VICTORIAN CHILD CARE CENTRE PROGRAM

Lead article from Architect magazine, March 1992 by Lecki Ord (Architect is the official journal of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter) Victoria is now completing its third three year program of child care centre construction. It was an exciting initiative in 1984 to provide 1470 child care places in a planned construction program, when at that point provision was mainly in council run or small neighbourhood co-operative centres. At that stage the first thoughts of government were to develop a standard plan for centres, or to let a contract though one of the residential housing companies to build "large house". I was involved in discussions with the Health Department at that time on possible ways of implementing such a large scale program, as our firm had already designed several child care buildings, and I had experience as an active member of two child care cooperatives as well as being a local government councillor. The two programs since then have built 2035 places (57 centres) in 1986-88 and 780 places (25 centres) in 1989-92, bringing the total provision to 4,285. Given that some of these places will be used part time by more than one child 5-6,000 children would be accommodated. The Program The Victorian State Planning Committee for Children's Services which was responsible for the program was committed to community participation in the design and management of the centres and rejected the idea of a "standard plan" approach, or the use of a construction company for a "design and build" package for the whole project as it was realised that the problems inherent in these approaches would provide a minimal quality product which would, at the best, repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Forty two local government areas were identified on the basis of need and approached to become part of a co-operative program for the provision of centre based child care. The local council would provide the site, the State government would provide the building and the Commonwealth government would provide ongoing operational subsidies. It was decided to standardise on a centre for 35 children if possible. This was most efficient in terms of staffing requirements, although several centres which were converted from houses could only accommodate 30. Each council therefore had the opportunity to engage its own consultants to design a building for its specific site conditions and community needs. This philosophy was considered important for the ongoing quality of the child care programs &emdash; that child care should not be mass produced but should respond to the needs of individual communities and environments. By devolving the management to the local government, the state was able to make a standard grant offer with conditions including the use of a standard brief and the requirement to approve designs. SGO was engaged as a consultant to the design and management of the program. A parallel program was run by the commonwealth government in 1988 to build occasional care centres associated with district business and shopping centres. Brief The objective of the brief was to set parameters which would result in a centre in which it would be a pleasant place to work and an exciting place to play. It recognised that a well designed building cannot ensure the success of a centre, but can provide opportunities for caring programs which allow children to develop independence and enquiry. While the most obvious activities in a centre relate to the children and staff, the Program aimed to encourage interaction between parents by providing facilities for casual participation in the centre, either assisting the activities or meeting together to share experiences. The brief set out the basic functional requirements, areas of rooms, how they related to each other and to the outside areas. It specified the minimum requirements for plumbing heating storage and display. It also integrated the regulatory requirements into specification clauses so that these were brought to the attention of the designer and contractor. Energy conservation principles were explicit, and orientation was emphasised. Writing the brief allowed us to put together all the research and experience from the Health Department, Community Child Care and child care workers into one booklet. This has now been revised twice (1986, 1991) to take account of changes in regulations and the experience of the ongoing programs but has remained true to the original concept and principles. Workshops Once the councils had joined the program, workshops were run for both the council staff and their architects to discuss the program objectives, design concepts and past experience in child care design. It encouraged them to meet the team who were administering the project, offering design assistance and administering approvals. At that time there were no models of built centres to which we could refer, as most existing centres were either smaller and squashed into converted houses, or larger and run on more institutional lines. Management The Program's design group was available for consultation and advice to councils throughout the process of site selection, design and documentation, and offered comments on potential house purchases to those councils which chose to renovate. The construction phase was also monitored closely to make sure that payment of the grants proceeded to the builders requirements and that the government's interests were safeguarded. Sweetnam Godfrey and Ord, architects, and A S Zoller and Partners, quantity surveyors, were engaged as consultants to the program and acted as part of the design group to ensure that the briefing standards were maintained within the strict cost control requirements of the budget, and that cost estimates were realistic within the prevailing building market. During 1986-87 I worked at Community Services in a project management role, and Kiessling and Mullerow, architects, took the consulting role of design advice and drawing approvals. They have continued in this role since 1987. There was a minimal "no frills" budget to construct simple domestic scale structures, with no allowances for bad soil conditions or major carparking areas, which were seen to be a result of individual site selection. Many councils experienced site difficulties, particularly where parkland or other "left over" land was used. Some councils contributed design skills, construction or landscaping in order to stretch the money further. Others made specific grants to add features such as extra toilets or storage. Outcomes Despite being designed to the same brief and (with a few exceptions) to the same budget, the buildings are anything but uniform. Site orientation and access were very important in the designs as the brief required that the playroom spaces faced north or east to maximise the solar access. This was particularly difficult in narrow residential sites with street access from the north. Most of the centres were constructed of brick veneer with tiles or corrugated iron rooves, however there was a variety of types of construction depending on local conditions, such as concrete block veneer, solid concrete block, a semi commercial lightweight panel system and use reused a Holmesglen concrete panel system in an existing Ministry of Housing estate. Except on significantly sloping sites, concrete slabs were used to increase the thermal mass and allow easy wheeled access between inside and outside. Heating was required for most rooms, with preference for flexible zoned gas heating which can be managed according to Victoria's unpredictable weather. Several Councils combined their centres with existing or new preschools or maternal and child health centres to form a nucleus of children's services which added flexibility to their provision. When specific needs were voiced, larger centres of 45-60 were built with an extra nursery room for the under 2 year olds. Current and future directions The simplicity of the original tripartite model has been adapted over the years to be more flexible in responding to needs. Where a council in an area of high need was not willing to sponsor a centre, alternative sponsors, such as church groups or local employers were obtained. Telecom, Ford and several hospitals have participated in this way. Recently joint ventures have been formed where the council and an employer such as an educational institution, government department or commercial business cooperate together to build the centre and share the places. In some cases existing centres have been extended to increase their financial viability, or child care has been integrated with existing children's services such as maternal and child health centres to maximise use of buildings. As councils run out of available sites, the current direction is to build work related child care, similar to the Ford situation, where places are offered to the workers and the local community. This offers choice in the type of care offered, and is often preferred for younger children, who transfer to their local community centres as they get closer to school age. Centres are tending to become larger to become more "economically viable", ie less government subsidy. Examples of Centres designed by Sweetnam Godfrey and Ord Cherry Crescent Child Care Centre A venerable ancestor of the Child Care Centre Program, this building was designed and built in 1979 as a low energy building using permaculture principles of integrated landscape and building and total use of the site for play and education. Within the parameters at that time it was built as a 25 place preschool which the Council wanted to use for long day care. It is located on an island site, formerly a common green in a fairly new housing estate. The building is situated near the southern boundary, with an earth berm curving along the western side to shelter it from the prevailing westerly winds. The berm was planted with native species recommended by the council for low maintenance. Plant survival is particularly difficult given that it is part of a playground in a low rainfall area. The playrooms open to the north allowing free flow of outside and inside activities, but it is unusual in having attached glasshouses on the northern walls of the playroom to provide a heat pump to cool the playrooms, as well as being able to be used for growing plants by the children. This was a nightmare to usher through the regulations, at that time administered by the Health Department. The playrooms themselves have high raked ceilings lined with insulating strawboard and exposed beams allowing easy hanging of banners and mobiles. To the south timber pergolas covered with deciduous grapevines stretch to the boundary. These provide a cool playing area in summer and a reservoir of cool air which is vented through he playrooms by the heat pump (see diagram). Entry to the building, with office and parent room, is from the east and most service rooms are located on the south, with the exception of the children's toilet which is accessible from the playrooms and the playground. Client City of Sunshine Mech Engineer John Hurle Quantity Surveyor Cameron & Middleton Pty Ltd Builder Ajanda Constructions Pty Ltd Cost $135,000 Completion 1979 Dawson Street, Brunswick Built through the Child Care Centre Program in 1985 as part of the Millers Ropeworks redevelopment, this is a 35 place council run centre. The building is constructed of local red and blue brick (it is opposite the Brunswick brick yards) with a style reminiscent of the Victorian gabled warehouses further along the street. Access to the narrow site is from the north through the playground which necessitates a special security gate, but involves the children in activities as soon as they arrive. It uses a fairly standard SGO approach with playrooms for the older children located to the north, while the nursery opens on to an enclosed courtyard facing north and a small area to the south. This gives the younger children a sheltered play area away from the more active children, where cots can be wheeled in winter to make the most of the available sunshine. A service core runs through the building accessed by the larger playrooms and opens out in the centre of the building where the kitchen forms a hub of activity. The entry foyer is large and light and can also be used by small groups of children for wet play. Client City of Brunswick Mech Engineer Valdis Svars and Partners Quantity Surveyor Cameron & Middleton Pty Ltd Builder V & G Maintenance Pty Ltd Cost $200,000 Completion 1985