Invisible Kindergarten in Urban Park

4.154 Spring 2017

Instructor: Lorena Bello Gomez (lobello@mit.edu ),

in collaboration with Takaharu Tezuka (tez@sepia.ocn.ne.jp)

TA: Iris Giannakopoulou Karamouzi

Schedule: Tuesday & Thursday 1:00–6:00 pm, Room: 7-403
Travel to Japan (required): Leaving March 25th; Coming back April 1st
(air travel and stay included)
Size: (SMarchS Urbanism + M.Arch)
Sponsors: MIT ARCH + Dean’s Office + MISTI Japan + Vladimir Kovin

Overview

For the Spring of 2017 at MIT, we intend to teach an Open Studio regarding the subject of learning and the
city. The studio, entitled “Invisible Kindegarten”, will explore the hybrid condition of park and play and
how this condition interacts with an educational ensemble.

Together with the students, we want to re-imagine a building type. We want to imagine a structure with-
out walls or corridors that engages with play. We want to imagine a school where architecture promotes
the engagement with nature. And there are all good things that come with that engagement, as evidence
shows that children learn more, learn better, they are braver and bolder, and they are having more fun.
This raises a lot of interesting challenges for architects: How do we design an invisible building when you
want the building to fully engage the child with nature and to promote the child desire for play?

Through the design of new learning environments for children, the studio will also investigate how design
can reduce educational costs to make urban environments more competitive with suburbs. Such a
change, we envision, could benefit a new generation of professional parents. I will teach this studio in col-
laboration with Professor Takeharu Tezuka from Japan, and the studio will include a site visit to Tokyo to
see some of Professor Tezuka’s educational work as well as to hold a three-day workshop with him and
his collaborators. Thank you to the support of the Dean’s Office, we will start the trip with a visit to the
sacred city of Kyoto where nature and architecture fuse together.

Diverse learning configurations have frequently been tested within classrooms and have been found to be
highly effective from a pedagogical point of view, but this approach has not been applied yet in the design
of whole schools. Professor Takaharu Tezuka anticipates these projects to become mainstream in school
design within the next few decades. In order to advance and test this possible revolution, “Invisible Kin-
dergarten” seeks to re-interpret the typological discourse in learning spaces. To do so, we will like to
launch the design research with the following typological constrain: “No Corridors Allowed.” We envision
that this premise will guide the design research towards learning cluster configurations that promote and
enhance creative processes for all kind of students. The learning cluster typology should be driven by a
current understanding of effective teaching and learning processes. Professor Tezuka’s findings in the
topic which come from research and practice would also be incorporated into the studio brief.
Area allocations for classrooms need to be combined, and then distributed into a suite of organically con-
nected different sized learning spaces. Transparency throughout the learning cluster must ensure excel-
lent visibility for teachers to support students in their learning. The key to the design is diversity. Teachers
and students have choices in the types of spaces which meet their teaching and learning needs. In the
school, teachers and students shouldn't be restricted to singular classrooms, as learning clusters com-
bine three to four classroom spaces together. It would be desir clusters to encourage collaborations, and
for teachers and students to collectively curate their learning within the space. Every space in the school
must be connected to the external environment. Green must be woven into the planning so there are al-
ways vistas of leaves outside windows and around every corner. Constantly changing shadows from trees
enhances connection to nature, brings cool air into learning spaces, and creates a calming and peaceful
environment improving student well-being. School landscaping connects the green of surrounding envi-
ronment. We hope the school becomes a new focal point of the local community and contribute to devel-
op a beautiful culture starting from this location.

Background + Agenda by Takaharu Tezuka

In 1950s, an idea took form in Denmark called "forest kindergarten." The idea was to keep children out-
doors and around trees as a form of outdoors preschool, nursery or daycare. The same idea took form in
Germany in the 1960s, and was officially recognized in 1993, enabling the state to reduce the fees with
subsides for children attending forest kindergartens.

Some studies show, that children who grow up in a forest kindergarten tend to have less serious injuries,
as the forest provides opportunities for them to learn how to control their own body under different cir-
cumstances. They also learn to improvise under unexpected situations without any instruction, and natu-
ral objects become their learning tools. The latter enhancing children’s imagination and creativity. It is
clear that their immune system can get further developed in the forest, than in enclosed environments.
Only some of many advantages to forest kindergartens, Yet not so many have been introduced to the U.S.

There is a reason why Denmark's forest kindergartens came to be. Denmark has a very high population in
relation to its small land size. Unlike Asian or American cities, most cities in Denmark are compact and
there is not so much open space left in the city. Yet, one can find some forests just outside, and it is not
too difficult to reach these forests from residential areas.
Within Boston or New York city centers, it is not easy to find a good forest to run a forest kindergarten. It
is not even easy to find a forest within walking distance. Besides, there is no tradition in society to watch
over children in the forest and people could think that it is also not safe to leave children in the forest. The
forests in Denmark were planted and controlled by humans throughout Denmark's long history, and soci-
ety has always shared a strong bond with the forest. In another sense, the forests in Denmark are not real
nature, but are a garden for its inhabitants and neighbors.

There may be an alternative solution for kindergartens in New York City and Boston. Both cities have ur-
ban parks that are designed to be a part of their residential areas. There may be a way to turn these parks
into places for day care, but not without some challenges. The typical American city is not like Denmark.
We use structure to house children and we can't just build a big structure in an urban park. People expect
urban parks to remain as open spaces. This means the day care facility needs to be invisible. How do we
keep the children safe?

There are many ways to design invisible architecture. How can we make a kindergarten invisible? It is
physically impossible to make architecture invisible, but the existence of an object does depend on the
eyes of the beholder. It is about recognition. People only see what they want to see. Our eyes are not like
a camera, but closer to that of a computer. Our eyes are only capable of seeing colors and shapes within 3
degrees vertically and 12 degrees horizontally. As we look around with our eyes, we have a small visual
range that only gathers the information we want to see. The rest of the information are fragments of reali-
ty, projected onto a distorted retina. The image reflected on our cerebral cortex has never existed in reali-
ty. It is our own image and our own brain that fills in the missing gaps with information. This is why paint-
ing has different rules from photography. We are only seeing the things that we want to see.

In 2000, we designed a house called "Roof House", where the family enjoys living and inhabiting the
space on top of the inclined roof. When we completed the house, more than 400 visitors came to see the
house in a day. The house has a dining space, kitchen, shower, etc. on top of the roof. When visitors arrive,
there is one thing that they all do. All of them climb up the ladder and spend some time on the roof, and
many ask the following question, "Where does the family sleep?" This is a very absurd question because
every visitor had walked through each room and had seen the bedrooms. Their memories had been wiped
clean and they had become oblivious. In their mind, the house had only existed on top of the roof. The visi-
tors get worried about the life of the family, because they don't see a roof on top of the rooftop. One pub-
lication calls the house, "House with a Roof". This is also an absurd name, because usually a house has a
roof. I understand the reason why they needed to say so. The publication needed to emphasize that there
is still a roof on top of the house, because people forget its existence. This is also a strange phenomenon.
You don't need to say that the house has a roof, because every normal house has a roof. The roof becomes
invisible when its existence is erased in their mind. The same thing is constantly happening at Fuji Kinder-
garten. There are always visitors asking the question, "Where are the classrooms?"

Often there are restaurants found in urban parks. I went to a wonderful restaurant, Steirereck, in Stead
Park, Vienna in January 2017. The restaurant is very exclusive and not at all public, yet it seemed to me
that nobody was complaining about having a major building in the middle of the public square. The build-
ing was carefully designed to merge into the landscape, looking like many fingers spread into the park.
When the weather is good, the windows can slide up over the roof to make the internal space a part of the
wind and sound. Neighbors accept the design well, but it is not just happening because of the wonderful
design. It is because the restaurant has always been selected as best in Vienna for decades. People don't
complain about the object in the middle of the public space because everybody is very proud of having
the wonderful restaurant. Food is one of the most important cultural aspects for Viennese. Program is
very important in such a case.

For this Studio, we want you to find a way to weave the kindergarten into the urban park. When the build-
ing is naturally merged into the picture, there will be nobody to complain about placing the structure. The
manipulation cannot just be physical, but should also psychological. We need to make sure most people
say that the urban park became better than it was before. Don't make everything underground. It is too
easy and too costly. It is also difficult to say that the musty underground is a healthy environment for
children. The solution must be fantastic for both society and children. The project must also be built with
a low budget too. We are looking for a simple and clever solution.

The daycare facility is to be designed for 100 children from age 0 to 5. Under normal circumstances the
total floor area is to be between 500m2 to 800m2. The construction must be simple and reasonable.

We don't want a complex and luxurious building. In recent years people are demanding too much from
day care facilities. This demand has been making day care facilities bigger, and the fee too expensive for
the average family. We need to find the essence of day care. We want a place that accepts differences. It
is also not good to simply divide children into year groups. Every child grows at a different speed. Some
grow slowly, and some grow faster. Trees that grow faster don't necessarily become taller. Trees that
grow slower can sometimes become taller. Sometimes a smaller tree has more importance than a taller
tree.

We don't want anybody to force the children to do something. Children tend to keep what they find, but
lose what they are given. The value of the object depends on how they find it. Children also know when
they are ready. They will try to climb a tree when they are ready to climb. It's a natural instinct that they
find the right timing. It is wrong to force them to climb a tree, but it is important to let them have the op-
portunity to climb a tree when they want to try. We want you to find a way to stimulate children to play
spontaneously, without the need for normal playing tools or toys. Usually playing tools come with in-
structions telling the child how to play. Children don't need to think much. Trees do not come with in-
structions. Children are able to find a tree to play with.

This is not an assignment to design a forest kindergarten. We need architecture in an urban situation. Ar-
chitecture is not a forest. The idea of a forest kindergarten can't be just copied. You need to find another
way to stimulate children with architecture in an urban park setting.

STUDIO SITE + ARNOLD ARBORETUM by Rosetta Elkin

The Arnold Arboretum is a living collection. As a research institute and public ground, the Arnold Arbore-
tum simultaneously serves scientific and civic interests. Shortly after its establishment in 1872, the Arbo-
retum became part of the Boston Park system through a creative lease agreement between Harvard and
the municipality. This 1,000-year lease secured a public/private relationship that endures today. It equal-
ly supported the involvement and advocacy of landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, as he devel-
oped miles of public space embedded in Boston’s Emerald Necklace. In an era of intense cultural produc-
tion, the Arboretum flourished as a premier institution, operating as a biological, economic and academic
authority on the science of botany and global plant trade while offering an indispensable public space to
residents. The Arboretum has evolved, biologically, spatially and socially alongside the urbanization of
Boston. The living formation has become part of the city.
The collections themselves represent a record of human progress, as plants were traded, propagated, re-
leased and manipulated through a century of species exchange and horticultural domestication. As a re-
sult, the living collection is also a physical mapping of global plant trade, embedded in a temporal and
technical milieu. The Arboretum is a living database in a constant state of assembly and disassembly;
each year roughly 250 accessioned organisms are deaccessioned (become mulch) and are replaced with
a similar number of new specimens on the ground. Precise catalogues of each specimen are recorded and
updated over time, including photographs and pressed samples of each plant. Archives, laboratories and
herbarium continue to lead the fields in plant knowledge ranging from genomic information, to climate
adaptation and speciation. Serving a global community, the collection functions as a model of global bio-
diversity, as advances in plant science foster ecological, economic and social development.

The Arboretum site—seemingly static in plan— is also adjusting to ongoing erratic behavioral influences,
both human and non-human. Some of those influences include political and institutional structuring that
limit social engagement. Each entrance, wall and fence line is bordered by a different neighborhood cre-
ating an ever-changing dynamic between public and private interests. While the Arboretum functions as a
public park, it is unique in its temporality, organization and heritage. The original design prioritized enclo-
sure and interiority, a form of escape that was popularized by Olmsted and partners. Each naturalistic
curve and slope prioritizes vistas and view sheds over circulation and access. Currently, the perimeter is
eroded by small infrastructural amenities at each entrance, necessitating a more comprehensive study of
the relationship between the Arboretum and its context. The Arboretum is both a local resource, and
global institution. Some questions that will be raised include: What is the role of the threshold between
the site and its adjacencies? How can a living collection become relevant within contemporary needs of
an urban population? More broadly, where can policy and alliances be formed to reengage the public and
private sectors? Can an invisible kindergarten facilitate these processes?
Studio Work Flow

Part I: Lines of Inquiry (MIT) (Assigned: Feb 10th- Review: Feb 28th)

Objectives: To produce a research document that can provide critical information about children education, play, ensem-
bles, invisibility, the site and its relationships with its larger territory. Students will use this collective body of work to in-
form and guide their future design explorations.

Format: Students will start to investigate individually within the following Lines of Inquiry:
TYPOLOGIES
ARBORETUM
CODE
THEORY OF PLAY
MATERIALITY

Through these lines of inquiry, students will be able to analyze the different factors and actors that shape the education of
children and their built environments. A lecture about mapping and representation will be held where multiple examples
will be explained. These Design research will allow them to start synthesizing their gathered data in order to inform design
by establishing relationships across site, climate, program, structure; in this way the drawings will stop being only descrip-
tive to become projective tools that will inform and guide design. Collectively, students will build a site model.

Pedagogical Goals: Develop students’ skills in order to:

Learn how to inform design through research
Carry out fieldwork through photography, video or sound recording and sketches
Gathering Information by observation and interviews
Find the medium that successfully allows you to draw these findings:
Collage, diagrams, cartography, timeline, etc …

Deliverables: Multiple media for first review (discussed with instructor). After the first review students will compile their
maps into a PDF to be shared with the rest of the class.

Part II: Design Strategy (MIT/Tokyo) (Assigned: Feb 28th- Review: March 31st )
Objectives: Deployment of the site once the needs and processes have been understood with studio’s thesis question in
mind: How can we blend Architecture with an Urban Park? How do we engage the children with nature and play? What kind
of architectural / urbanistic actions could help this?

Format: Individually students will analyze first two case studies that are relevant to their area of interest. With those ex-
amples in mind, they will start exploring the site potential at 1:500 with plans, sections, axonometric and physical models.

Pedagogical Goals: Develop students’ skills in order to:

Transform intentions into actions by design and find the right footprint
Program a terrain to improve its current social/ecological performance
Understand these projects’ potential as acupunctural inserts with local/metropolitan/regional impact
invention of new building typologies and public spaces which result from mixing new programs

Deliverables: Boards for the review. Representational techniques should be informed by the intention.

Part III: Projects (Assig.: March 31st – Final Review: May 8th) PDF Booklet: May 18th

Objectives: Move from site design strategies into your projects

Format: Individually, students will continue to further develop their design strategy untill the end of the semester.

Pedagogical Goals: Develop students’ skills in order to go deeper into more detailed levels of design.

Deliverables: Boards for the review and Pdfs for booklet.

FEBRUARY

THU, 9: Part I: Design Research.

Visit To Arnold Arboretum
TUE, 14: 1:30pm Lecture by Randy Wong: Regional Manager for Childcare Centers at MIT
3:30pm Visit to Daycare at MIT
4:45pm Lecture by Sarah Williams
THU, 16: Desk Crits about Lines of Inquiry
TUE, 21: No class (Monday Schedule of Classes) // President’s Day
THU, 23: PIN UP
TUE, 28: Workshop Tezuka Day 1 (Visit to the Arboretum)
Part II: Conceptual Design Strategy distributed
WED, 1: Workshop Tezuka Day 2
THU, 2: 1st REVIEW with Tezuka
MARCH
TUE, 7: Lecture: Invisible Architecture (John Ochsendorf). TBC /// Desk Crits
THU, 9: PIN UP of Case Studies
TUE, 14: Desk Crits
THU, 16: Desk Crits
TUE, 21: Desk Crits
THU, 23: Pre-Midterm REVIEW
SAT, 25: Flight to TOKYO (1pm)// SUN, 26: Arrival in Kyoto // TUE,28: Workshop in Tokyo Begins //
FRI, 31: MIDTERM REVIEW // SAT,1: Flight to BOSTON (6pm)
APRIL
TUE, 4: Part III: Design
THU, 6: Desk Crits
TUE, 11: Desk Crits
THU, 13: Desk Crits
TUE, 18: No class (Patriots Day)
THU, 20: PIN UP with CRITICS
TUE, 25: Desk Crits
THU, 27: PREVIEW
MAY
TUE, 2: Desk Crits
THU, 4: Workshop Tezuka Day 1// FRI day 2 // SAT day 3 // SUN day 4
MON, 8: FINAL REVIEW
THU, 18: Booklet due
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tezuka Architect’s Publications
Sherman, T., & Logan, Greg. (2016). Tezuka architects : The yellow book. Berlin: Jovis.
Gregory, R. (2007). Running rings: Tezuka Architects' Fuji Kindergarten leads the way. Architectur
al Review, 222(1330), 46-47.
Schmal, P., Andreas, Paul, & Deutsches Architekturmuseum. (2009). Takaharu + Yui Tezuka : Nost
algic future = erinnerte Zukunft. Berlin: Jovis.
Tezuka, T. (2015). Takaharu + Yui Tezuka architecture catalogue 3 = Tezuka Takaharu + Tezuka Y
ui kenchiku katarogu (初版.. ed.). Tôkyô: TOTO Shuppan.
Tezuka, T. (2009). Takaharu + Yui Tezuka architecture catalogue 2 = Tezuka Takaharu + Tezuka Y
ui kenchiku katarogu (初版.. ed.). Tôkyô: TOTO Shuppan.
Tezuka, T. (2006). Takaharu + Yui Tezuka architecture catalogue = Tezuka Takaharu + Tezuka Yui
kenchiku katarogu (初版.. ed.). Tôkyô: TOTO Shuppan.

Tezuka TED TALK

The Best Kindergarten You've Ever Seen
https://www.ted.com/talks/takaharu_tezuka_the_best_kindergarten_you_ve_ever_seen

On Education
Sullivan, L. H., & Bragdon, C. F. (1934). Kindergarten chats on architecture, education and democr
acy. Lawrence Kan.: Scarab Fraternity Press.
Taylor, A. P., & Enggass, K. (2009). Linking architecture and education: sustainable design for lear
ning environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory
education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ehmann, S., Borges, S., & Klanten, R. (2012). Learn for life: new architecture for new learning. Berli
n: Gestalten.
Cuito, A. (2001). Kindergarten architecture. Barcelona: Loft publications.
Ward, C. (1978). The child in the city. New York: Pantheon Books.
Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (1998). The hundred languages of children: the Reggi
o Emilia approach--advanced reflections. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Gelfand, L., & Freed, E. C. (2010). Sustainable school architecture: design for primary and second
ary schools. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Graves, B. E., & Pearson, C. A. (1993). School ways: the planning and design of America's school
s. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Maclure, S. (1984). Educational development and school building: aspects of public policy, 1945-
73. Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex: Longman.
New schools for New York: plans and precedents for small schools. (1992). New York, NY: Archit
ectural League of New York.
Caudill, W. W. (1954). Toward better school design. New York: F.W. Dodge Corp.
Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: the new learning environments. Oxford: Architectural Pr
ess.
Husén, T. (1979). The school in question: a comparative study of the school and its future in West
ern society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi
eld .
Neckerman, K. M. (2010). Schools betrayed: roots of failure in inner-city education. Chicago, IL: Un
iversity of Chicago Press.
Clewell, B. C., Campbell, P. B., & Perlman, L. (2007). Good schools in poor neighborhoods: defyin
g demographics, achieving success. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Perkins, L. B. (2001). Elementary and secondary schools. New York: Wiley.
Dudek, M., & Baumann, D. (2007). Schools and Kindergartens: a design manual. Basel: Birkhäuser
Nasar, J. L., Preiser, W. F., & Fisher, T. (2007). Designing for designers: lessons learned from scho
ols of architecture. New York: Fairchild Publications.
Jesus, R. D. (1987). Design guidelines for Montessori schools. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Architect
ure and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee.

Education Links

http://reggioalliance.org
http://www.reggiochildren.it/?lang=en
https://www.edutopia.org
http://www.21learn.org
https://amiusa.org

References: [Links]
• http://www.archdaily.com/38196/never-never-land-house-andres-jaque-arquitectos
• http://socks-studio.com/2015/10/09/grid-no-corridors-no-open-floor-casa-mora-by-abalos-y-
herreros/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2008/12/21/casa-parr-by-pezo-von-ellrichshausen-arquitectos/
• http://www.plataformaarquitectura.cl/cl/02-310271/guarderia-en-sondika-no-mad
• http://www.archdaily.com/449678/kindergarten-in-sondika-no-mad
• http://www.archdaily.com/801563/english-for-fun-flagship-in-madrid-lorena-del-rio-plus-inaqui-
carnicero
• http://www.archdaily.com/784499/kindergarten-valdespartera-magen-arquitectos
• https://www.dezeen.com/2008/12/16/knarvik-kinder-garden-by-juice-arkitektur/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/23/clover-house-kindergarten-mad-architects-japan-house-slide-
aichi-prefecture/?li_source=LI&li_medium=rhs_block_4
• https://www.dezeen.com/2016/02/05/cobe-frederiksvej-kindergarten-based-on-childrens-drawings-
houses-copenhagen-denmark/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2016/03/08/hakusui-nursery-school-yamazaki-kentaro-design-workshop-
sakura-chiba-prefecture-japan-kindergarten-stepped/?li_source=LI&li_medium=bottom_block_1
 • https://www.dezeen.com/2016/03/03/hibino-sekkei-youji-no-shiro-atsugi-nozomi-kindergarten-
house-shaped-reading-nooks-kanagawa-prefecture-japan/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2014/10/07/forfatterhuset-kindergarten-copenhagen-cobe/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/19/nursery-in-sarreguemines-by-michel-grasso-and-paul-le-
quernec/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2009/07/29/viewing-tower-by-ateliereen-architecten/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/07/junya-ishigami-nursery-architecture-cloud-shaped-walls-high-
rise-building-japan/?li_source=LI&li_medium=bottom_block_1
• http://www.archdaily.com/370588/kids-city-modular-kindergarten-proposal-adam-wiercinski
• http://www.archdaily.com/570664/children-s-home-cebra
• https://www.dezeen.com/2016/03/06/kraus-schoenberg-architecture-kinderkrippe-nursery-school-
timber-hamburg-germany/
• https://www.dezeen.com/2016/04/04/lipton-plant-architects-bath-house-nursey-indoor-treehouse-
hackney-london/
• http://www.archdaily.com/201977/timayui-kindergarten-giancarlo-mazzanti
• http://www.archdaily.com/780213/chuon-chuon-kim-kindergarten-kientruc-o
• http://www.archdaily.com/790861/fukumasu-base-and-kindergarten-annex-yasutaka-yoshimura-
architects
• http://www.archdaily.com/804022/dssi-elementary-school-renovation-daniel-valle
• http://www.archdaily.com/775276/nido-dinfanzia-a-guastalla-mario-cucinella-architects
•

APPENDIX
NOSTALGIC FUTURE by Tezuka Takaharu, 2016, for UN (Confidential)

Nostalgia is the word to describe a desire for a world that has existed in the past. I do not think the
past is better or more ideal than the present because we are still experiencing a world with conflicts
such as war and poverty. Yet we humans continue to dream about nostalgia. I think this is because
there are important things we are losing as time passes. I use the words ‘Nostalgic Future’ to de-
scribe a world where we can access this ideal form of nostalgia in the future.

In the 20th century, the future was represented by images of computers and machines. These ideal-
istic visions are featured in science-fiction movies such as Metropolis, Modern Times and Tron. The
Matrix film shows a world where images and feelings in the computer are more real than reality itself
more real than real world . There is a program to control everything, yet the technology is invisible like
air. The world is getting closer and closer to the world portrayed in this movie. Technology is capable
of improving our lives and freeing us from fear and disease. We can travel the world, or safely hike
into the wilderness, easily access the jungle because we have transport, technology and emergency
backup. Technology has made these things possible. Now it is up to us whether we make use of the
technology for an idealistic future, or for disaster. What is the ideal environment for humans in the fu-
ture, and especially for children?

When I go to international conferences about pedagogy, I find that speakers often talk about the fu-
ture of education being an integration of computer-aided technology and clean, safe environments
for classrooms. Presenters often show projections onto walls displaying classrooms with computer
screens and playgrounds with soft, colorful antibacterial plastic. If you look at many of the latest
school designs, the modern school building is getting bigger and bigger and looking more like an IT
company’s headquarters. Sometimes I find there are very small playgrounds, while the structure itself
is taking up most of the land. In these buildings, children never go outside. They stay indoors, and
don’t walk outside in all day so they don’t get wet or feel cold. Many people believe that this is the
future but I am always against these choices for children.

I think it is time for us to understand that we are a part of a bigger existence. These artificial controlled
environments are not the vision of the future anymore; they are slowly killing the children. Just as a
fish cannot live in purified water, children cannot live in a clean, quiet and controlled environment. Our
life is a part of the surrounding environment and that cannot be disconnected.
Background Noise for All
A few years ago, while in Bali, my wife and I were invited by Dr. Tsutomu Ohashi to see a Kecak, an
Indonesian music drama and dance. Dr. Ohashi is a molecular biologist, composer and neuroscien-
tist, renowned for his outstanding research on the effects of hypersonic sounds on humans. I had the
privilege to be with him only for a short moment and I learned a lot from him during that time. I rec-
orded the Kecak with my mobile phone but when I replayed the Kecak back in Japan I found the
music was masked by background noise. I first thought there was a glitch with my mobile phone. I
soon realized that the background noise was from the jungle. In the jungle, I did not pay attention to
the noise. In fact, I did not feel the noise was distracting at all. Simply I ignored the noise and enjoyed
the Kecak ritual. Humans have a natural noise canceling system to selectively listen to what we want.
We cancel the noise not by frequency, but by information. Of course, this effect did not work when I
was back in Japan because I was not amid the same background noise.

Actually our body is full of noise too. When we dive underwater, it is possible to start hearing noises
from our own bodies. Our body is very noisy. The noise from our cardiovascular system is louder
than that of a construction site, yet we are capable of only hearing the sounds of a Mozart perfor-
mance. We have naturally learned to ignore the noise from inside of our body. In complete silence,
we can be extremely sensitive. It is very natural to be exposed to high frequency background noise. It
is not natural to be in complete silence. I think this is the reason why we hear about children having
difficulties staying quiet in the classroom. I consider it only natural that they feel nervous in an en-
closed environment without any background noise. I suspect that the design of modern, quiet school
buildings could be the cause of many autistic symptoms in children.

In 2007, we designed Fuji Kindergarten and have received numerous awards in fields from architec-
ture to education, including The Japan Institute of Architects Award in 2008 and Best of All in the
OECD/CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities. Fuji Kindergarten is a large oval
shape, well known to allow 600 children to run freely around the oval roof. The kindergarten’s sliding
doors are completely open between April and November. When these doors are open, the building
functions as a roof. There are no clear boundaries between each classroom. There are only boxes,
and 1.8-meter tall panels to indicate areas. Fuji Kindergarten accepts more than 30 autistic children
among many other children. The principal has told me that these 30 children do not show obvious
signs of autism when they are in the building. When some children have had a difficult time in other
kindergartens, they transferred to Fuji Kindergarten and behaved no differently to other children with-
out mental disorders.

The key to Fuji Kindergarten was to design spaces as very open environments, filled with background
noise. Not only is noise coming from other classrooms, but also from outside too. There are classes
teaching basic mathematics while another class is playing piano nearby. The children are obviously
selecting information from the background noise. Some visitors often worry if the children are able to
maintain concentration. One time the kindergarten was featured on a television program. The film
crew told me that they were very surprised to find that the children were capable of ignoring the tele-
vision camera and continued listening to the teacher.

A visitor from Germany once questioned Mr. Kato, the principal of Fuji Kindergarten, ‘how do you
make the children go quiet?’ Mr. Kato said it is quite easy. He whispered and they quieted down. The
children always know he has something interesting to say, so they listen.

Children have different levels of personal space in order to feel comfortable. In nature, space is limit-
less and we are allowed to choose any distance we want. In the classroom, if a child must stay in a
set area, they cannot define their space. It is expected that some students do not stay within certain
boundaries. The classroom space only exists because the boundary exists. When the boundary dis-
appears, the constraints disappear.

There is always a question made by visitors to Fuji Kindergarten on a rainy day, what happens if the-
se children get wet. The answer of Mr. Kato is very simple: In Japan, children change their clothes if
they get wet, their human skins are waterproof. Unlike a mobile phone, children do not break when
wet in a bathtub. They can be washed clean. Sometimes, I take my own children to the sea to chase
turtles. When my son was 7 years old he was capable of swimming more than 1000 meters. Now he
is 11 years old. He dives in the river and catches fishes. Children should be treated as a part of the
natural environment.

Natural Environment
Children are strong and capable enough to stay outdoors. Of course they need protection in extreme
weather, though not all the time. When we think of old settlements, these buildings are comfortable
enough for most of the seasons. Comfort cannot be measured simply by temperature or humidity. In
2001, we designed a house called Roof House, where the family enjoys living and inhabiting the
space on top of the inclined roof. When we published the project we were criticized that the roof is
too hot in summer and too cold in winter. The critics were saying that the roof cannot be used and
the design is based on a fiction that I had imagined. The owner responded saying that they use the
rooftop every day. The answer was very simple. The roof is hot in summer; therefore, the roof should
be used before sunrise or after dark while the roof is still cool. The roof is cold in winter; therefore, the
roof should be used afternoon when the roof gets warm enough.

In the past, humans found comfort through timing and location instead of controlling our living envi-
ronment with technology. This is just like a cat finding its favorite place to laze. Human behavior is full
of contradictions. We go to the beach in summer. The sand is 50 Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). We go to
ski in winter. The ski slope is -20 Celsius (-4 Fahrenheit). This is telling us that the comfort is about
the level of pleasure, not temperature. It is possible a fisherman’s hut on the water could be much
more comfortable than an expensive, air-conditioned, modern concrete structure. We can say the
same thing about schools. A traditionally designed school hut in Bali could be much more comforta-
ble than the latest, modern, air-conditioned school.

There are kindergartens and childcare facilities around the world with playgrounds covered with anti-
bacterial plastic. This kind of technology is spreading. Of course such a technology is much needed
in this world, for example, it can be very useful in a refugee camp where sanitation is poor. Yet we
can easily go wrong. It is often said that the dangers of excessive use of antibiotics may create anti-
biotic-resistant bacteria. For children, a sterilized environment can be just as dangerous as a polluted
one. In 2014, we designed a unique hospital called Soranomori that specializes in infertility treatment.
Usually hospitals are designed to be non-bacterial, sterilized places but our body already has an im-
mune system and is full of different bacteria. In this hospital, the patients are encouraged to receive
treatment amid the natural environment, with open windows and exposure to the Okinawa forests.
We have received news that the success rate doubled since introducing a hospital into this environ-
ment.

Children also need to be treated as a part of the natural environment. Dr. Tsutomu Ohashi said, we
are a kind grown up in the jungle; we cannot deny what we are. When we overprotect children with
artificially created environments, they cannot grow up properly. In Fuji Kindergarten, Mr. Kato leaves
the children on top of the roof. Some spontaneously run more than 6 kilometers in the morning. The-
se children do not require any special training in order to get faster and stronger. They may get wet
and sometimes fall down from a tree branch. They may tumble and get slight injuries. That is how
they learn the way of life. Mr. Kato said, “don’t spoil them too much or they will grow up the wrong
way. Because the ones who don’t break a bone now, may get a more serious injury once he or she
grows up.”

Whenever I see the smiles of children who were raised at Fuji Kindergarten, I get lumps in my throat
at the thought of this joy being packed into a suitcase and sent to children all around the world. It is
quite possible that the children who have access to the latest technology are not receiving a better
education than the children with little access to the technology but learn in a natural environment.