs, care, and services.

Follow the Money

An estimated 155 million people under the age of 65 are covered by employer-sponsored insurance. With healthcare costs generally covered by payers (firms) rather than patients (people), fee-for-service continues to be most prevalent business model, but it naturally creates disincentives and market failure. Healthcare providers will routinely over- service patients as reimbursements incentivize more procedures per patient than necessary. Layered on top of all this is the expensive and complicated administrative overhead within a messy ecosystem of providers, brokers, and insurance companies.

Additionally, shortages of primary care physicians, particularly in rural areas, have shifted people to expensive emergency care, and in some cases, precipitated chronic dependencies on pain medications — resulting in more unintended consequences at even higher costs – both financial and social.

And as we’ve disconnected the patient from paying directly for healthcare, some believe we’ve inadvertently eroded patient accountability and negatively shifted lifestyle choices: why be healthy when your employer-sponsored health insurance will cover your treatment, complete with a range of pharmaceutical options?

The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country: $9,237 per person per year.

New Models

A fee-for-patient model, also known as value-based care, aims to combine the accessibility of single-payer healthcare with free-market cost efficiency. In this case, providers lose the item-by-item reimbursements for services rendered, but they also remove the high-profit motive of insurers — often a barrier to providing most efficient, necessary care.

A study by the Commonwealth Fund offers a growing body of evidence showing that social services, lifestyle, and environment play important roles in shaping health trajectories. Other developed nations exhibit higher investments in social services than the U.S. and experience overall better health (3). Is there a connection? The study speculates that new care models rewarding healthcare providers based on patient outcomes creates a business case for providers to invest in certain social services and non-clinical preventive care versus costly medical procedures and medication once things go wrong.

MassHealth, the state of Massachusetts’ healthcare insurance program, observed a reduction of $2.50 in healthcare costs for every $1.00 invested in social services. More broadly, health reform in Massachusetts is credited with reducing emergency department visits and non-urgent visits by 1.9% and 3.8% respectively; significantly reducing deaths from causes amenable to healthcare; and reducing the amount of patients’ healthcare debt. A new healthcare model can have implications extending well beyond the health of those who gain insurance coverage. Dr. Jay Parkinson, Founder of Sherpaa, a new genre of healthcare delivery, put a fine point on this, observing that “most healthcare problems aren’t medical, they’re social.”

At Essential Design, we’re tracking psycho-social trends intersecting health and wellness. With mandates for more healthcare efficiencies, design plays a role in addressing a range of problems, often with competing variables. We can look to service design principles and the thoughtful incorporation of behavioral science to synthesize new solutions from disparate, inefficient parts.

Design for Improvement

What can be done to improve outcomes? What patient-centered opportunities exist to control costs? How can we collect and use data to make change proactively rather than reactively? We have some ideas to make understanding the process and evolution of healthcare a little easier.

Keep patients in closer orbit. I’ve heard it said that healthcare in the US isn’t really healthcare — it’s sickness-and-death-care. We must move away from the break-it-fix- it mentality and move toward prevention, wellness, and accountability across the system. Take nutrition — instead of costly medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, perhaps we should subsidize healthy, natural foods to combat and reverse alarming trends in diabetes and heart disease. This is an opportunity for designers and medical professionals to develop systems, services, and products that empower people to be healthier. We must think of healthcare as a human operating system in which each component plays a part over time rather than as a collection of disjointed transactions.

Mutually beneficial engagement. Shifting the provider-to-patient service dynamic toward one of shared value and effort benefits both parties. Accountable patients not only experience better outcomes but also incur less cost, helping the entire system to be more efficient. Patients who become students of their conditions generally fare better within the healthcare system because they ask questions and advocate for their own care. These self-directed patients are more mindful and actively develop better strategies for symptom management in collaboration with healthcare providers. They also, in many cases, become natural advocates for other patients with the same conditions. A great example is PatientsLikeMe, an online platform for patients to connect and learn from others like them and where researchers can learn more about what’s working and what’s not. We should design and launch more platforms, education programs, and services to help patients fully understand and own their wellness.

People-centered. Progressive Insurance’s Snapshot program rewards safe driving habits through discounted premiums. Health insurance companies have long charged higher premiums to smokers. It’s imperative that we develop incentive programs that encourage health and wellness. Some programs exist, like the rewards some insurers provide for joining a gym. Our health plan at Essential offers $300 simply for having primary care doctors submit a health status report to the insurance company — this is usually simply a matter of scheduling a routine, and free, physical exam. Through our design work in this space, we’ve discovered that the stickiness of these programs improves with emotional and social ties. This led us to explore the possibilities around a member toolkit — a manual highlighting available services and ways to boost overall engagement in a patient’s wellbeing. We also helped MeYou Health develop a series of personal wellness mobile apps leveraging social networks and delivering ongoing health knowledge and relevant action plans.

Third wave of digitization. Most people know more about the performance of their car or the details of the retirement plan than they do about their own bodies — because in the former two instances there is real-time data and visualized feedback loops. Another example: homeowners who can view their electricity consumption and compare it to their neighbors in real-time typically change their energy-use behaviors to align with best practices. For our new human healthcare operating system to be successful and efficient, we need more tools for capturing and displaying data that can lead to clear calls to action for each individual person. Biomarkers, measurable indicators of a biological state or condition, are currently used by healthcare professionals to monitor chronic illnesses, providing useful, quantitative data on which to base decision making. The economic pressures involved in value-based care will lead to biomarkers, sensors, and other real-time data capture methods to be part of our everyday lives. The Internet of Things will inevitably become part of our bodies and provide a constant awareness and connection between our lifestyle choices and our health.

Source: E.H. Bradley and L.A. Taylor, The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More Is Getting Us Less, Public Affairs, 2013.

Customized Future

Designers, who are collectively demonstrating high interest in problem-solving for social causes, can dramatically influence the path of healthcare toward the greater good. The work to customize outcomes has already been completed in other industries. Online markets have developed sophisticated algorithms to address specific market niches — if you bought this, you’ll also like this. Rapid customization allows users to deliberately create profiles and preferences based on their needs — needs which are then organized by algorithms, and then catered to through digital, and now physical, automation. Admittedly, marketing and healthcare have fairly different tasks, but perhaps we can create and service health markets of one, for each individual person. Using design skills, processes, and tools, we can set a new precedent and create a healthcare operating system for healthy and happy Americans. Let’s crack the code.

Bill Hartman is a Partner and leads the Innovation Strategy group at Essential Design, a firm providing Product, Service, and Digital expertise to help clients create breakthrough customer experiences. Also an Adjunct Lecturer at Bentley University, Bill’s interests include structured approaches to framing human-centered design goals, connected product portfolios, and optimizing platforms. In his free time, he applies behavioral economics to helping furniture and cats co-exist.

Sources

  1. Dieleman, Joseph. “Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995–2014: development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of- pocket health spending in 184 countries, The Lancet, 20 May 2017, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/ article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30874-7/fulltext.
  2. Brink, Susan. “What Country Spends The Most (And Least) On Health Care Per Person?” NPR, NPR, 20 Apr. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/ goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country- spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person.
  3. Anderson,Chloe and Squires, David. “U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective.” Spending, Use of Services, Prices, and Health in 13 Countries, The Commonwealth Fund, 8 Oct. 2015, www.commonwealthfund.org/ publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care- from-a-global-perspective.

From Design Museum Magazine Issue 005

The post Human Operating System appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>
Making Space for Makers https://codesigncollaborative.org/making-space-for-makers/ Fri, 01 Sep 2017 21:44:48 +0000 http://designmuseum.wpengine.com/?p=15067 The post Making Space for Makers appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>

Making Space for Makers

A New Concept for Makerspace at Tufts University

“By making, students take control of their own learning by incorporating experiences that often deal with the messiness and unpredictability of the real world.”

Images courtesy of EYP

EYP’s design for “The Cube” Makerspace at Trinity University served as inspiration for their work on a new makerspace concept at Tufts University.

By Toni Loiacano, Academic Planning Expert, EYP and Valerie Towe-Farnsworth, Project Director, EYP

On a blustery Saturday afternoon in January, my husband and I trudged through the snow, making our way toward an unassuming yellow building. Hidden on a quiet residential street in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, this yellow building houses the Eliot School, a center for craftsmanship and creativity. Since the late 19th century, this school has shared the wonder of the manual arts with children and adults. We were about to start an adventure in making.  My husband and I continued through the snow, our eyes fixated on the yellow building that would change the way we work and create.

As a bleary-eyed and exhausted architecture student, I spent three years with access to a woodshop, creating architectural models and prototypes. Unfortunately, I have spent the last fifteen years away from the joy of creating with my own hands (except for knitting). When my husband mentioned that it might be fun to learn how to design and make bedside tables for our new condo, I suggested we find out if there were any local makerspaces that focused on furniture making. To my great surprise, we found the Eliot School.

Students practice their new making skills at the Eliot School. Photo credit: Leonardo March

From Design Museum Magazine Issue 005

Over the course of seven months, we were introduced to the world of woodworking and furniture making through immersion in a community of makers nurtured and housed in the Eliot School, a non-profit makerspace.

What’s a makerspace? In the words of Dale Dougherty, founder of Make magazine: “…makerspaces are community centers with tools. Makerspaces combine manufacturing equipment, community, and education for the purposes of enabling community members to design, prototype and create manufactured works that wouldn’t be possible to create with the resources available to individuals working alone.”

Let’s test that definition out against my experience at the Eliot School. Our expert instructors:

  • Taught us shop safety
  • Introduced us to the myriad tools in the shop and their almost infinite uses
  • Instilled shop confidence
  • Familiarized us with basic techniques
  • Assisted us with finding and selecting appropriate wood
  • Guided us through the process of “making” from design through fabrication

Our fellow students, wide ranging in their experience and interests, added to the incredible making experience by sharing the stories of their projects as well as mistakes they have made and lessons learned.

Is this what a makerspace looks like? I now use this personal experience as a test in my practice as an architect focused on the learning environments in higher education. Valerie and I both work at EYP, an architectural and engineering firm in Boston, that has a focus on design for higher education — we recently used this new experience to help envision a future makerspace.

Photo credit: Leonardo March

Make to Learn

On college and university campuses across the country, professors are encouraging their students to take a shot at “making.” Students are encouraged to identify a problem of interest to them. The students then design, prototype, build, and test physical solutions to that problem. Sounds like fun, right? By making, students take control of their own learning by incorporating experiences that often deal with the messiness and unpredictability of the real world. This type of open-ended discovery, using self-selected projects created with your own hands, is exactly the experience that was so exciting for me at the Eliot School.

On a higher education campus many students don’t know where to start. Most faculty members are unsure of where to direct their students for these types of experiences. Students and faculty don’t know how to locate expert guidance, other makers, tools and materials, or even a space to be messy on campus.

Late last year, EYP received a fascinating request for architectural services from Tufts University for a project on their Medford campus, just outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Tufts was searching for an architectural firm to explore the possibilities of a FAST facility — FAST stands for Fabrication, Analysis, Simulation, Testing. Tufts asked for designers to envision a new entry-level makerspace to encourage all students to make, as a resource for all colleges within Tufts University, not just the College of Engineering. Tufts also wanted to more effectively connect their larger, existing makerspace network — there are already seven diverse makerspaces on Tufts campuses.

Tufts pre-selected the location in the lower level of Robinson Hall, at the exciting social heart of the new Science and Engineering Complex (SEC). The goal was to create a vision — a design concept — to develop the right program of activities for the new makerspace and a concept design that would successfully knit together the Tufts maker community.

A replaceable plywood top layer on work benches allows students to memorialize a year of ideas.

Our Process

When considering architectural design, one tends to think of design sketches, blueprints, and the built environment. It is important to first consider the site and limitations while crafting a vision — we always start by defining the problem we’re trying to solve through design.

This problem definition phase is professionally called programming and concept design. During this phase, the architects’ and engineers’ job is to:

  • Understand: define the project vision
  • and goals with diverse stakeholders and comprehend the opportunities and challenges of the project site
  • Inspire: encourage stakeholders to think beyond what they have and “dream” of what could be
  • Align: tease out stakeholders’ needs versus wants and translate these into quantifiable spaces
  • Solve: create solutions that meet the project goals and the stakeholder needs within the available resources

Understand. At Tufts, we had an amazing assemblage of users including faculty, students, and staff, many of them researching the educational impact of makerspaces. Together we worked through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) assessment to develop the project vision and goals.

A smaller core team worked directly with us to define the specifics of the program for the FAST facility. The types of questions we asked included:

  • How many students to accommodate?
  • What types of materials are needed?
  • What types of tools should be provided?
  • How should the makerspace operate?

On campus, there was an ecosystem of makerspaces that we could learn from to understand what was working, what wasn’t, and what mix of resources might help the FAST facility become the appropriate entry into making for students at Tufts. For example, Tufts’ Crafts House is beloved on the Medford campus, but its tools are limiting to more advanced makers — FAST had to be different.

We also spent a lot of time analyzing the space in Robinson Hall where the FAST facility would be located. We asked ourselves and our partners: What are the opportunities, what are the challenges? How do the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (MEP-FP) systems work? What are the structural limitations of the existing space?

Inspire. With Tufts, we took a series of real and virtual tours of makerspaces around campus and around the country. We wanted to make sure that we were looking broadly across academic and community makerspaces for best practices and ideas that might spark the team’s thinking.

We looked for high-performance design in makerspaces. In the context of this project, the team’s greatest focus was on flexibility. The only constant in a makerspace is change. The technologies, tools, community interests, and operational strategies constantly evolve. With flexibility in mind, we considered how the team could make cost-effective decisions about spatial zoning, material selections, equipment, and building systems.

The operational policy of the FAST facility will continue to evolve. Learning from other campuses was particularly important. For example, Jonathan Hunt, Associate Director of MIT’s Project Manus, shared that when MIT surveyed students to understand where most of them were making, they discovered that although MIT had over 120,000 square feet of makerspaces, only a small subset was used extensively by undergraduates. Interestingly, hours of operation had the most impact on student use — the spaces most often used were the ones open after 5pm.

Align. The greatest challenge for the FAST facility vision was the high cost of basic infrastructure improvements required for the space available in Robinson Hall. We used a mix of two-dimensional drawings and three-dimensional renderings to communicate design options available to Tufts, and guided them through an extensive decision-making process to develop the best program and concept design that met their requirements.

An interesting part of this discussion centered around three major balance points in the FAST makerspace:

  • Where should we be on the scale between
  • a do-it-yourself garage and a sophisticated gallery celebrating the maker culture at Tufts?
  • What is the appropriate range of materials versus the related infrastructure requirements and construction costs?
  • How should we balance flexibility with the best use of resources?

Solve. As the design developed in greater detail, we continued to refine the solution for the evolving realities of the project. We always returned to simple diagrams, two-dimensional floor plans, and three-dimensional renderings to help users understand the impact of modifications. This part of the process is always iterative. We develop a series of potential solutions and determine the best strategy to represent them to the client. Then we work with the stakeholders to assess the options presented, select the best fit, and refine it based on their feedback. On this project, we went through three major iteration cycles to develop the final concept for the space.

A series of programmatic illustrations helped EYP visualize a makerspace that blends equipment-focused, collaboration, and community areas. 

FAST Facility Concept

The proposed design has six distinct zones:

Genius Bar. In our concept, the genius bar staff greets you and sets you up with the appropriate resources: tools, materials, and expert support. As Tufts learned from their Eaton Lab, and New York University Tandon School of Engineering observed in their new makerspace, establishing a clear starting point helps students feel comfortable using the materials, tools, and technologies available.

One of the biggest barriers to using makerspaces is the acquisition of materials — the genius bar would address this from the start — offering the right materials at manageable sizes for student projects.

Once you check in and have a chance to get some expert guidance, you choose to try out some digital fabrication tools or head straight to the assembly floor.

Digital “Accessible” Fabrication. Just past the entry, we envisioned an area for digital fabrication tools, such as 3D printers and laser cutters. This area’s primary role is to make it easy for new makers to get started. Although these tools may seem daunting to beginners, training would be available to get new users up to speed quickly.

These digital fabrication tools line the perimeter of the room, allowing the center to be used as a training area. This would provide a comfortable place for faculty to bring a class and introduce them to the making resources at the university. Other makers on campus could also hold training sessions here to share their skills and, more importantly, their lessons learned. This aspect of the space was inspired by the Georgia Tech Invention Studio’s workshop series. The center tables match the tables and service modules provided in the Assembly Floor area, rather than typical classroom furniture, keeping the makerspace aesthetically consistent across all spaces.

Assembly Floor. To the right of the digital fabrication is the start of the workbenches, the assembly floor. This is the heart of the collaborative workspace, affectionately labeled the green zone — a safe, low barrier-to-entry area which is designed to welcome novices and experienced makers alike.

This assembly floor takes a fun lesson from EYP’s work at Trinity University and Tufts’ Needham Workshop. Everyone loves to write on their workbench. Having a replaceable plywood top layer allows students to memorialize a year of thinking and doodling as artifacts of future inspiration.

These benches, including electronics workstations, continue toward the more advanced physical fabrication tools that require greater training and supervision. This is where we see students getting to work shoulder-to-shoulder with other makers at Tufts.

Gallery of Ideas. We were inspired by the “Hall of Ideas” in the great children’s book Ada Twist, Scientist by Ann Beaty. Our “Gallery of Ideas” is a reconfigurable wall of marker boards and shelving, prominently placed in the middle of the FAST space. This is the main storage area for works in progress. It showcases and celebrates what makers at Tufts are dreaming, prototyping, and making. As project types and scopes change, the wall can be easily modified to fit all that evolves in the space.

Advanced Assembly. You need to have something to strive toward, as we learned from the “Jumbo” space and “Crafts House” on Tufts campus. It is helpful to see the next steps of where you might be able to go with your projects. So, in the back of the FAST facility are two zones of fabrication machines – the yellow zone and red zone. These zones are demarcated with paint on the floor and reflect the level of training and supervision required for the fabrication machines. This zoning methodology was created first in Tuft’s Bray Machine Shop and exported to the FAST facility. Machines here include a drill press, CNC milling machine, and vacuum-forming machines.

Social Space. One of the most interesting aspects of makerspaces is the collaborative community. The creative and nurturing aspects of a community of makers seem to be the most fundamental part of a successful makerspace. The programming and use of the space foster the community, but having a space to be social helps extend the conversation past the workbench. Just before you exit, there is a spacious alcove to socialize in and a marker board to illustrate ideas. For those who need to take a little break from prototyping or take a moment to think about next steps, this area within the makerspace provides you with a place for reflection and opportunistic discussions away from the workbenches and tools.

We collaboratively designed a 4,500 net-square-foot new makerspace concept that could provide student across campus with an entry point into the Tufts Maker Network — the concept is meant to be open and welcoming to the entire Tufts community — encouraging making as an integral component of learning and innovation. Now we work to make this concept a reality.

The post Making Space for Makers appeared first on CoDesign Collaborative.

]]>