CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURE
CA
68 Cambridge Association of Architects www.cambridgearchitects.org/gazette
Autumn 2014
aspirational PLAYTIME
News
Cambridge Architecture Department welcomes its new head Dr. Wendy Pullan has replaced Koen Steemers at the Department of Architecture. A statement on the University of Cambridge’s website says that she is looking forward to: building upon her predecessors success; enhancing contributions from an increasingly large number of graduate students and postdocs, and furthering the developing new research and design teaching initiatives. Diane Haigh, appointed to Cambridge Design and Conservation Panel Speaking on the new appointment Cllr Kevin Blencowe, Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport said: “We are very pleased that someone with Diane’s knowledge and expertise has agreed to head up the council’s Design and Conservation Panel. Ms Haigh was formerly Director of Design Review at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Currently she is a director of Allies and Morrison Architects in London, where she has worked on projects as varied as the University of Cambridge’s Sidgwick Site and the refurbishment of London’s Royal Festival Hall. She is a Fellow Commoner at Trinity Hall, Cambridge and is their Director of Studies for Architecture. “I am confident that under Diane’s astute stewardship the panel will continue to play an important role in helping city planners and councillors like myself on the city planning committee achieve high standards and quality of design in future developments in our everevolving city.” Cllr. Blencowe concluded. Space Standards Trojan Horse The Government’s recent conclusions following consultation on a voluntary National Housing Standard is a Trojan horse, prompts Giles Peaker of Housing Law News and Comment (posted March 2014). The consultation that follows calls by industry leaders, including the RIBA and new policies published by Local Authorities within Local Plans, is designed to cut current standards by up to 90 per cent and undermine local powers. New home for Cambridge Assessment approved Cambridge Assessment, who operate and manage the University’s three exam boards, have been given the green light for their new headquarters on site between Shaftesbury Road and the railway line. This followed a decision by planning committee to permit the scheme, designed by Eric Parry Architects. The scheme was strongly opposed by local residents over fears of local traffic gridlock and parking. In an interview with Cambridge News Andrew Spendlove, Cambridge Assessment’s group
2
property director, said: “Through cultural change, supported by investment in local and wider infrastructure improvements, we are striving to be both a considerate neighbour and an exemplar, sustainable workforce within the city.” Abode, Great Kneighton - Supreme Winner Countryside Properties was recently voted supreme winner of the Graham Pye Award presented at the 2014 Housing Awards. The scheme that creates 308 homes forms part of the wider Great Kneighton masterplan that is set to create 2,250 dwellings on the southern fringe of the city with links to the Universities bio-science campus and Addenbrookes hospital. RIBA Awards
The Arboretum, Cowper Griffith Architects
Wildfowl Cottage, Richard Davies
Cowper Griffith Architects have won an RIBA East Award for The Arboretum at Burnham Overy Staithe, Norfolk. The practice went on to receive both the RIBA East Building and Architect of the year awards – making it a triple crown for the practice. The judges said, ‘the elegance of the solution belies the challenge of the site, caught between protected woodlands and a flood plain in an historic village setting.’ Local practice 5th studio won the small project award for Wildfowl Cottage on the edge of the river Cam. Cambridge Design and Construction Awards The deadline for entries is the 31st December and following 2013 expectations are running high. Co-sponsor Cambridge City Council is keen to see entries this year for a new category ‘New Neighbourhoods’ for sites on the city
fringes, which have already received National recognition. Information on how to enter is available on the Cambridge City Council website. David Ridgeon MBE Founder member of the Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry and well-known local businessman, David Ridgeon MBE, has died. A service of thanksgiving was held on 23rd October following his passing on 7th October after suffering a stroke months earlier. He received an MBE in 2013 in recognition for his services to the Builders’ Merchants Industry and the local Cambridgeshire community. Events The Cambridge Association of Architects (CAA) are currently planning an event for spring 2015, to coincide with the launch of the next issue of this magazine – keep an eye on our website (see below) for details. The Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry (CFCI) host a series of talks and site visits. The RIBA East organise talks and CPD seminars in our area, check out the ‘News from the RIBA East’ section of the new look architecture.com website. The University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture website is a good place to go for interesting lectures, seminars and events. The first year undergraduate architecture students are currently working on designs for an installation in our city, linked to a brief about creative places to work (see p.14 and 15 of CA67). Look out for something popping up near you in January 2015. If you would like us to help promote an architecture related event in our spring issue, please e-mail us. www.cambridgearchitects.org Thanks to Kelly O’Doherty and Tom Foggin at the CAA our website and communication to the wider architectural community and beyond has a new look! Like all our volunteers, they used their skills to help spread the word of local architects, promote great design and help shape our environment. Want to get involved? - start tweeting your thoughts @RIBACambridge or send us an idea RIBA.caa@googlemail.com Cover Image
“New Tricks”, Photo: Louis Sinclair
Jewel of Cambridge Editorial Rather than dwell on “Carbuncle Cup” nominations, this summer we asked people to nominate the building, place, or space in Cambridge which made them feel proud of their city. Nominations were varied and, most interesting of all, appear to show that it is the spaces in Cambridge which people enjoy rather than particular built forms. With two separate nominations, the lights outside the Fort St George pub on Midsummer Common showed that, perhaps, creative use of our natural environment provides a great place to socialise, if nothing else!
Have your say... What do you think is the Jewel of Cambridge? Are you working on a scheme which could be the next Jewel? Let us know via email (RIBA.caa@gmail.com) or tweet us @RIBACambridge with your opinion!
‘Sunset at the Busway’ taken down the Guided Busway on the way to Trumpington. If you’ve not cycled it, I rather recommend it - it’s a nice little route - David Adams #JewelOfCambridge The willows of the Fort St George when the lights come on. Inspired by CAA meeting! - @CDC_Studio Spend an evening beneath the twinkling lights of the Fort St George. Space Appropriation at its best! - @tfoggin
My submission for #JewelOfCambridge is Little Trinity. Beauty & grandeur for a house just a few meters deep! - @kzirk
What could possibly be better than punting on the Cam in such beautiful surroundings! - Ian Richardson
Our new renewable energy centre opening end of Sept will be the #JewelOfCambridge - @cernunnoshomes
How is Lloyds Bank faience [glazed ceramic ware] a gem, as evidence corporate design was once a decent job? #JewelOfCambridge - @zfeigis The #JewelOfCambridge is not a space or a place, but an ability to stage international events. @studio24arch
Cities are defined by architectural quality, the public and private places within them and the open spaces in between. We conveniently group these ideas under the banner of ‘Urban Design’ in an attempt to expedite policy, or plans for redevelopment. Many have written in depth on this topic, to convey the need for a better understanding and a higher aspiration of the places we make: Le Corbusier, Aldo Rossi, Robert Venturi, Colin Rowe, Leon Krier, and Lord (Richard) Rogers of Riverside, to name just a few. CA68 is the final in a trilogy under the overarching theme ‘Aspirational Cambridge’ following the topics of ‘live’ and ‘work’. Entitled “Playtime”, we ask the question ‘do the places provided for play and education in this city match our aspirations?’ As more developments take place in Cambridge, evolution of open space, sustainable design, green strategies and recognition of social changes become more focused. In addition, new ‘urban developments’ the city must also provide places to combine play and education. Mark Clarke and Tricia Kelleher begin by looking at how school design can positively frame the creative energy of play in a learning environment in the recently completed ‘Play Library’ for the Stephen Perse Foundation. Keith Watson interrogates a design for a proposed new school, destined to become central to the new community of Great Kneighton. Moving to outdoor spaces Liz King takes a look at recent additions to play spaces around the city, whilst Carolin Göhler explores what our parks are for and how we can maintain and improve them. Architectural education may seem less playful, but two projects here prove that learning about architecture is fun. The exciting new school building and playground structure at St. Matthew’s School are reviewed by Slavica Mirovic. And Anne Bellamy writes about her experience volunteering at school workshops in association with the 75th anniversary and restoration of Impington Village College. Finally, two articles about further education in architecture: David Valinsky writes about E. S. Prior, the founder of the Architecture course at Cambridge University; and an interview with Roz Barr on the Royal Institute of British Architects’ Education Review. From libraries and schools, through outdoor play spaces, to architectural education - we hope this edition of Cambridge Architecture will inspire you to think about and explore the spaces around you more playfully. The Editors
3
Play Time at Perse
Chadwick Dryer Clarke’s recently completed ‘Play Library’ for The Stephen Perse Foundation marks a new chapter for education, providing a bright, engaging space for pupils to learn
The Stephen Perse Foundation’s new library offers a dynamic space for children to learn together
Tricia Kelleher, Principal of The Stephen Perse Foundation writes: There was a time when it was sufficient for a library to act as a repository of books. Living in an age where technically anyone with a digital device can read a book without leaving their home, a school library must think again about its purpose. And living in a digital age, children have so many more opportunities to learn and have fun beyond the confines of a book. But this is where a creatively designed space signalling the importance of the world of the imagination and curiosity really matters. As a school we believe learning
4
spaces matter - they promote styles of pedagogy and learning which present possibilities not previously envisaged by teacher and learner. The brief for the library in our Junior School was broad brush. Our architect skilfully took our ideas and embedded them in a playful learning space where a stage in the indoor part of the library encouraged performance and a courtyard actively encouraged play. Our experience of the Junior School library is overwhelmingly positive. It is the beating heart of the school where children come to read books and iPads, to perform and play. Our new library is a renaissance for a space stuck in the last century.
Image: Daniel Shearing.
Bright colours provide an engaging environment Image: Daniel Shearing.
The school’s existing library was housed in a large space on the first floor. The master-plan indicated that the library should be relocated to a more central position on the ground floor. This also allowed the new library to open out to an adjacent external courtyard, and this was to prove a key factor in its success. The existing room was opened up into the roof-space, providing opportunities for better daylighting and acoustics. Bright new interventions formed shelves, seats and platforms for the children to jump on, huddle in, lean against. New lighting and technology enabled children to seamlessly use ipads next to hardbacks. Surfaces to write or draw on, storage for dressing-up and an area for more formal story-telling add to its possibilities. Story Wall Image: Daniel Shearing.
Mark Clarke of Chadwick Dryer Clarke writes: Play is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as to ‘Engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose’. For a Junior School, play is likely to form a large part of the activity of its pupils, and the challenge of this project was to suggest ways that new learning spaces could positively frame this creative energy. The Stephen Perse Foundation approached Chadwick Dryer Clarke in 2012 with a challenging brief to form a new Pre-Prep School and transform its central Cambridge Junior School through a phased refurbishment programme. At the heart of this lay a belief that creatively designed learning spaces should provide freedom of activity and technology, whilst suggesting patterns of use. Rooms should be able to be transformed by the children themselves. In this regard, our practice
Play Garden Image: Daniel Shearing.
acknowledges the influence of the Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger, whose school design work remains seminal to us. A master-planning exercise in consultation with teachers, pupils and parents identified the manner and phasing of the work. This fed into the detailed design of several key areas, including Reception to Year 3 learning spaces, and – importantly – a new library. A stimulus for learning Through its own research, The Foundation had identified the benefit of fiction and imaginative story-telling for its younger children, and our task was to provide a spatial stimulus for this. The library was not to simply enable access to books, but to allow the children to playfully explore their ideas in many different ways, be it by the written word, the use of digital media or oral story-telling.
Concept design for the “Big Book” Image: Chadwick Dryer Clarke.
The Story Wall A ‘Big Book’ formed a new gateway to the library, attractively marking the importance of this new space along the main circulation corridor. The text in the “Big Book” comes from ‘Tom’s Midnight Garden’ by Philippa Pearce, an alumna of the school. Inspired by the work of artist Gordon Young, words and typography feature throughout the project. The oversized letters on the wall spell “story” and create ledges to display books and form a seat to curl up in. The iroko structures within the external courtyard create benches and seating for individuals and groups. The circular seating evokes the tradition of storytelling around fires. Only from an elevated position do these structures appear as letters and form a word. The external area is accessed via glazed french doors and continues the character of the library outside. References to beaches, forests and Narnia can be found here by inquisitive minds. Some architecture can be described as ‘playful’, but very often this extends to its aesthetic expression or meaning rather than a statement of its intent. As architects, we are extremely pleased to have been given an opportunity by a forward-thinking client to design a series of truly playful learning spaces.
Client: The Stephen Perse Foundation Architect: Chadwick Dryer Clarke Structural Engineer: Gawn Associates Contractor: Rival4 Creative Interiors
5
Lesson Plan
Trumpington Community College, exterior. Image: Avanti Architects
Trumpington Community College
Rendered plan. Image: Avanti Architects
6
The new development of Great Kneighton is beginning to take on a life of its own. The latest addition is the Trumpington Community College by Avanti Architects. Keith Watson of BDP Architects goes back to school. The new Trumpington Community College in Clay Farm will operate as one of three schools in the Parkside Federation of Schools. As a new school for a new community, it’s confident design has benefited from a visionary Client and consultation with the local Southern Fringe Community Forum. With school design a politicised subject of recent years, the Client (City of Cambridge Education Foundation, Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council) has rejected standardisation and trusted the experience of their architect Avanti to develop a design which matches their educational ethos. The school, delivered as part a S106 agreement through the house builder Countryside Properties, shares use of a community sports centre on site and a community centre library in the centre of Clay Farm. This campus environment in many ways emulates the operation of the original Parkside Campus, creating a bond of trust with the students who travel independently between the
buildings within the School Federation. This sense of trust extends to the school’s relationship with the public realm – an important gesture for fostering a sense of ‘civicness’ in the new community. The open boundaries which the masterplan calls for, contribute towards the public realm and open access from the community allowing pedestrian routes to permeate the site. The school building thus responds directly to the street and the sports pitches are available for public use outside school hours. This marks a contrast to the many exclusive educational institutions of Cambridge which impede the pedestrian experience of the city. The site on the fringe of the community is next to the green parkland corridor, which continues the successful use of flood planes in Cambridge for common recreational use, and preserves natural ecology in close proximity to development. The school retains a belt of existing trees along this parkland boundary which will help settle the new building - an approach the rest of the Clay Farm masterplan could have benefited more from. Nonetheless, the quality and investment in the landscape and public realm is commendable, prioritising pedestrians over vehicles and making features out of the sustainable drainage networks.
Trumpington Community College, interior. Image: Avanti Architects
Trumpington Community College, exterior. Image: Avanti Architects
The masterplan originally called for a long school building to define an edge to the development and have its entrance closer to the community centre on the south. Instead the architects have chosen to create a compact building to the north of the site with the main entrance facing a community square, placing the all weather pitch to the south - a move which is aided by open boundaries and prevents the school building overshadowing its main external space. It also works better educationally as a compact sociable building, and because of the campus-like operation of the school across sites will generate a sense of liveliness engaging with the community. Creating a new community Community is very much a central theme of the school, which will be apparent almost as one enters directly from the street. The school building is organised as two L-shaped arms around a central atrium, slightly slipped
to create varying visual relationships and permeating daylight to deep plan floorplates. Learning is as much about social interaction occurring in the in-between areas as it is about the classroom, hence we see features like an oversized central staircase for students to engage together less formally or for informal group tuition. Similarly we also see large galleries overlooking the atrium for less structured group learning beyond the classroom. All this requires a Client with a strong vision to have the confidence to depart from centralised design guides, instead referring to educational models in practice for many years in progressive democracies like Denmark. As a building which sits on its own and is publicly accessible to all edges, it has a prominence and identity which will be important. Efforts have been made to differentiate it in character from the style of the residential development which is almost entirely brick and flat roofed. This is primarily achieved by using
Image: Avanti Architects
aluminium cladding and screens to frame the top of the building, in counterpoint to the brick base and sports hall which relate more to the new vernacular. The size and positioning of windows also play an important function to animate the public realm, as do roof terraces. Overall it is a restrained, civic architecture which works well - though one wonders if there may have been an opportunity to make it slightly more pronounced in the townscape without falling in to the trap of statement architecture. The roofline would be an obvious opportunity to break from the dominance of boxy brick buildings. The eye instead is drawn to the bulk of Addenbrookes Hospital as the dominant local landmark and main point of difference. Inevitably with the procurement route the school has followed, there has been an imperative to build economically. The relatively simple form, environmental strategy and investment in good materials are sensibly balanced in this respect and should hopefully safeguard the integrity of the design to do justice to the sense of trust the Client has placed in good design and the new community of Clay Farm. Keith Watson, Architect, BDP
Client: Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council & City of Cambridge Education Foundation Architect: Avanti Architects M&E: Max Fordham Civic and Structural: ARUP Landscape: LDA Project Manager: AECOM Contractor: Morgan Sindall
7
Transforming Playscapes
The Blue Whale in Gothenburg, Monstrum. Image: Monstrum
Inside the Blue Whale, Monstrum. Image: Monstrum
Tumbling Playground Den, Erect Architecture + LUC Image: LUC
8
Splash pads, springies, trim trails, mugas and concrete ping pong. Liz King explores how, across Cambridge, play areas are being renovated with new equipment and layouts - changing the recreational landscape of the City. Goodbye to the tired-looking swings and paint-chipped see-saws. Welcome to a brightly coloured world of pirate galleons, skater landscapes and interactive water play in the city’s parks. Over the past few years, many of the city’s major play spaces have been overhauled, including Jesus Green, Kings Hedges and Romsey Rec. This summer, the opening of three water adventure ‘splash pads’ has boosted the city’s outdoor play options, and with more improvement projects currently in the pipeline for Coleridge Rec., Lammas Land and Cherry Hinton Park, it seems that Cambridge is the place for toddlers and children to hang out. In the larger playgrounds, where there is a range of equipment and a sculpted ground plane, these play facilities are thoroughly enjoyed by a significant part of the local population. They act as a locus for parents and carers to meet and share experiences, as well as providing a safe learning and exploration landscape for children to develop skills or just let off steam. The smaller play ’pockets’ dotted around new developments, however, sometimes appear under-used, with one or two isolated and stark bits of equipment, fenced off from the surrounding area looking more like urban clutter than vital opportunities for creative play.
Parks and open spaces make up a sizeable and valuable part of the urban environment in Cambridge. Taking an urban density of 50 dwellings per hectare, applying the Cambridge City Council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards (Appendix I of the Draft Local Plan 2014), would equate to roughly 40% of the area of new developments being provided as informal open space and play areas facilities. The Local Plan also includes guidance on play space typologies, age appropriate provision and maximum catchment areas. LAPS, LEAPS and NEAPS These acronyms, written into the draft Local Plan, have become the bywords for open space and play provision for children – each to be of a minimum size and with a certain acceptable type of age appropriate equipment. The smallest category, the Local Area for Play and informal recreation (LAP) is minimum 100m2 with a catchment area of 60m radius. The largest category, the Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play and informal recreation (NEAP), is minimum 1,000m2 with a catchment area of 600m radius. The effect of this categorised division of types of play space has led to a proliferation of devolved, piecemeal play areas. The typology definitions provided in the current Local Plan emphasise the need for all three categories of space to have play equipment AND landscaping. A number of companies provide a complete service of S106-compliant playgrounds from design and manufacture to installation. Their
A Price to Play
Right: North West Cambridge Masterplan Play Strategy Diagram. Image: North West Cambridge Developments
Doorstep Playable Space 0-5 years 100m catchment Local Playable Area 0-11 years 240m catchment Neighbourhood Playable Space All years 600m catchment Youth Space + 12 years
products map onto the LAPS, LEAPS and NEAPS guidance and it is easy to see how this standard brightly-coloured equipment has become a staple for the Local Authority play spaces. At best, this can offer safe, qualitytested playgrounds at affordable prices. At worst, a single piece of equipment is placed on an existing tired and failing play space, without thinking about how it integrates with the wider landscape or whether the play space is in the right place. Designing Better Places In a city which prides itself on design quality, and where a large proportion of the major recreational spaces are within Conservation Areas, it seems curious that the approach to play spaces is often focussed on standard offthe-shelf products and play zones that are often visibly and functionally segregated from the surrounding landscape. The masterplan for the University’s NorthWest Cambridge development shows the sites for local and neighbourhood play areas scattered like marbles across the new urban quarter (see map). There are also three larger design-led play and adventure spaces proposed. The most exciting of these is the adventure trail, themed around ‘The Green Man’, which has strong potential for landscape integration, natural play and context-specific exploration. The natural play elements proposed in the Green Man trail are reflected in the major public space of Storey’s Field, with timber climbing and balancing equipment.
In the neighbourhood park on the North East however, the approach has been to select isolated off-the-peg equipment pieces rather than a design-led play area. While some elements of the North West development seem to be heralding a sea-change in the play landscape of Cambridge, it is disappointing that this new approach has not been applied more widely. Close to the Accordia development, consultation is currently underway for a proposed ‘Scooter Trail’ to the Kingfisher Way play area. Given the award winning design quality of the Accordia development, the play facilities here have been lagging. The option for the linear trail, that links up with other existing open spaces, could be an engaging and holistic landscape proposition. Examples from further afield are showing ways to avoid the standardised play equipment route. Design practices such as Erect Architecture (play structures for the Queen Elizabeth Park in East London) and Monstrum in Denmark show how play equipment can be imaginative and responsive to site context. It doesn’t have to be just for children, but can form intriguing urban artefacts that make positive additions to our open space and recreational landscapes. It’s time to drop the LAPS, LEAPS and NEAPS labels, and make a more engaging, interconnected infrastructure of play in Cambridge. Liz King, 5th Studio
Over the last five years Cambridge City Council received approx. £8.8 million from developer contributions. Around 10% of this was spent on play areas and open spaces. Gemma Dudley explains more… New development in Cambridge will be expected to contribute to the provision or improvement of open space in accordance with the City Council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards included in the Local Plan. Whilst the City Council encourages on-site provision of open space wherever possible, this is challenging on smaller sites within the existing built-up area of the City. Any shortfall in provision on-site is met through payments to the City Council via “Section 106 Agreements” - agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The payments are set out in the Council’s Planning Obligation Strategy, with the rate of contribution dependent on numerous development factors. The Strategy also sets out the Council’s approach to the expenditure of open space contributions and it is important to be able to demonstrate that any contribution for open space associated with a new development will be used to mitigate the impact of that development. Where on-site provision of open space is feasible, the Section 106 Agreement will specify the nature and extent of the open space, together with any associated play equipment, and arrangements for its maintenance and management. The Council’s approach to open space will soon partly be replaced by the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”), introduced in the Planning Act 2008 and under the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, although Section 106 agreements will still be used for any site specific requirements and will be key to ensuring flexibility in the imposition of planning obligations. CIL allows local authorities to raise funds for open space and recreation facilities from developers via a charging schedule based on a formula, which relates the size of the charge to the size and character of the development paying it. It seems inevitable that the introduction of CIL will make the process of open space provision less transparent since there will be no ability to hold the Council to account as to how and where the money has been applied. Gemma Dudley, Associate Solicitor, Hewitsons LLP
9
Critical Space
© swns.com
Cambridge is a fortunate city, rich in green spaces and rivers. In 2011 it had 750ha of green space for its 120,000 residents. Much more than the normal ratio in relation to built fabric. However, the City Council’s most recent parks strategy highlighted that while some existing neighbourhoods have ample green space, others were under provided. Due to planned growth there is increased pressure on the city to provide ‘greenery’. As Cambridge changes from ‘town-sized’ to a predicted larger urban city area of 160,000 by 2031 (including fringes), approximately 35% more people will live within the city area mostly living in flats. Many of these may not have a garden, nor any form of useable balcony, increasing the need for quality outdoor spaces. Parks and green spaces have positive social cohesive qualities and add to the pallet of our local public realm. Increasingly though, they are challenged by sustainable infrastructure wanting to utilise them. Changes often visually spoil the look of our ‘rural’ commons and in many cases degrade their quality to the detriment of all and perhaps, compromising their prime purpose. It raises an important question - what are our parks for? Tranquillity is perhaps under pressure according to a recent CPRE Report as competing uses such as commuting cyclists or the proposed guided bus routes are not always conducive for enjoying a relaxing walk. Away from the hustle and bustle of the city, green routes are also becoming hectic. An increased pressure for lit routes, lamp columns and “cat eyes” have made some commons much more urban, losing
10
their special appeal - like a slice of countryside brought into the city. With the current squeeze on budgets, the city’s parks and recreation team who take the lead role on park maintenance, have turned to seek outside help. Friends groups have become an important development. While the Highways Department of the Cambridgeshire County Council maintains the public footpath network and the Cam Conservators aspects of the river corridor, the efforts of these people and organisations can often be driven by contradictory agendas. Over time we have seen and risk the special qualities and character of a green space eroded by uncoordinated uninformed approaches. Sometimes management plans are focussed on just wildlife, or just provide and engineering solution, at the exclusion of understanding the historic environment and its management – there is a need to integrate all. Is quality being achieved within new neighbourhoods? In essence we are getting more, larger open spaces in new neighbourhoods on the city fringes – some with interesting designs, some new modern squares and equally, smaller green spaces in some smaller inner city developments. Although green areas are often proposed, they are often fragmented with paths and features leaving insufficient space where people can gather. Often purposefully designed so that people cannot informally kick a football or fly a frisbee. In contrast, some older city parks are poorly furnished with limited seasonal display and enjoyment.
The parks strategy realised that positive work needs to be undertaken, but has it gone far enough? Cambridge Past, Present and Future doesn’t believe so; missing the opportunity to establish quality amenity parks in some existing and new communities. Those areas with high quality ornamental plantings are also predominantly in the city centre – communities such as Arbury, Abbey, and Queen Edith lack these and deserve a higher quality of green space provision to achieve imaginative, quality seasonal interest and enjoyment all year round. For new neighbourhoods new spaces are planned by the developer with the City Council’s specialist guiding to achieve a minimum quality as none of the spaces are informed by the new community. So while planning gain funding (CIL) directly support improvements to existing green spaces and commuted sums (S106) made
Christ’s Pieces
available to create new green spaces; so far no space is made available to create a new park particularly in highly deficient areas like Arbury, Romsey, West Chesterton, Petersfield and East Chesterton. What do we want as citizens of Cambridge and how can we keep up quality? • Contribute to consultation drafts on any park strategies and Local Plan discussions, • Keep an eye out to prevent urbanisation of parks or the loss of green space to provide other community provisions, such as community centres, is not acceptable and means park land is lost forever. • Join your local friends group or help to establish one for your area, working closely with the city council. Volunteers and fundraising efforts are always welcome, • Support income generating operations on parks such as festivals and fairs so that profits are ploughed back into the upkeep of green spaces, • Work with your local council or parish council to support parks in your area using Section 106 contributions or Community Infrastructure Levy funding, • Help the City Council to fund-raise to improve public park provisions and their maintenance • And of course be a responsible park user. It is clear the City’s Streets and Open Spaces Department work hard to maintain the quality of our green spaces. And although not a statutory provision, the current governing political party too is keen to support such ambitions. Yet increasing pressure on council budgets and the promise of more cuts in the pipeline, the annual allocation for green spaces is threatened. So how will our local parks fare? We have to be ready for change. Our beautiful network of formal and informal parks are a joy to many local people and together with its amazing heritage environment makes Cambridge special. One reason why so many people love to live in the city and our local economy strives. We should demand a truly visionary strategic plan for the expanding city to improve its landscape, amenity provisions, and recreational offer and indeed require management plans for each local park to engender planned improvements over time. Now is also the time to pull out all the stops to ensure we enhance and not lose the quality of our parks and green spaces, so that more people can enjoy them in the future. Carolin Göhler, CEO, CambridgePPF
Cambridge Past, Present & Future A local charity working to keep Cambridge and its surroundings special by positively influencing planning developments, delivering environmental education and managing the green spaces and historic buildings in its care — for the benefit of all. Background CPPF established Wandlebury Country Park as the city’s first country park over 60 years ago. Managed by local charities, others such as Milton Country Park (38ha), the Magog Down (66ha), Coton Countryside Reserve (120ha) and the emerging 58 hectare country park provision at Trumpington Meadows – in total over 325ha (800acres); now form diverse wildlife areas part of different landscape characters dotted around the city (chalk hills, fens and claylands). The Green Infrastructure Strategy Over a decade ago CambridgePPF realised that the city’s historic environment – in comparison to
many other cities – is actually well looked after with no building ‘under risk’. However, with the envisaged growth of new fringe communities away from the heritage areas, the quality denominator for current and future residents should be the quality of the open space provision. A partnership of councils and large organisations such as Natural England, The Environment Agency, National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trust and CambridgePPF, have been working together in ensuring that Cambridge and its sub-region (2006), together with the whole of Cambridgeshire (2011), have adopted a Green Infrastructure Strategy to guide Councils planning developments. This will in time give the
opportunity for any Section 106 (S106) funding or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to enlarge wildlife areas, ensure corridors between them and facilitate more sustainable access (on foot/bike or by bus) for local people to enjoy them with less conflict between these needs.
River Cam
The River Cam Often forgotten and much under pressure is the River Cam corridor, which is a delightful, relatively wildlife-rich corridor meandering
around the city. Motorised punting, punt wars within the city, ugly high-rise buildings to river edges and the more rural commons, have all increased usage of footpaths by cyclists, created conflicts between rowers, anglers and other river users. Everybody wants to make use of the river, but rarely anybody contributes to its upkeep. CambridgePPF is working with partners such as the Cam Valley Forum, Cam Conservators, EA and others to establish a balanced approach to enrich the river corridor. The partners are formulating a document with the aim of becoming a material consideration to positively impact in the planning process. Carolin Göhler, CambridgePPF
Parkers Piece
11
Tall Stories
In 2013 the extension of St. Matthew’s Primary School on East Road / Norfolk Street was completed. Slavica Mirovic describes some of the complexities of designing a multi-strorey primary school and the highlights of a public art school project.
Top: MUD project ‘Factory’ structure in foreground, St Matthew’s school in background. Image: Torange Khonsari Bottom: Inspirational chair installation as part of an ideas workshop. Image: Andres Lang
Client: Cambridgeshire County Council Architects, Structural, M&E, QS and PM: Mouchel Contractor: Kier Public Art: 30 Bird (artists), pubilc works (architects)
12
Multi-storey School The number of people living on one square meter is increasing from decade to decade. The population in towns is growing rapidly and as a result there is a need for more multi-storey buildings. Until recently the majority of primary schools across the country were built on single, ground level but in the 21st century they are becoming taller. An exhaustive assessment of potential options for expanding St. Matthew’s Primary School, including alternative sites, concluded that an extension on the historic school site would be the most viable. The tight site meant that a multi-storey option had to be developed to fit the required classrooms and spaces for play. To e n s u r e t h e d e b a t e s u r r o u n d i n g school design was not dominated by site size alone, independent research (by the University of Cambridge) was commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to better understand the effect of the building environment on the quality and delivery of education experienced by children and school staff. The conclusion from the study was that there was no overwhelming evidence in favour of either multi or single storey buildings and that each style presented a range of issues to be considered. As a result of this research a change to guidance was made by Cambridgeshire County Council to allow the construction of multi-storey schools where appropriate, on a case by case basis, taking account of site constraints and the overall development context within the school location. The redevelopment of St Matthew’s Primary School provides a three form entry primary school, for 630 children, and teaching accommodation over three levels, on a very constrained site. In the school, ground floor classrooms are linked to outdoor areas with a gentle transition.
Government guidance says that the school’s youngest children should be taught on the ground floor. Building Bulletin 100 (the UK’s main document advising on primary school design) suggests that nurseries, reception classes and spaces that are used by the wider community are located at the ground floor. The youngest ‘users’ in this school are housed on the ground floor and have direct exits to the outdoor area from all spaces they use, including classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, dining and assembly halls. In a symbolic way as the children grow they will move towards higher floors: Keys Stage 1 on the first floor, Key Stage 2 on the second etc.. There is some sort of hidden aspiration that excites and drives the little ones to look up to their older friends and pupils as they grow up. As the external areas are limited the idea of utilising the roof above the hall to accommodate additional curriculum was proposed, and was welcomed by the school. Under adult supervision the roof terrace is used for smaller scale learning activities; outdoor classroom, science projects, schools roof garden, drama and story telling. The external curriculum area definitely enhances the variety of external spaces available to children on this very tight site. Public Art Due to the nature of the proposed changes to the school. the planning permission included a condition relating to the provision of public art, this lead to a project called MUD. MUD is a collaboration between 30 Bird, public works and St Matthew’s primary school to create a new culturally driven play space in the school playground, making five new structures for playing, thinking, teaching and experimenting. The playground, which is embedded within a cultural program of events, performances and workshops is the first typology of playground to open its doors to the city. After school and on weekends this playground becomes part of the public realm offering cultural delights to citizens. Over a period of eighteen months 30 Bird and public works worked closely with children
Old Skool and adults triggering their imaginations and capturing stories that became the material for the cultural offerings. MUD is a long term project linked to the redevelopment of the school premises. The structures are designed to be outdoor play structures as well as places to host arts and cultural events open to the public - a playground for imagination, fun and creativity that is open to all. It is proposed that 30 Bird, public works and the school will work in partnership with and commission regional and national festivals, venues, galleries, museums, artists and scientists to create and programme cultural activity with and for children of the school and beyond. MUD, through its creative program of workshops will also influence the way the curriculum is delivered. This process of playground design, is not just about providing well designed play structures but using them as a way to challenge conventional education models, open the school to its outside cultural context and add to the culturally active public realm of the city. The new St Matthew’s Primary School has been extending the usual classroom based
Anne Bellamy gives an insight into school workshops, coordinated by the RIBA in association with Impington Village College. Impington Village College might just be another name of just another secondary school, but hidden away in the suburban village just outside Cambridge sits one of the UK’s most important architectural legacies. As one of the first secondary schools to be built by Henry Morris in his ‘village college’ system Impington Embraced not just secondary education but Embraces adult education. Morris employed one of the most progressive and prominent architects of the time, Walter Gropius - and this understated building remains his only built work in the UK. Here in 2014, observing its 75th anniversary, the college is celebrating receiving a Heritage Lottery Grant allowing them to preserve and restore the Grade I listed building for many generations to come. They are also looking to preserve the College’s legacy in the local community through a series of educational architecture based events. In partnership with Impington Village College, RIBA East and volunteers helped organise a series of workshops that took place at four of the college’s main catchment areas - in Histon/ Impington, Milton, Girton and Oakington - to provide an understanding of the future building work to those moving up to the school and as a learning tool for young minds to begin looking at design and sustainability; hoping to nurture their sense of the built environment. Volunteers from architecture practices around Cambridge discussed with the children the origins of architecture and the day to day lives of architects - with the key theme of what buildings might be like 50 years in the future - much like Gropius was looking ahead to future generations.
After what was their first charrette; playing with their wonderfully inventive ideas about future needs, sustainability and how new technology might play a part in this - we got making, sticking and gluing. As their infectious curiosity about the future of the built environment turned to gleeful enthusiasm of realising their ideas in groups, an hour of organised chaos with cardboard and paper plates ended with a presentation. There was incredible innovation at these workshops - from the child who asked me if an aluminium carbon-fibre “super metal”, in his words, existed and if not could he invent it? To the hotel which perched upon the foundations of four strategically placed trees, which were in turn fed by the rainwater dripping round the spherical body it held up.
Peeping through the ‘Factory’ window. Image: Clare Summerfield, 30 Bird
These kind of workshops are important to help leave behind a legacy in burgeoning minds, an appreciation of just how important architecture can be in shaping how people live, work and play. Instinctively, without much explanation needed they grasped the idea that buildings don’t have to just look ‘pretty’ but are there for us, and in turn why the work at Impington Village College will be so important to them as they will feel its direct impact on their day to day environment. As a volunteer at these I can see why education is so important; not just to educate children about architecture and design (which doesn’t currently feature greatly in the national curriculum), but also as a way of engaging with a local community about their built environment. School workshops are an eye-opening tool for teaching and passing on knowledge from adult to child but also, just as importantly, from child to adult. Anne Bellamy Architectural Assistant, 5th Studio
curriculum. This is a modern school where education does not stop in the classrooms. The school and the public art project have the capacity to teach us about heritage, sustainability, the value of the space in the city centre, new architectural languages and interpretations and - what is most important for our children - it allows a great deal of play and joy. Slavica Mirovic, Architect, Mouchel
Above top: Impington Village College. Image: Impington Village College Above: Models of what architecture might be in 50 years produced in school wokrshops
13
Prior Knowledge
In his new book “The Architect Speaks: the writings and buildings of Edward Schröder Prior,” David Valinsky examines the writings of the architect, art historian and founder of the Cambridge Architecture course, E S Prior. His insight into the founding principles of the school strikes an interesting chord with similar discussions today. The founding of the Architecture course at Cambridge University in 1912 was marked by an address from Edward Schröder Prior in his role as Slade Professor entitled ‘Art Study in Cambridge’. Prior took the opportunity to outline what he believed to be the true purpose and correct direction for architectural education and in so doing he spoke on a subject that had greatly excited the architectural community for over two decades and remains hotly debated a century later. Prior was an unusual choice to shape new the academic course. He was sixty and had no experience in the provision of architectural education. He did, however, have a rich output in both architectural design and scholarship to call upon, his three most famous buildings — The Barn near Exmouth, Voewood near Holt, and St. Andrew’s in Roker, ‘the Cathedral of the Arts and Crafts Movement’ — being among the most inventive expressions of the English Arts and Crafts Movement. Prior’s work in Cambridge such as the houses on Wollaston Road, the Henry Martyn Hall on Market Hill and the Medical School (now the Zoology Department) on Downing Street, demonstrate, however, a continually changing approach to the contemporary problem of what twentieth-century architecture should be. Since 1900, Prior had also been recognised as an important scholar in the field of English Medieval Art; when he died in 1932 he was principally remembered as an academic who had once designed some buildings. When Prior spoke in 1912, almost all prospective architects had to pass the RIBA examinations in order to practice, only the Architectural Association and the course at Liverpool University were recognised by the RIBA as exempting students from these exams. They could do this by working in an office and attending evening classes, or they could attend one of the technical schools that during the 1890s and 1900s became progressively more oriented towards the ideas of the Arts and Crafts Movement. They often trained more than just architects, allowing design students to come into contact with other craftsmen as well as engineers and builders. Such an education could be rich but could also be haphazard and many architects had little confidence in the RIBA
14
Henry Martyn Hall, Cambridge Image: David Valinsky
or their exams to maintain artistic, rather than ‘merely’ professional standards. In addition to the problem of what an architectural training ought to be — art, science, knowledge, design? — many considered that architects should also experience a wider education, such as that provided by universities. In 1904 the RIBA set up the Board of Architectural Education to devise a curriculum to ensure some degree of consistency over architectural training. Charles Waldstein, the Cambridge representative on the board argued that any course must embrace both the specific nature of architectural practice and the general needs of cultural awareness and that not only should a liberal education contribute to architectural studies but also that architecture should be a part of a liberal education. In 1912 Prior reinforced these sentiments, stating “In art study there is a special faculty to be trained for the benefit of the community.” This not only meant that “the community get real artists rather than professional specialists” but that architecture should be taught to all connected with the care or creation of the built environment. Prior argued that while it may not be possible to teach students to design, it was possible to stimulate and encourage
this aptitude in those that had it, and teach them the necessary skills to convey their ideas. Prior further argued that the key advantage of a university course over other routes of architectural education was research, the method by which university departments in general enrich society as a whole. He had earlier lamented that “in the science of building there are no experiments made” particularly when “science can now present many new materials… In the hands of the mechanical engineer the metals are being played with like wax… Yet on the building side how unscientific and unprogressive has been the use of iron and steel… what practice has there been to make concrete a part of our art?” The reality in 1912 was, however, rather different from that which Prior’s address might imply. The Cambridge examination could only be taken as part of another degree and consisted only of scientific principles and the history of architecture. It was not particularly tailored to contemporary design practice and no practical skills in design were called for. In the first year there were only three students. Prior was instrumental in growing the Cambridge school from these discouraging beginnings into a full degree course by 1921 and he seems to have been well like by students. Graham Dawbarn who took the course in its second year wrote “the force and inspiration came from Professor Prior… He had a horror of the machine and of commercialism in architecture… An impractical dreamer perhaps; but something of his love of fine materials and fine craftsmanship, and something of his idealism and his code of ethics stuck.” David Valinsky, teacher, History of Art Department, University of Cambridge The Architect Speaks: The writings and building of Edward Schröder”, by David Valinsky, is available to buy now from anarchitectspeaks@gmail.com
Education Review Cast concrete detail foreground, Cambridge University Architecture students background. Image source: University of Cambridge Department of Architecture website
Last year the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) launched a review of the architectural education system. In order to practice in the UK as a fully qualified architect the route commonly involves the following as a minimum; a three year degree, a year in practice, two year postgraduate diploma/MPhil and a final year in practice. The above is split into three stages known as “Parts”. Most people take longer in training than the minimum seven years. The education review is responding to
several contemporary issues, including the introduction of university tuition fees and low trainee salaries due to the economic climate. These factors make it increasingly difficult for those from lower income backgrounds to embark on a career in architecture and for those who need to work part time, or take time out from training, to qualify. In October 2013 the EU Professional Qualifications Directive was revised. This set out the minimum framework for the study of architecture within EU member states as; four years full time study plus two years professional practice experience or five years full time study with no requirement for practical experience. It seems like a suitable time for a review, so we’ve asked Rozz Barr, RIBA Vice-President Education, practicing architect, architecture teacher and examiner, some questions about the ambitions, process and potential outcomes of the RIBA education review. Why is the RIBA carrying out a review of architectural education? We are carrying out a review forced by the changes of the EU. This combined with the introduction of student fees and architects on average now (nearly 90%) taking 10 years to qualify.The context of education and practice is unrecognisably different from the time (90 years ago) when basic education structures of architecture were introduced.
How is the RIBA review being carried out? We have formed an Education Review Group which is a mixture of academics, practitioners, stakeholders (Architects Registration Board (ARB), Standing Conference of Heads of Schools of Architecture etc.) and student groups. The “review” will be carried out over two years - speaking and debating with those closely involved in architecture and architectural education. The review started about six months ago,
what’s been happening over that time? We have had about six meetings so far this year. We will report in December 2014 of the first findings to RIBA council with the idea that we will have an all day conference at the beginning of 2015 to follow through the discussions. This is a review and it should take this period to fully research all avenues and groups we need to address. What key changes to architectural education do you foresee might come about as a result of the review? The RIBA is only making recommendations. These recommendations are, however, hoped to influence the direction and content of the ARB’s review of routes to registration. The ARB has to have the will to change and the schools have to have the will to change. The intention is to retain the value of the first degree in architecture, but remove the unhelpful part 1/2/3 structure as this stigmatises partial qualification. Also to enhance students’ understanding of the professional context and how this impacts on architecture and building production. This should offer access to title and registration (and chartered membership) on graduation which ultimately will offer better value to students and draw practice and academia closer.
Will the outcomes of the review make it easier to become an architect in the UK? No, it’s not about easier it’s about making sure students of architecture realise what the value of a degree in architecture is. You can then exit the system at that stage with a very good degree or you go forward to post graduate/ masters programme and qualify as an architect. It should only take 7 years not 10 years to qualify and the content of the system needs to be reviewed. Do you think there will be any ‘backlash’, about the outcomes of the review, from qualified architects? No. This is a review looking forward. Why would there be a backlash? I do not recall a backlash when the code of practice work stages was updated recently. The world changes, we cannot stay in the past. It will take time to decide and put in place any change. We now have student fees, students migrating to other countries to study in lower fee courses on the continent. We need to keep up and make creativity and excellence at the forefront of architectural education. How will any decisions about changes to education be made? Will we get to vote on something? This is a REVIEW not a MANIFESTO. We are not offering a manifesto as we are undergoing a review, once we have fulfilled the research we will conclude recommendations if we see that change is required. This is a positive process that will support British architectural education and practice in the future. RIBA members will be invited to a conference on education which we are organising as part of this process. So please join us then - it is a transparent process. Rozz Barr, Architect and
RIBA Vice-President Education
15
SPONSORS AC Architects Cambridge Ltd Andrew Firebrace Partnership Barber Casanovas Ruffles Ltd Simon Blackburn RIBA Bland, Brown + Cole LLP CFCI C Lumley RIBA Cowper Griffith Architects CtC Architects D Haigh M Goodhart M Reynolds RIBA Mart Barrass Architect Ltd Mole N J Twitchett Peter Rawlings Architects Prof I Smith Purcell R H Partnership Studio24 Architects LLP T Christy Architect W Fawcett William Miller Architects Ltd 5th Studio
Cambridge Architecture gazette is a review produced by the Cambridge Association of Architects, the local chapter of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The views in this gazette are those of individual contributors (named and unnamed) and not of the Association. ISSN 1361-3375 This issue edited by: Mark Richards, David Adams, February Phillips and Tom Foggin Fundraising: Marie Luise Critchley-Waring, Ann Bassett Designed and produced with CB Creative Ltd www.cb2creative.com
To receive a free copy of Cambridge Architecture email: riba.caa@googlemail.com