This week saw the start of building of the North Shore footbridge in Co Durham for Stockton Borough Council. But the battle over who 'designed' it is still not at an end, and both architect and engineer have embarked on a war of words over who should receive the credit for the finished design.
Whilst architect Stephen Spence has claimed credit for the 'bulk of the presentation that won the competition', Chris Wise at Expedition Engineering has been quoted as saying that the design which Spence's eponymous firm came up with 'would not stand up on planet earth'. (Wise also worked as engineer for the Millenium Bridge, which was initially closed to the public because it had the disconcerting habit of swaying and oscillating when people walked on it). Both have said that a working relationship between the two companies is now at an end.
As a multidiscplinary practice, Gelder and Kitchen has less risk of such a situation occurring, as we incorporate both architects and engineers within the one partnership! Nevertheless, in a creative industry such as ours it is always important to recognise that any construction project is, by its very nature, a team effort. No single department in Gelder and Kitchen could satisfy the needs of our clients - architects needs engineers as much as engineers need architects, let alone quantity surveyors, project managers, etc.
Wise/Spence's bridge design will open at the end of 2008, linking Teesdale with Tees Valley Regeneration's north shore development. Sadly, whilst the bridge itself will serve as a reminder of our ability as architects and engineers to physically link people, the project itself may be remembered as much for the divisions it caused.
Friday 20 July 2007
Monday 9 July 2007
Should we build to accommodate or resist flooding?
A month ago I commented on the need to reconsider planning guidelines for wind turbines, in light of the fact that they can contribute to reducing carbon emissions and thus indirectly help a city like Kingston upon Hull, much of which is already liable to flooding, and will become more so as the climate changes.
A couple of weeks later, On 13th June, the Royal Institute for British Architects (RIBA) published "Living with Water: Visions of a Flooded Future". The report considers the future of the development of the Thames Gateway in light of its increased risk of flooding, and discussed options for building, or not building, the proposed new town in this floodplain as part of the government's aim to build 300,000 new houses a year in the UK.
And then two weeks after that, in Hull and East Yorkshire the heavens opened. So much rain fell in such a short time that much of the city was left underwater, with over 13,000 homes being flooded and damage estimated to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The city is still not back to normal, and for many people their streets remained rivers for days.
The problem is that, in many parts of the country, building on flood plains is seen as the only solution to a raising UK population. Currently nearly 61 million, this is forecast to rise to 62 million by 2011 and 65 million by 2021. Coupled with the fact that there are an increasing number of single person households, large numbers of new houses need to be constructed.
It's only in recent centuries that we have attempted to withstand the force of the sea: the Isle of Ely in Eastern England is now nowhere near the coast, yet was once surrounded by water. In Holland, constant land reclamations mean that one third of the country is below sea level, potentially disastrous if storms occur like those of 1953, which breached coastal defences and killed 2,100 in The Netherlands and the UK combined.
In The Netherlands, amphibious houses designed by Factor Architecten, have been built along the Maas which rise and fall with the water level. The base of the houses acts much like the hull of a ship, helping the house to float above water; the houses move up and down on steel posts which are driven into the ground and engineered to withstand storms and currents equivalent to those out at sea.
Unfortunately most British housing developments are designed to be cheap and quick to construct rather than to withstand flooding, so it's unlikely that this approach will be taken in either Hull or the Thames Estuary in the near future. And yet without an innovative approach, how will the millions of households liable to flooding be able to cope? Should we just start assuming that the ground floor is for storage and live on upper floors - as many already do in Venice to escape the high water? Do we design using water resilient concrete flooring and fittings and water proof plaster? Should we start positioning electrics above projected flood levels? And what about road levels?
It is highly unlikely that flood defences alone will solve the problem of flooding, so it is up to architects, engineers, planners and all those involved in the construction industry to develop innovative design solutions - or suffer with the consequences.
A couple of weeks later, On 13th June, the Royal Institute for British Architects (RIBA) published "Living with Water: Visions of a Flooded Future". The report considers the future of the development of the Thames Gateway in light of its increased risk of flooding, and discussed options for building, or not building, the proposed new town in this floodplain as part of the government's aim to build 300,000 new houses a year in the UK.
And then two weeks after that, in Hull and East Yorkshire the heavens opened. So much rain fell in such a short time that much of the city was left underwater, with over 13,000 homes being flooded and damage estimated to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The city is still not back to normal, and for many people their streets remained rivers for days.
The problem is that, in many parts of the country, building on flood plains is seen as the only solution to a raising UK population. Currently nearly 61 million, this is forecast to rise to 62 million by 2011 and 65 million by 2021. Coupled with the fact that there are an increasing number of single person households, large numbers of new houses need to be constructed.
It's only in recent centuries that we have attempted to withstand the force of the sea: the Isle of Ely in Eastern England is now nowhere near the coast, yet was once surrounded by water. In Holland, constant land reclamations mean that one third of the country is below sea level, potentially disastrous if storms occur like those of 1953, which breached coastal defences and killed 2,100 in The Netherlands and the UK combined.
In The Netherlands, amphibious houses designed by Factor Architecten, have been built along the Maas which rise and fall with the water level. The base of the houses acts much like the hull of a ship, helping the house to float above water; the houses move up and down on steel posts which are driven into the ground and engineered to withstand storms and currents equivalent to those out at sea.
Unfortunately most British housing developments are designed to be cheap and quick to construct rather than to withstand flooding, so it's unlikely that this approach will be taken in either Hull or the Thames Estuary in the near future. And yet without an innovative approach, how will the millions of households liable to flooding be able to cope? Should we just start assuming that the ground floor is for storage and live on upper floors - as many already do in Venice to escape the high water? Do we design using water resilient concrete flooring and fittings and water proof plaster? Should we start positioning electrics above projected flood levels? And what about road levels?
It is highly unlikely that flood defences alone will solve the problem of flooding, so it is up to architects, engineers, planners and all those involved in the construction industry to develop innovative design solutions - or suffer with the consequences.
Monday 18 June 2007
What does Architecture week mean to you?
This week (15-24 June 2007) is Architecture Week in the UK. It is jointly organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, Arts Council England and the Architecture Centre Network.
As an architect, I spend much of my time thinking about building design, but I appreciate this might not be the case for the average person in the street. And yet it doesn't take an expert to notice when a building has been poorly designed - if it's too hot or cold, for example, or the entrance is in the wrong place!
Quality design means first and foremost understanding the functions of the proposed building and the needs of the people who will use it. Like many walks in life this leads to a degree of specialisation, and this is where a non-specialist architect, let alone someone outside the profession, can't be expected to understand the detail. For example, Gelder and Kitchen are the UK's leading designers of flour mills, something we have been doing since the 19th century - so there isn't anything we don't really know about mill design. We also have lots of experience in healthcare work, primarily secure mental health facilities and care homes. At the same time we are currently involved in virtually no 'standard' residential work. So you won't see us on Grand Designs, but it's very possible that the bag of flour in your cupboard was produced in a mill designed by us.
As an architect, I spend much of my time thinking about building design, but I appreciate this might not be the case for the average person in the street. And yet it doesn't take an expert to notice when a building has been poorly designed - if it's too hot or cold, for example, or the entrance is in the wrong place!
Quality design means first and foremost understanding the functions of the proposed building and the needs of the people who will use it. Like many walks in life this leads to a degree of specialisation, and this is where a non-specialist architect, let alone someone outside the profession, can't be expected to understand the detail. For example, Gelder and Kitchen are the UK's leading designers of flour mills, something we have been doing since the 19th century - so there isn't anything we don't really know about mill design. We also have lots of experience in healthcare work, primarily secure mental health facilities and care homes. At the same time we are currently involved in virtually no 'standard' residential work. So you won't see us on Grand Designs, but it's very possible that the bag of flour in your cupboard was produced in a mill designed by us.
Thursday 31 May 2007
How easy is it to reduce your carbon footprint?
Take a homeowner, for example. Existing planning laws can make it problematic (to say the least) if you would like to install a domestic wind turbine, which could supply up to 40% of a typical household's energy needs. This is a substantial amount when you consider that approximately 40% of the UK's carbon emissions come from domestic households.
The UK government issued a planning white paper on 21 May entitled 'Planning for a Sustainable Future' which sets out to reform the planning system. Amongst the recommendations are proposals to simplify planning for householders by removing the requirement to seek planning permission on small extensions and conservatories as well as microgeneration schemes (ie solar panels, wind turbines, etc).
Whilst laudable in theory, the proposals may not improve the situation. In fact, they may make them worse. Apart from the obvious shortcoming that there is precious little said about good design (a problem with so much contemporary domestic architecture in the UK), the proposals introduce the concept of an 'impact test' on neighbouring properties, potentially opening the floodgates to unreasonable objections from other householders in the area. Although nobody would disagree with the need for people to object to developments which are inappropriate to their situation, where does that leave domestic wind turbines? A recent example in Kingston upon Hull illustrates the potential problem: despite talking to neighbours and providing them with information about the proposed turbine (which the manufacturers claim makes no significant noise), a local man faced four objections from householders who claimed that it would spoil their view and create noise. Under the new system, would the 'impact text' have created a different result? Probably not.
Much of Kingston upon Hull is between only two and four metres above sea level; some of it is even lower. With the projected rise in sea levels in the next generation being far higher than this, can we afford to hold back zero-emissions microgeneration projects on the basis that they spoil the view? After all, the view isn't going to be very good if the houses are underwater.
The UK government issued a planning white paper on 21 May entitled 'Planning for a Sustainable Future' which sets out to reform the planning system. Amongst the recommendations are proposals to simplify planning for householders by removing the requirement to seek planning permission on small extensions and conservatories as well as microgeneration schemes (ie solar panels, wind turbines, etc).
Whilst laudable in theory, the proposals may not improve the situation. In fact, they may make them worse. Apart from the obvious shortcoming that there is precious little said about good design (a problem with so much contemporary domestic architecture in the UK), the proposals introduce the concept of an 'impact test' on neighbouring properties, potentially opening the floodgates to unreasonable objections from other householders in the area. Although nobody would disagree with the need for people to object to developments which are inappropriate to their situation, where does that leave domestic wind turbines? A recent example in Kingston upon Hull illustrates the potential problem: despite talking to neighbours and providing them with information about the proposed turbine (which the manufacturers claim makes no significant noise), a local man faced four objections from householders who claimed that it would spoil their view and create noise. Under the new system, would the 'impact text' have created a different result? Probably not.
Much of Kingston upon Hull is between only two and four metres above sea level; some of it is even lower. With the projected rise in sea levels in the next generation being far higher than this, can we afford to hold back zero-emissions microgeneration projects on the basis that they spoil the view? After all, the view isn't going to be very good if the houses are underwater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
