For this project our brief from South Lanarkshire College was a very simple one – to design a new eight classroom teaching building that achieved a BREEAM Outstanding rating. They asked that the design of the building echo the existing campus buildings, especially the main entrance.

The Client team wanted to ensure that the cutting edge curriculum taught in the College was incorporated into the design of the new building. They considered that first-hand experience being involved in every stage of the process to deliver a low energy building would inform how they teach their construction curriculum. They were keen to experience best practice sustainability design, including the use of locally sourced materials.

At the start of the BREEAM process we interrogated the brief thoroughly and carried out a series of consultation meetings with project stakeholders. In parallel to this consultation we carried out several surveys on the site to establish its key aspects, such as ecology, ground conditions, natural assets. The results informed our design process and refined our thoughts about a series of key decisions:

• Orientation of the building to make use of solar gain but preventing glare;
• Making beneficial use of the prevailing wind but also providing shelter from this wind;
• Using the building fabric to reduce the heating load required but also using thermal mass to help prevent internal overheating;
• Using natural air movement through the building rather than mechanical ventilation;
• Using low energy use equipment and fittings;
• Using a ground source heat pump and photovoltaic panels to offset the building’s energy use;
• Using rainwater harvesting, SUDS drainage and low water use fittings.

The design team discussed these options in detail and agreed that by using these criteria we stood the best chance of achieving a low energy building. Our focus was always on the long term use of the building rather than short term gains.

DESIGN FEATURES

PASSIVE DESIGN
Our site for this project is located on the south side of the existing campus. Fortunately the orientation of this site was ideal to allow us to maximise the benefit of daylighting and natural ventilation strategies. We prepared a lot of function and massing diagrams to show the Client the benefits and problems of different layout strategies. From this process evolved an “L shaped” design with the main entrance facing back towards the main College building.

Having established the key design principles for the project we started looking at the building form in a lot of detail. While solar gain can be good in some cases, we felt that it might be a problem for the classrooms especially when so much of teaching now includes the use of electronic smartboards. We chose to locate the classrooms to the north and east sides of the building, with the main circulation corridor being located on the south side.

Our aim has been to provide a very simple passive design in which the main building construction elements will carry out most of the work in keeping the building comfortable to work in and easy to maintain. Our passive design strategy uses the following:

• Utilising solar gain from the south elevation;
• Fixed shading with timber louvres on south facing windows, to control glare and overheating;
• Thermal chimneys with louvres to the corridor side to provide air movement in warmer months of the year;
• Good daylighting level at every desk;
• Natural ventilation via openable windows in the north, east and west elevations, combined with stack ventilation in the corridors and atrium controlled by actuated windows at the top of both areas;
• Main entrance to face north, the opposite side to the prevailing wind;
• U-values of external walls to be 0.11 W/m2K, roof to be 0.12 W/m2K and ground floor to be 0.11 W/m2K;
• Open diffusive vapour control membranes in external walls and roofs, to allow any moisture within these constructions to migrate back into the building during certain climatic conditions;
• Vapour permeable natural fibre insulations in the external walls and roofs to allow them to “breathe”;
• Thermal mass of concrete composite floors and concrete blockwork in the main corridor walls;
• Good practice air tightness design details to seal construction junctions around the building;
• Low VOC finishes throughout the building.

ACTIVE DESIGN

The active design strategy uses the following:

• Actuated controlled windows in the atrium, corridors and top floor classrooms that can be opened wider to allow greater purge ventilation;
• Additional low level user operated windows to provide local ventilation in all classrooms, corridors and main entrance;
• A separate BMS system to control and monitor the rest of the building services;
• Underfloor heating using heat from a ground source heat pump;
• Local thermostat controls for all classroom heating;
• LED light fittings;
• Daylight and movement sensors on all lights;
• A low energy lift;
• User operated blinds to control glare from windows;
• Dual flush toilets;
• Flow restrictors on all taps;
• Leak detection on all incoming water supplies;
• A rainwater harvesting system.

Working with our services engineers, Cundall, we developed a strategy of using solar chimneys that draw warm air through the building via the stack effect. The north facing classrooms use openable windows to provide ventilation. Openable louvres at high level allows rising warm air to be drawn through to the corridor. As the thermal chimneys heat up, the speed of the rising air in the chimneys pulls air from the corridor via grilles, causing movement of air in the corridor and drawing air from the classrooms. Openable windows in the corridor also help to provide any necessary ventilation.

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Our Client has a lot of experience with renewable technology as they provide installation training for a range of micro-renewables. They were able to advise us that the two ground source heat pumps they have already installed worked very well and were happy to use a third one at the new building. Along with the ground source heat pump we are using a photovoltaic array on the main roof of the building. This array should produce 120 pkW. Taken together, the energy generated by the ground source heat pump and the photovoltaic array balance out the electricity demand from the building, creating net zero energy use.

OCCUPANT FEEDBACK

We have had a lot of good Client feedback since the building opened. Staff and students enjoy working in the building because it is so quiet inside. This is due to the thickly insulated walls, triple glazed windows and no mechanical ventilation. The sound insulation is so good that the building occupants can’t even hear the sound of the bus that stops outside the main classroom block.

The natural ventilation strategy is working well and the Client team is looking forward to the Spring and Summer months when the full potential of this strategy will be realised. Only one of the two ground source heat pumps has been required due to slightly milder winter temperatures than expected but this does show the heat in the ground has the potential to be used in a much larger building.

The Client Team have told us many times how much they enjoyed the project and how much they have learned about sustainable design. They have many plans to include the students in the ongoing monitoring of the building performance which will create even more knowledge about the building for their teaching curriculum.

This blog is an edited version of the full case study which can be found here:
South Lanarkshire College Case Study

I wrote in December about mayor Sadiq Khan’s plans for a London Borough of Culture award scheme which aims to encourage and support London Boroughs to invest in the provision of arts and culture infrastructure. Now that the scheme has been formally launched, it seems like a good time to consider what impact the initiative may have on the capital.

BOROUGHS WILL COMPETE FOR £3M OF ARTS FUNDING

The mayor, who announced on June 30^th that the first London Borough of Culture would be given the title for 2019, said, “I want all Londoners, rich and poor, young and old, to be able to make the most of London’s incredible cultural landscape and reap the rewards”.

The competition will see all 32 of London’s boroughs given the opportunity to bid for more than £1m of funding to stage a programme of cultural events and initiatives. Two boroughs will be named as winners in February 2018, and given the title of London Borough of Culture for 2019 and 2020 respectively. A total budget of around £3m has been allocated for these awards.

Boroughs will be chosen based on their “artistic vision and ambition to deliver outstanding cultural initiatives in their local area, putting communities at the centre of the programme’s design and delivery”. In addition to the winning entries, a further £600,000 will be available to six boroughs who do not win the title, but who put forward “exemplary projects”.

Mayor Khan has suggested that the scheme is “not simply about celebrating cultural gems”. He has highlighted that culture can connect communities, regenerate areas and inspire individuals to experience culture – not just recreationally but also as a profession. With winning boroughs expected to contribute at least 30% of the funding as additional investment, Khan is clearly looking to boroughs for a real commitment to culture.

The idea has clearly been inspired by the UK city of culture concept, which itself took inspiration from the European capital of culture programme, a scheme which has been transformative for UK cities like Liverpool and Glasgow.

Of course, in London, many boroughs are the size of some small cities – Barnet being the largest of the boroughs, and home to some 380,000 residents.

WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE?

It is clearly in the outlying, poorer boroughs where the opportunity for change is greatest. Residents of Richmond for example, already have access to a choice of 7 theatres, 2 art galleries, 2 museums and have the luxury of Kew Gardens and Hampton Court Palace on their doorstep, offering a wide range of festivals and events.

The cultural options for the 185,000 residents of Barking and Dagenham are, on the other hand far less grandiose, with 2 theatres and 2 historic houses suggesting potential room for expansion of the cultural infrastructure. It’s these sorts of inequalities of course, that the Borough of Culture award seeks to redress – encourage investment in infrastructure, engage with communities and improve quality of life for thousands of people.

The social and economic benefits of the scheme could be immense. Liverpool’s reign as European capital of culture in 2008 saw an increase in visitors to the city of around 34%, generating over £750m for the economy. Media coverage of the city’s cultural attractions double, and for the first time in decades, positive stories focusing on social issues outweighed the negative. And research found 85% of residents agreeing that Liverpool was a better place to live than before.

That said, it is questionable what can be achieved with a £1m investment – a sum that won’t go far when it comes to infrastructure projects. And with a deadline of 7^th December 2017 for entries, there is precious little time available for boroughs to develop considered bids that will have lasting value for their communities.

On the face of it, the amount might in fact favour (at least in the short term) those boroughs that already have infrastructure in place, are more able to stage events and that already attract high numbers of visitors.

But surely the objective in the long term (if not the short term) must be to bring the arts and culture to the outer boroughs, to poorer areas, where residents have limited opportunities to visit local theatres or museums, or enjoy exhibitions and festivals – areas which struggle to attract visitors and investment.

This is where the London Borough of Culture can have a real and lasting impact. Where the funding is invested in creating performance spaces from land which has long since fallen into disrepair and misuse. Where local community groups are perhaps given a chance to perform to a wider audience for the first time. This, after all, appears to be the ambition of the project.

And with both Bexley and Havering recently announcing their intention to bid for the title, the signs are good that there will be plenty of applications from outlying boroughs.

THE POTENTIAL FOR A 32-YEAR CYCLE OF INVESTMENT

We should also remember that there is real long-term potential across the whole of London here. With an annual award, the opportunity for boroughs lies not just with the immediate prize of being crowned London Borough of Culture in 2019 or 2020.

Against a backdrop of ongoing austerity and the housing shortage priority, the outer boroughs can develop their infrastructure strategically for the long term using the Borough of Culture as a target. So rather than abandoning arts and cultural infrastructure altogether, development can be enshrined in local planning.

After all there are 32 boroughs, and given it is unlikely that the same one will win twice in quick succession, the potential is for a 32-year cycle of arts and cultural investment in the city.

But as always, politics could come into play. Despite that the scheme would appear to be a vote-winner, delivering a better perceived quality of life and a boost to the local economy – whether the scheme continues after 2020 remains to be seen, and may depend on whether Khan is re-elected in May 2020.

It would be a shame if it ends there. The potential rewards for Londoners, particularly in outlying boroughs are huge. I grew up near Hull and left at age 18 feeling it was something of a cultural desert. To see that 90% of its population has engaged with the arts since it became UK City of Culture this year is testament to the power of arts and culture to transform perception and if Hull can change perception to that extent it should be a no-brainer for London boroughs to aim for this award.

With the emphasis for so many boroughs squarely on the provision of housing, local government needs to consider how they will help to provide and maintain a good quality of life for its residents. With ever increasing and diverse populations, they need to work to bring communities together in greater harmony. Khan has recognised that cultural infrastructure does just that.

Launching the competition, Khan commented, “now, more than ever there is a pressing need to reach out to our neighbours and celebrate London’s unique and diverse culture”.

It seems that the focus on culture and the arts that Khan’s initiative will bring, could be just what London needs.

By Murtaza Rizvi, Chair of RIBA Bristol & Bath and Architect at Austin Smith Lord, Bristol Studio.

Whether as individuals we voted Remain, Leave or not at all, there is one thing on which we can all agree: the vote on Brexit might be over and the decision made, but uncertainty around the implications lingers on.

 

A leading annual survey prior to the EU Referendum, found that only 15% of property and construction executives favoured a UK exit from the EU. One of the feared implications of leaving included the risk of increased project costs if the UK skills shortage were to worsen through reduction of free movement of labourers and skilled workers. Additional concerns included impact on free movement of goods within the EU, risk to community development and infrastructure investment, as well the possibility that collaborative research undertaken as part of the EU would be under threat.

At the same time, it has been argued that free movement of materials could be solved through the UK negotiating its own trade agreements with the EU and other importing areas, such as China and the USA. Ahead of the vote, Chairman of JCB Lord Bamford voiced support for the Leave campaign, convinced Brexit would cut the costs of bureaucracy so much that any additional losses incurred would easily be covered.

From an architecture perspective, however, survey results published by RIBA itself earlier this year painted a more pessimistic picture post-Brexit: 61% of respondents had had projects delayed, or put on hold, plus 37% seen projects cancelled. In total, 69% of the 1,100 RIBA members canvassed said they felt there would be a negative impact on the profession, plus 60% forecast the same for the built environment, as a whole.

So where does all this confusion leave us in the wider construction sector?

I spoke recently at a RIBA South West Brexit Briefing, on a panel alongside NBS and RIBA. The event focused on the economic outlook for the UK property market and construction industry, plus lessons learnt from previous periods of economic turbulence. Having listened to both my fellow speakers and the audience feedback, here are my three key takeaways regarding how construction can move forward during these times of uncertainty:

1. CREATE A ROBUST BUSINESS STRATEGY AND INVEST IN NEW TALENT

One feeling strongly and widely expressed was that practices and architects really can withstand times of turbulence like these and that the same goes for the sector at large. The importance of building resilience through succession planning was much emphasised, as was the benefit of having a good diverse workforce – helping to reinvigorate company culture with different ideas and fresh approaches.

A cornerstone of building resilience is having a good business plan. There can be the tendency amongst architects to be exceptionally good at designing, but less strong at managing a business with the future in mind – in uncertain times, there is no room for either/or; a successful, sustainable practice has to be skilled at both. It also needs a sound marketing strategy to get the message out there, communicating its core creative and truly understanding how best to meet the needs of clients.

Planning and strategy is vitally important, but so too is being agile and adaptable. When it comes to human resource, a dynamic team needs to be comfortable with an element of risk-taking if it is to harness the energy of more youthful talent, but balanced by the sense of responsibility that comes with experience. As generations move on, letting go can be difficult, but preparing for retirement of key personnel is critical.

2. EMBRACE AND ADOPT NEW TECHNOLOGY
According to IBM, we create 2.5 quintillion bytes of data every single day – so much, that 90% of total data in the world today has been created in the last two years alone. The numbers are staggering and irrefutable evidence why we simply cannot expect to manage data today in the same way we did pre-Internet.

Given this global megatrend in data growth and management, it is essential that we in construction are using the latest computer programmes and mobile applications, plus learning and employing new digital skills on an ongoing basis. Digital is effectively cascading down the construction supply chain, with use of Revit and NBS Create as just a few examples.

Clients are increasingly looking for more effective management of their built assets, with many clients now asking for BIM and whole-life costing. So, if clients want that data for managing their assets; architects, in turn, will increasingly be demanding manufacturers get their products in a BIM-compliant format for 3D-modelling if they hope to be specified. We can all push each other for the client.

To be an architect now we must continue to develop skills in computer systems and be able to transfer knowledge to those realising our designs on site. In the space of a few years, though, this paper-to-digital transition period will be gone.

3. COLLABORATE TO CREATE CLIENT-CENTRIC PROJECT TEAMS
As architects, we have the skills to help clients at the start of a project develop a business plan and explore the financial ‘value’ of proposals through feasibility studies. However, the trend of late seems to be towards less collaborative working than before, with architects bought onto projects later and taken off earlier. The problem is that often there is the belief that architects don’t care about cost when the truth is, a good architect see’s associated value and opportunity when it comes to investment and return on projects.

With traditional procurement where the architect does everything proving less common nowadays, the challenge is to look at ways to help create more client-centric project teams. For architects to be perceived as value drivers, we will need to collaborate better and more.

In this regard, joint project insurance might prove of interest, as does an approach where project partners combine and share discipline models, merging all records into one data-rich integrated project story. It is all about collaboration and communication, with the client being at the heart of the project.

IN CONCLUSION: CONFIDENCE AND CAUSE FOR CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM
In conclusion, RIBA Director of Practice Lucy Carmichael talked about how the RIBA are providing a strong voice for the profession and there are good reasons to be cheerful going forward:

“The RIBA has developed a programme of policy influence and professional support in response to Brexit, based on what members have been telling us matters to them; a healthy UK construction market, access to talented people, and an ability to do business easily at home and overseas. Although, we saw a drop in market confidence immediately after the referendum, we are now seeing a cautious optimism and a healthy pipeline of work in the short term, with some lingering anxieties about the longer term.”

With better business resilience, advanced digitalisation and more collaboration, an architect today can feel increasingly empowered and equipped to tackle the uncertainties of a post-Brexit world tomorrow.