CASE STUDY: Blythewood High School, Columbia, South Carolina
Owner: Olympic View Realty, LLC
Architect: Mark Horton/Architecture— Mark Horton, AIA, principal-in-charge; Chris Roach, project architect; Paul Haydu, project designer
Consultants: Endres Ware Engineers (structural); MHC Engineers (mep); Brian Kangas Foulk Engineers (civil); Treadwell & Rollo (geotechnical); Charles M. Salter Associates (acoustical); Conger Moss Guillard (landscape); Northern Sun Associates (general contractor)
SOURCES
Premanufactured Building System: VP Buildings
Ceiling systems: USG
Carpet: Milliken
Paints and stains: Benjamin Moore
Kitchen appliances: General Electric
Interior ambient lighting: Prudential, SPI, and Zumtobel
Plumbing fixtures: Kohler and Elkay
Product Profiles
The Sum of Smaller Parts
On a geographically rich site, a quickly growing South Carolina district builds a large high school with intimate and flexible learning environments
<< Return to case study index | << Previous - Page 2 of 2
Through its orientation and organization, the facility richly exploits sunlight and views of nature. Clerestories and south-facing windows admit daylight deep into the building. The classrooms enjoy a visual connection to the pond and woods, which also support outdoor education through a state university-funded biology initiative.
Blythewood’s double-story, multi-purpose technology studios (above, photo © James Steinkamp) are directly connected to clusters of science labs. The school has several career-oriented facilities to support its atypical curriculum, such as the culinary arts lab (below, photo © Truesdale Photographics ).
Although the building is surrounded by ecologically sensitive wetlands, the architect was able to leave them largely untouched through careful planning. The design and construction team also worked to minimize the number of trees felled, maintaining a wooded buffer between the high school grounds and the noise and pollution produced by the neighboring interstate.
Fringe benefits
As for the SLC-driven layout, Buddin points to unexpected functional advantages beyond the school’s anticipated improved student achievement. “For example, none of us realized how quiet it would be,” she explains. “Once the students get in their houses, their pattern of movement is not so large.” Yet the feeling indoors remains lively, with spaces of different sizes and character.
In spite of varied building forms and extensive glazing, the $37.3 million cost was lower than the district anticipated, allowing the architect to specify upgraded finishes such as terrazzo and brick.
Feedback on the facility, which was completed in August 2005, has been positive. “Students say the building makes them feel smart,” Buddin reports. “It does work.”
Click for complete credits & sources