Shade for the Year 9 courtyard

The concept fails on constraints before it fails on design quality.

• Consent and time: at 2.6 m the pergola crosses the 2.5 m threshold, so it needs building consent. A 20-working-day processing period inside a 10-week (roughly 50-working-day) window leaves about 30 working days for design, quotes, fabrication and installation - only if the application is lodged almost immediately, and with no slack if the design changes afterwards.
• Structure: bolting into pavers makes it a fixed structure and creates a pull-out problem, because pavers are not a foundation.
• Site conflict: the only downpipe crosses the footprint, so the layout or the drainage must change.
• Budget: $2,800 must cover 12 m² of structure, consent fees, fixings, waste removal and labour. That is tight for timber plus polycarbonate.
• Brief: 78% wanting seats and 63% avoiding the courtyard are stakeholder data, not requirements. A fit-for-purpose design needs measurable outcomes - for example shade over 60% of seating between 11 am and 2 pm, surface temperature under 40°C, no ponding - plus a confirmed wind loading for the site.

So the next step is brief refinement and a feasibility check against budget, not detailing a design that already breaches constraints.

Priority should be set by whether a party can block the project, must maintain it, or will use it - not by who speaks loudest.

• Non-negotiable constraints come from the property manager and the board: consent pathway, height, fixing method, deadline and budget. These are not preferences to be balanced; they define the feasible region. If the design cannot sit inside them, the brief changes, not the constraints.
• Operational input comes from the caretaker: cleaning access, downpipe function, wind and debris, who repairs it. A structure the caretaker cannot maintain will fail in two years.
• User input comes from students, but the survey needs interpretation. 63% avoiding the courtyard is stronger evidence than 78% wanting seats, because it describes a problem rather than a proposed solution. The 41% wanting tables suggests a mixed-use space, not a single answer.
• Missing voices: the 37% who did not avoid the courtyard and students with mobility or vision needs, who are affected by posts and glare.

Record it as a stakeholder table with interest, influence, evidence source and how each was addressed, plus a short justification where the student chose one priority over another. That record is what shows the decision was reasoned rather than arbitrary.

Testing should be cheap, repeated, and matched to the stated requirement, because a model that only looks right proves nothing.

Method

1. Build a 1:10 scale model of the courtyard and proposed structure, including the library wall, and use a lamp at a fixed height to cast shadows at 11 am, 1 pm and 2 pm.
2. Photograph the shadow footprint at each time and calculate the shaded proportion of the marked seating zone from a grid overlay.
3. For thermal performance, place three identical black-painted tiles in the actual courtyard - one exposed, one under a polycarbonate offcut, one under a 90% shade-cloth offcut - with surface probes or an infrared thermometer, logging over three sunny days at 15-minute intervals.
4. Compare with the February datalogger reading of 52°C as the baseline.

Success criteria (set before testing)

• At least 60% of the seating zone shaded between 11 am and 2 pm at summer sun angles.
• Surface temperature under the structure at least 8°C lower than the exposed paver baseline.
• No part of the design exceeding the 2.5 m height or fixed-to-ground consent trigger, or consent lodged.

If the model fails, the student adjusts roof orientation, louvre spacing or shade-cloth density and retests - recording each iteration and why it was made.