Innovative Place - Sahiba Chadha

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

| PILOT STUDY | facilitating social interaction on an urban science campus D ow n i n g S i t e Cambridge

Sahiba Chadha Darwin College

Lent Term

Essay 4: Pilot Study 9,169 words An essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil examination in Environmental Design in Architecture (Option B)

1

2

Abstract | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

A B S T R A C T This project proposes a strategic series of built interventions on the University of Cambridge’s Downing Site. An urban campus dominated by the School of Biological Sciences, the site provides a testing ground for facilitating social interaction between scientists. Preliminary studies undertaken in support of the project will be underlined in the Project Background as a part of the introduction.

3

4

Contents | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

T A B LE

O F

C ON T EN T S

I n tr o d u cti o n

P r o j e ct

B ac k g r o u n d

Existing Literature

Contemporary Debate on Science + Collaboration

Synopsis of Issue

Collaborative Innovation in Cambridge

Building Typology

Laboratory Fabric [ Primary / Secondary / Tertiary ] Community: Building and Campus Environmental Control

D e si g n

Ob j e cti v e S

Urban Stategy

Public Engagement Opportunistic Interaction

Community

Scientific + Wider Formalised Interaction

Environmental Design

Privileging Comfort

D e si g n

P r o p o sa l

Urban Strategy

Site Editing Massing

Primary

Structure Circulation

Secondary

Material Spatial Qualities

Tertiary

Comfort Inhabitation

C o n c l u si o N

5

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

6

Intro duction | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

I

N

T

R

ODU

C

T

I

ON

This pilot design study focuses primarily on the sociospatial concerns related to interaction and collaboration in research facility design, with emphasis on relating to a site strategy of architectural cohesion of buildings. The main site of interrogation is the University’s Downing Site, one example of its collection of science campuses and science parks both at the centre and the periphery of the city of Cambridge.

Whilst Universities historically tend to host the majority of basic research, connections to R&D are a given today, partly in order to aid incubation of enterprise (Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd, 1985) and partly to give a certain trustworthiness to marketable products (Gieryn 2008). In the UK, the science park typology traces its roots to the Trinity College-initiated Cambridge Science Park, established in 1970. The science park became countrywide typology in the 1980s, when the country was experiencing a “recession in traditional labour-intensive industries” (UKSPA, 2008) under Thatcher’s government.

The necessity for a knowledge-driven economy has not relented since, hence research and development, the conversion of knowledge into product, remains of paramount importance to the nation’s economic health as repeatedly set out by the government. (Department for Trade & Industry, 1999; 2006) Buildings for science have become increasingly interdisciplinary over the last half century (Leslie, 2008), which has been reflected in the prevalence of open plan laboratories and an increased investment in the design of atria and shared spaces in order to enhance crossfertilisation of ideas (Gieryn, 2008; Yaneva, 2010). For example growth of the multidisciplinary biotechnology industry over the turn of the 21st century illustrates a complex mix of social structure and economics in contemporary labs (Gieryn, 2002). At the heart of this study is an investigation of the importance of place to scientific innovation – both as a material construct and a construct of the mind discussed by Menin et al (Menin, 2003). The geographical place of the design study is the urban condition of Cambridge, hence the design study aims to exploit what is specific to the identity of the city as a place.

7

8

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

| PROJECT BACKGROUND |

Existing Literature Synopsis of Issue Building Typology

9

10

E X I S T I NG

L I T E R AT U R E

C O N T E M P O R A R Y D E B AT E O N S C I E N C E + C O L L A B O R AT I O N

11

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Existing L iterature

CAMBRI D GE SCIENCE PAR K

NORTH WE ST C AMRBRI DGE

WEST C AMRBRI DGE

NEW M U SEU MS

AD D ENBROOKES H

12

IN TO X TON

6

Existing L iterature | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Preliminary background research includes an analysis of laboratory building characteristics and an historical study of science in Cambridge at building and city scale. As such, the existing stock of literature encountered relevant to this design study is extremely broad.

This diversity is demonstrated by Galison and Thompson’s volume The Architecture of Science (Galison, 1999), which covers spatial issues as well reiterating general recurring issues in the subject. Handbooks on laboratory design have been largely avoided, as although they contain some guidance on designing for interaction, the coverage is largely superficial (Purvis, 1973; Griffin, 2000; Kling Stubbins, 2010). Perhaps the most relevant literature for aiding scrutiny of the relationship between architecture, place and scientific collaboration are evolutionary studies of existing facilities and the sociology of science.

For ease of argument with the latter, only the work dealing specifically with issues of space and place has been addressed.

E V O L U T I O N

+

P L A C E

The esoteric issue of place in science is almost always featured in both building and sociological studies. Authors will usually align with a some position in the debate about the importance of place to scientific output, be that geographical or other. Urban issues such as the geographical location of the laboratory are investigated in literature chronicling the industrialisation of contemporary science, particularly through studies of the science park model of the 1980s and 1990s. Such studies highlight the excellence of scientific research in Cambridge and its direct correlation with higher education (Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd, 1985; Echenique, Pearce, Fawcett, & Palmer, 2003). However, whilst these studies are historically comprehensive, they tend to evade dealing with the implications of the isolation of science in the park model. Massey et al delve further into questioning the wider social implications of the science park, by way of both economic and cultural dissection (Massey, Quintas, & Wield, 1992), but this text is now over twenty years out of date and the contemporary situation warrants further investigation. The isolation of the science park model is intended as to encourage focus, but Gieryn highlights that persistent immersion in their subject, for any kind of scientist, can be counterproductive and affect objective detachment from subject matter (Gieryn, 2006). In general, discussion of the siting of laboratories is light touch, with heavier emphasis on the buildings themselves.

Studies of architecturally-celebrated institutions highlight the struggle in recent history of future-proofing new laboratory buildings against the evolutionary pace of science, especially where architectural heritage presents an obstacle to change (Leslie, 2010).

There is in fact much evidence of attachment to place being associated with the most utilitarian and least architecturally distinguished of laboratories (Brand, 1994). Venturi and Scott-Brown have each hypothesised about flexibility in laboratory design (Venturi, 1999; Scott-Brown, 1999). Venturi underlines the importance of functional ambiguity to allow for “revolutionary over evolutionary” change, while Scott-Brown specifies architectural design of labs should focus in on generality rather than adaptability. Either way, flexibility is a source of constant debate in lab design theory. The generic, however, is often perceived as a social construct itself in the work of Gieryn and Kohler. Gieryn’s work has a focus on the notion of acontextuality or “placelessness” in legitimising scientific discovery: “Experiments conducted in physical surrounds just like anybody else’s lab become “everybody’s” beliefs.” (Gieryn, 2006; 2008). Whilst Gieryn asserts that whilst place can

13

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Existing L iterature

14

Existing L iterature | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

be added to “the list of modulators of scientific credibility”, the geography or architecture of particulars of a place of inquiry are rarely mentioned in scientific texts.

S O C I O L O G Y

+

C O M F O R T

Kohler critiques the lack of studies on laboratories as “social and cultural infrastructure”, that is to say their larger place in society as producers of knowledge (Kohler 2008). This dispersal of knowledge from laboratory into the world is said by Latour to be where its true power lies, but he maintains that in order to get there one must go through the lab as a place itself (Latour, 1983). Latour’s earlier work with Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts - a detailed ethnography of the daily workings at Louis Kahn’s revered Salk Institute - is amongst the most influential works that deal with sociology of science which is tied to place (Latour & Woolgar, 1979). Particular attention is paid to the “normal” processes of establishing scientific fact – daily experimental practice, publishing, authorship – the mainstays of life in the laboratory. What this and similar studies reveal is the deeply cultural characteristics of what is usually attributed as just a generic space (Kohler, 2008).

Current debate around the design of scientific research facilities tends to focus on the relationship of the laboratory to its supporting social spaces or even more recently social cores. Whilst laboratories over the last fifty years have progressed from hermitic to open plan, they tend to still be hermetically sealed and sometime devoid of light. For example, Yaneva presents the atrium with is openness and sky view as the antithesis to the laboratory and hence a space to seek out. This is reiterated by Yaneva’s reflections on Rafael Viñoly’s Janelia Farm where “personal comfort is a priority, and care is taken to maintain access to natural light and external views in order to reconnect scientists to the external environment.” (Yaneva, 2010). However, Yaneva’s assertion that “…[the atrium’s] architectural form sets houses of science radically apart from austere and faceless campus buildings.” (ibid.) Yet the atrium can be seen as a corporate symbol, and thus despite its environmental benefits it begins to adjust the research institution even closer to “placelessness” of shopping centres and airports (Gieryn, 2008).

R E S E A R C H

A S P I R AT I O N S

It is clear that the importance of architecture and place[lessness] to the social structure of scientific practice are well established in the academic arena. However, as mentioned, the issue of campus is generally skirted around and not discussed in terms of how it can be exploited along with atria and open plan laboratories as a place of interaction. The city of Cambridge offers a set of campuses, urban and peripheral, each varied but specific types of place. While the notion of decontextualisation might apply to the laboratory facilities themselves, it is not necessarily to the wider institution. This suggests the use of a design study to experiment with contrasting these place-less labs, with place-full supporting areas or social cores. Further to this, in using the context of Cambridge, a design study might go so far as to harness what is special about the city within a collection of scientific buildings.

15

16

S Y NO P S I S

O F

I S S UE

C O L L A B O R AT I V E S C I E N T I F I C I N N O V AT I O N I N C A M B R I D G E A R C H I T E C T U R E

17

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

18

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

H I S T O R I C A L

I NNOV A T I ON

+

P L A C E

The relationship between the urban fabric of Cambridge and its thriving modern science and technology community is relatively ambiguous: science campuses and parks are scattered in and around the city, each containing a collection of diverse and often disparate buildings, especially when contrasted with the carefully planned colleges. Although, the colleges do not house research today, the collegiate model is worth mentioning an environment unique to few institutions. Organisational grouping of facilities (kitchen, dining hall, chapel) around a court is an obvious architectural embodiment of community, whilst the networks of gateways and courts allow for a spatial movement that harbours opportunistic interaction. Historically a domestic scale community, the colleges are mainly charged to offer pastoral care but arguably the root of interdisciplinary interaction across all academia. Interaction caused by keen minds in the same place is a fortunate by-product.

Cambridge’s historical legacy in scientific discovery lends the city to a study of the relationship between scientific innovation and place. In order to better understand the city’s relationship with innovative science, an historical profile of the working environments of selected Nobel laureates in Cambridge was undertaken. This part of the pilot study investigates what influence, if any, did spatial qualities have on the production of innovative science in Cambridge during the last century?

Historically, there is evidence of extreme cases where Nobel-prizewinning science has been practiced in highly unsuitable and uncomfortable environments, for example, the famed dilapidated workshop of the Curies in Paris at the turn of the twentieth century:

19

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

20

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

“It was a small decrepit workshop with greenhouse windows. There was no heat. The old walls and floor were damp, the roof dripped. The laboratory equipment was primitive and patched together.” When the Curies began to outgrow this space, “They had to expand their workshop across the back courtyard into a little shack. This shack was in even worse shape than the workshop: the walls were crumbling, drafts whistled though window cracks, the ceiling threatened to tumble down… The dirt, dust, and plaster from the shack tainted the purity of the distillations, forcing her [Marie Cure] to start over.” (Feldman, 2000) The notion of individual brilliant minds, working in private rooms or workshops is something of the past (Kohler, 2008), today scientific research typically takes place in a laboratory by a specialist group and under the direction of a senior scientist. Each group is then part of the larger collective of a research institution, a relationship parallel with that of single laboratory and research building.

Whilst often associated with the name of a key figure, scientific breakthrough, and indeed the practice of successful innovative science, requires some degree of collaboration. The scale of collaboration is dependent on the subject area and specific method of research. It is difficult to define how revolutionary a scientific discovery is or the successful of the scientist.

Arguably, the ultimate measure success and gravity comes in the form of the Nobel Prizes, perceived worldwide to be the highest honour attainable. Specific to science are the prizes in Physics, Chemisty and Physiology or Medicine, all categories that the University of Cambridge has affiliated laureates. It is important to note that almost three quarters of the laureates belonged to the community of the Cavendish Laboratory, home of the Department of Physics. What might be unique about the science laureates in Cambridge is the tendency for their places of work to exist in chronological clumps that accord with the geography of each lab.The figure overleaf shows a clear correlation between the location and year of prizes, which matches the movements of the Cavendish Laboratories and the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology. What follows, is an investigation of these places in which outstanding science was practiced, resulting in three specific examples of Cambridge’s Nobel history.

21

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

THE C A V EN D I S H 1 9 7 4 - P RE S ENT

THE C A V EN D I S H 1874-1974

1900 - 1919 1920 - 1939 1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979 1980 - 1999 2000+

MR C L ABORATOR Y F OR MO L E C U L AR BIO L OG Y 1947 - 1962

Map showing chronological working locations of Nobel Laureates affiliated with the University of Cambridge

22

MR C L ABORATOR Y F OR MO L E C U L AR BIO L OG Y 1 9 6 2 - P RE S ENT

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

1904 | Lord Rayleigh

1947 | Sir Edward Appleton

1974 | Sir Martin Ryle

1906 | Sir J.J. Thomson

1948 | Lord Patrick Blackett

1974 | Antony Hewish

1908 | Lord Rutherford

1951 | Sir John Cockcroft

1977 | Sir Nevill Mott

1915 | Sir Lawrence Bragg

1951 | Ernest Walton

1977 | Philip Anderson

1917 | Charles Barkla

1957 | Lord Todd

1978 | Pjotr Kapitsa

1922 | Francis Aston

1958 | Frederick Sanger

1979 | Allan Cormack

1927 | Charles Wilson

1962 | Francis Crick

1927 | Arthur Compton

1962 | James Watson

1928 | Sir Owen Richardson

1962 | Max Perutz

1929 | Sir Frederick Hopkins

1962 | Sir John Kendrew

1932 | Edgar D. Adrian

1963 |Alan L. Hodgkin

1933 | Paul Dirac

1964 | Dorothy Hodgkin

1935 | Sir James Chadwick

1967 | Ronald Norrish

1937 | Sir George Thomson

1973 | Brian Josephson

1980 | Frederick Sanger

1982 | Sir Aaron Klug

1984 | CĂŠsar Milstein

1989 | Norman Ramsey

1997 | John E. Walker

2002 | John E. Sulston

2009 | V. Ramakrishnan

2010 | Robert G. Edwards

23

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

E

X

E

E

24

P

X

X

AN

P

P

S

AN

AN

ION

S

S

ION

ION

M A I N L A B O R A T O R I E S

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

T H E

C A VEND I S H

P H Y S I C S

L A B O R AT O R Y

Wilson, Compton, Dirac and Thomson were just a few in a string of Cambridge scientists awarded Nobel Prizes in the 1920s and 1930s (Crowther, 1974) (Burton, 2000). Their main place of work was the Old Cavendish building on the New Museum’s site in the centre of Cambridge. Completed in 1874 by architect W. M. Fawcett, the Old Cavendish is a building well moulded into its surroundings, despite being the first purpose-built physical laboratory in the country. Its neo-Gothic detailing was intentionally inconspicuous, as at the time of its establishment physics was still a purely theoretical branch of academia – many people were still at odds with the idea of intellectuals labouring over practical experiments (Schaffer, 2007). Whilst sporting a traditional exterior with large windows designed to maximise natural light for taking precise measurements, the interlinked laboratory spaces, allowed members to easily pass through each other’s workspace, an innovation which likely engendered a collaborative working environments (see opposite).

The 1930s Nobel success of the Cavendish meant expansion, and it soon came to dominate the New Museums site to the point where they began to reach a spatial limit – they would soon need more industrial buildings. The Bauhaus-style Mond Building (Fig. 8) located to the south of the main building and designed and built in 1932 by architect H. C. Hughes, went some way to ease this pressure, and was a notable early example of modern architecture on New Museums site and indeed the city. This is perhaps also an early example of the laboratory being used as an architectural zeitgeist showpiece.

Figure 8 shows the relationship between the Mond and the main building, illustrating the close proximity of individual buildings in the Cavendish’s complex on the New Museum’s site. It is this density that is perhaps a physical and externalised representation of the intimacy and collectiveness of the Cavendish starting to be exhibited at a more site scale; a patchwork campus of interconnected buildings and infill.

The pressure on space at the Old Cavendish was in part due to its large and diverse group of tenants. By the 1940s the complex housed not only physicists but also the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded unit of molecular biologists. Members of the unit, James Watson and Francis Crick, were famously responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953. Crick and Watson, and their Londonbased collaborator Maurice Wilkins, published their paper revealing the structure in Nature on 25th April 1953, and nine years later received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.

Watson retrospectively highlighted the fact that science is full of people who are not “sensing the real clues” (Watson, 2003). Perhaps it follows that in order for the right “clue-sensation”, there needs to be enough opportunity to cross paths and hence cross-fertilise ideas. Crick and Watson are known for being great collaborators and in his book What Mad Pursuit Crick describes their time spent working on DNA in a variety of settings: “…either in the laboratory or in our daily lunchtime walk around the Backs or at home, since Jim occasionally dropped in [for dinner].” (Crick, 1990)

25

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

NEW C A V EN D I S H

1974

MR C L MB

26

O L D C A V EN D I S H

1962

MR C L MB

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

E X P A N S I ON

F R O M

T H E

C A VEND I S H

For some time the MRC Unit worked in the Austin Wing of the Old Cavendish until they were relocated to a prefabricated hut adjacent. Space at this time was so tight that the Unit also used a greenhouse extension for certain lab work. It seems that while the space was often cramped, it meant that researchers were given forced opportunity to form alliances (Finch, 2008). This space was a classic example of unsuitable accommodation, as with Curie, native to Cambridge. These modest structures actually housed Crick and Watson when they made their revelations, its domestic scale is perhaps a physical example of the level of intimacy contained in the Cavendish as discussed by Schaffer (Shaffer, 2007) but also of an ad-hoc informality associated with early “low-tech” lab buildings (Brand, 1994).

The 1960s proved to be another successful decade for the Cavendish, as not only did its members take the Physiology prize, but Max Perutz and John Kendrew also took the Chemistry prize. These members of the Cavendish, Crick, Perutz and Kendrew, were instrumental in establishing the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (MRC LMB) in 1962.

It is important to note that whilst this was happening, negotiations for the Cavendish’s new building were finally underway, and that by 1974 it too would have moved out of New Museums to the New Cavendish Laboratory in West Cambridge where: “…instead of grimy congested little workplaces and cellars there were light, shining rooms, surrounded by vistas of green fields, trees, and even a lake.” (Crowther, 1974) This movement to an edge condition of the city marked a new age for the Cavendish, the architecture and setting of the Old building couldn’t be more different to that of the New (Fig. 14); a vast complex of industrial concrete buildings with utilitarian design and finishes. Indeed, the move to West Cambridge is symbolic of the shift in place of research from city to periphery and indeed an adoption of the notion of “placelessness” that is now of instant association with the generic lab (Gieryn, 2008; Kohler 2008). The intimacy of the Old Cavendish was replaced with a rat-run of double loaded corridors that linked its generic, adaptable lab space. The is aligned with the accepted twentieth century phenomenon noted in early industrial labs 1940s (Leslie, 2010) – that extensive circulation increases the chance of social interaction between scientists, taking place in informal, unexpected places away from the laboratory.

27

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

28

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

L A B O R A T O R Y F O R M OLE C UL A R B I OLOG Y The move from the Cavendish to MRC LMB’s own building in Addenbrookes in the city’s south (see Fig. 14 overleaf) showed the effect of Watson’s American customs on those members that moved; there was no hierarchy of car parking spaces, everyone called each other by first names, creating a much more informal environment that the Cavendish (Crowther, 1974). The LMB has gone on to accrue six Nobel Prizes Ada Yonath, Thomas Steitz and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the mapping of the ribosome. A chance meeting with Sir Aaron Klug in the halls of the MRC LMB in 1980 gave Yonath confirmation that she was onto something. In her Nobel interview, she recalls: “He looked at my initial result and said, ‘Leave it here maybe we can help you.’ So I knew that I have (sic) something!” (Yonath, 2009) This is by no means the only relationship of this prize to the MRC LMB in Cambridge. Steitz, who worked on the ribosome with his team at Yale University, had spent his post-doctoral years in the laboratory, interacting with what was evidently an active scientific community conducive to collaboration. In his Nobel autobiography, he recalls the top-floor canteen as “the most remarkable and unique feature of the laboratory” (Steitz, 2010). He reminisces about: “…sitting down with a random collection of lab directors, postdocs and graduate students and talking about science…Everyone contributed suggestions and/or criticisms. Initially I wondered how anyone got any experiments done since they were spending so much time in the canteen, and then I realized that the many discussions reduced the number of unwise or unnecessary experiments that were done and enhanced the good ones.”

In the same Nobel interview and his own autobiography, Ramakrishnan, who at the time of writing is still based at the LMB, also talks favourably about this coffee-break culture. The canteen itself is a brightly light space on the top-most floor of the building, offering an almost 360 degree view of the surrounding area through a continuous band of glazing that wraps around. It acts as a recognised social core to the building, and is preserved by its own committee made up of department members. This space is complimented by the wide stairwells that lead up to it, anecdotally providing enough space for scientists to pause and converse (Henderson, 2012).

Ramakrishnan also highlights other defining characteristics that make it successful, notably the shared facilities which encourage a “great spirit of collegiality” where senior scientist or incoming PhD have equal rights to equipment. This is a clear cultural and social rejection of hierarchy in favour of better, interactive science and aligns with Gieryn’s positive findings of shared facilities and egalitarian workspace (Gieryn, 2008). The shared spaces enhance this critical environment where all members are encouraged to helpfully interrogate each other’s ideas, and so a very certain informality is present therein.

29

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D | Synopsis of Issue

30

Synopsis of Issue | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C ON C LU S I ON :

I NNOV A T I ON

+

P L A C E

Each Nobel trail investigated is unique, but one can speculate what clues they give us about scientific research and collaboration. There is clear evidence of regular intra-institutional gathering in ‘uplifting’ spaces being encouraged, enjoyed and lauded. The MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology’s top floor canteen is a prime example of such activity in Cambridge.

It also validates the point that successful social space and common equipment facilitates excellent social exchange between seniors and juniors, bearing in mind this is also largely due to an innate enthusiasm for science making all parties keen to interact. This demonstrates that shared social cores and facilities are key stimuli to scientific process. Crick’s description of the range of places in which he and Watson discussed DNA suggests that informal social space is also conducive to collaboration. Hence, there is scope to extend the term “laboratory” to other places where ideas are still tested through discursive trial and error.

Collaboration has been shown to be an integral factor in modern science in Cambridge and beyond, especially for interpretation of results. In the cases of Watson and Yonath, a serendipitous visit to another laboratory proved to be invaluable, increasing the number of eyes on experimental output. The Old Cavendish was an excellent embodiment of how an interdisciplinary community cultivates good science – the colocation of a variety of specialists in a collective. The sense of community is inextricably linked to the specific sense of place offered by the convoluted New Museum’s site. This densely populated environment exacerbated a certain physical intimacy, a quality that perhaps can only be facilitated by shared urban place.

Returning to the original question of this paper, this evidence aptly demonstrates that the physical environment of scientific researchers has been important to innovation in Cambridge, and that for the wider progression of science historically and today, place can and should matter.

31

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

32

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

T Y P OLOG Y

C A S E

S T UD Y

S C I E N T I F I C R E S E A R C H L A B O R AT O R I E S I N C A M B R I D G E

33

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

E X P A N S I ON

:

P A R K S

+

C A M P U S E S

With it’s colleges being key landowners, the University’s expansion over time is synonymous with the city’s. Expansion westwards out to the periphery of the city is clearly evident in historical maps and aerials. This is set to continue with the infilling of West Cambridge site and the extensive Northwest Cambridge masterplan.

Evolution in research practice demands that the University continually updates its building stock, and it seems the only solution is this (north)west expansion into its greenfield sites. The massive development plans for its North-west Cambridge site include residential accommodation, amenities and approximately “100,000 sqm of academic and commercial research space, providing further research facilities for the University, along with specialist employment premises and local job opportunities” (AECOM, University of Cambridge, 2010).

In the near future the University aims to move most science departments out to the West Cambridge site, which occupies edge conditions adjacent to the M11. This new condition is more akin to the Trinity College-funded Cambridge Science Park, and will be in complete contrast to the dense urbanity of the New Museums and Old Addenbrookes sites that historically and currently house these departments.

It is clear from this that research buildings are an important typology to the cities The issues pertaining to urban context would require their own investigation, hence this study aims to focus in detail on laboratory spaces, which evidently must continue functioning well regardless of their physical context.

Figure 0.5: (right) Aerial maps showing development west of city Figure 0.6: (opposite) Bird’s eye showing key sites and buildings of case study

34

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

NORTH WEST CAMBRIDGE

1888

1926

1945

2000 35

SANGER INSTITUTE

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

T Y P OLOG Y

In order to choose a suitable building for understanding the existing conditions of research facilities in Cambridge a number of sites were visited. Each offered insight into specific research requirements, differing densities and edge conditions, but also gave an overview of what defines the laboratory typology.

Whilst each research group or department required quite specific conditions and facilities, general observations of the buildings themselves show that the following general characteristics usually apply:

F U N C TIONA L IT Y

CENTRE FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH

L A B O R AT O RY

RE S I L IEN C E SPECIALIST EQUIPMENT

C ONTAINMENT S TORAGE ( D EMAN D ) SPECIALIST FURNITURE AESTHETIC NEUTRALITY Efficient space programming is vital for all these characteristics to coexist; each example sits on a scale of efficacy with respect to this. Some complexes visited are summarised in Figure 1.1 at various physical scales.

The two buildings chosen to study represent two highly specific facilities of contrasting size, urban condition, history and impact.

Figure 1.1: Chart showing examples visited at Site, Building and Typical Interior levels

36

THE CAVENDISH LABORATORIES

A D A P TABI L IT Y

DEPT. OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

E X TEN S I V E S ERV I C E S

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

37

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C A S E

S T UD Y

B U I LD I NG S

Following from initial visits, two case study buildings within the University of Cambridge’s laboratory stock were chosen to represent different urban conditions and design situations: The Cavendish Physics Laboratory, which occupies an edge condition of the city on the West Cambridge site, is an example of a custom designed laboratory, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, which is located on the Old Addenbrookes site which is just south of the city centre and is a generic laboratory space retrofitted for use.

38

CENTRE FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH

CAVENDISH LABORATORY

CAMBRIDGE SCIENCE PARK

DOWNING SITE

OLD ADDENBROOKES

NEW MUSEUMS

WEST CAMBRIDGE

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

39

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

40

Sub head ing | P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

L A B O R AT O R Y

F A B R I C

In order to better understand the laboratory characteristics, both examples were subjected to a tri-level dissection of fabric and use as follows:

P R I M A R Y Structure Circulation

S E C O N D A R Y Material Spatial Qualities

T E R T I A R Y Occupation / Inhabitation Furniture / Equipment Comfort

41

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Case Study: The Cavendish

Schools

The world-renowned Cavendish Laboratory is the home of the Department of Physics and comprises of 15 research groups. It occupies eastern edge of the University’s West Cambridge site, approximately 2km from the city’s centre.

Established in 1874 under the direction of Professor James Clerk Maxwell, the Old Cavendish building was one of the world’s first physical laboratories and marked the crossover of physics teaching from the purely theoretical into practical. Prior to this most experimentation took place in private rooms in colleges.

Physical Sciences

The Department has produced 29 Nobel laureates – more that any other institution in the world (see Figure 0.4) and a remarkable measure of its success. The Cavendish was the first to move out to West Cambridge in 1974, desperate for more space and unable to wait for land available centrally near to its original position on the University’s New Museums site. The laboratory continues to be world renowned because of its facilities, arguably thanks to its gain in space. This move suggests that a successful laboratory can be acontextual; a self-contained entity.

Figure 1.3 Old Cavendish Building (completed 1874) Figure 1.4 Isometric drawing of New Cavendish (1974)

42

Faculties

Earth Sciences & Geography

Departments

Mathematics

Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences Physics & Chemistry

Figure 1.2 Departmental breakdown

Astronomy

Physics Chemistry Materials Science & Metallurgy

1.3

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

1.4

MOTT BUILDING

43

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

RUTHERFORD

BRAGG

MOTT

The current Laboratory building, opened in 1974, was designed by Robert Matthew Johnson Marshall (RMJM), chosen for their work on the University of York campus (Pippard, 1975). To safeguard the continued success of the lab, plans are in place to eventually redevelop the buildings, which are described as:

“...no longer appropriate for the current programme or, in light of new interdisciplinary collaborations and new investigative techniques, for the future direction of research at the Cavendish. The provision of state-ofthe-art laboratories, offices and supporting infrastructure, including scientific computing, with all the advantages of modern design, will enable the Cavendish to maintain and enhance its contribution to physics at the highest international level.�

(Cavendish Development Office , 2011)

The Cavendish is split across three main buildings, Rutherford, Bragg and Mott (see thumbnail above), connected by a circulation gallery at first floor level.

Smaller buildings in the complex are the Kapitza and Micro-Electronics to the north and the workshop, which is connected to the Rutherford and Bragg via the gallery.

The Bragg building is mostly devoted to teaching and administration, and provides more social functions as well as copious amounts of plant.

Figure 1.4 Zoning diagram - indicating different usage

44

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Key:

N

L ABORATORY DESK / OFFICE SENSITIVE / HAZARDOUS

T E A C H I N G SOCIAL/RESOURCES

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 0

1.4

45

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

The Rutherford Building The Mott and Rutherford buildings house the main research accommodation, the laboratory study will focus on these buildings especially the latter (Fig. 1.6-1.7) Laboratories Both buildings have their main laboratories on the ground floor with offices embedded within and between them. Figures 1.4 (previous page) and 1.6 show the arrangement of general laboratories around the perimeter while laboratories containing more sensitive equipment occupy the centre Circulation A double-loaded circuit of corridors links the two zones.

The upper floors hold administration and office space, with the exception of the Mott building, which has a few laboratories at first floor specially designed to reduce vibration interference. The sprawl of all the buildings in the complex is made possible by its spacious site, the horizontality of the layout reflecting the flat nature of its landscape setting and inkeeping with planning restrictions.

Solar Orientation Orientation is not particularly relevant to the plan at room level with general laboratories on every side of the faรงade.

The building is rotated only a few degrees off north, which allows for rooflighting at first floor and over circulation nodes.

Figure 1.6 Isometric drawing of Rutherford building Figure 1.7 Zoning diagram of Rutherford

46

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

1.6

Key:

N

L ABORATORY DESK / OFFICE SENSITIVE / HAZARDOUS

T E A C H I N G LEVEL 1

SOCIAL/RESOURCES

LEVEL 0

1.7

47

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Case Study: Centre for Stem Cell Research In contrast to the Cavendish’s long history, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research was conceived in the 21st century, opening in 2007 and housed in a speculative building commissioned by the School of the Biological Sciences.

The building is part of a complex that was constructed over a 10-year period up to 1997 and is shared with the Institute of Biotechnology and the Cambridge Systems Biology Centre. The complex is a part of the Old Addenbrookes hospital, a site originally coveted by the Cavendish (Crowther, 1974), and the building is an example of current city-based research institutes providing a useful comparison to the Cavendish.

Schools Biological Sciences

Faculties

Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research Veterinary Medicine

Sainsbury Laboratory Biology

Cambridge Systems Biology Centre Wellcome Trust/ Cancer Research Gurdon Institute

Figure 1.8 Chart of departmental breakdown leading to the Centre for Stem Cell Research

Figure 1.9 Isometric of whole building Figure 1.10 Entrance court to the Centre for Stem Cell Research

48

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

1.9

1.10

49

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

The building as a whole is laid out linearly, as illustrated in the plans of the two main laboratory floors of the CSCR (Levels 1 and 2). Deskspace and offices line the northeast side and are separated from the southwest facing general laboratory space by cellular rooms allocated for uses like tissue culture and microscopic analysis. (Fig. 1.2) Unlike the Cavendish, very little space is given over to pure circulation, exactly 10% less proportionally. Both desk and laboratory space are open plan with a circulation route along the edge. The basement, Level 0, is also occupied by the Centre, however this area is highly restricted and plans are not available, although one speculates a similar floorplate and zoning to Level 1.

Figure 1.12 Zoning diagram - Centre for Stem Cell Research floorplans, shaded to indicate different usage, including speculative Level 0 plan

50

Key:

N

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

L ABORATORY DESK / OFFICE SENSITIVE / HAZARDOUS

T E A C H I N G SOCIAL/RESOURCES

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

1.12

LEVEL 0

51

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

P R I M A R Y

F A B R I C

The Cavendish’s structure is prefabricated using the British rail CLASP system (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme) for its simple, cheap and reasonably light structure and rigorous module of 300mm. The structural steel frame is clad with aggregate finish concrete panels and infilled with Lignacite wood-concrete mix blockwork.

The CSCR building is a concrete frame generally on a 6m grid, clad in yellow stock brick and white powder-coated tiles. The grid dimension allowS for a decent amount of flexibility over reasonably restricted floor area. The upper floor of the Centre (Level 2) is cantilevered by approximately 1.8m out over Level 1. Service cores to the centre of the plan provide stability and are evenly spaced for efficient distribution.

Figures 1.13a-b Steel frame structure and CLAASP panels demonstrated on elevation Figures 1.14 Exploded isometric with structural bay module detail - regular bays allow reconfigurable units inside

52

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

1.13a

1.13b

1.17a

1.17b

53

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

MOD UL AR FACAD E

NON - LOA D BEARING B LO C K WOR K WAL L S

T YPI CAL 7 . 2 m STRUCTURAL SPAN OV ER L ABORATORY

1.14 [Academic use only]

Figure1.17a-b Brick and powder-coated elevation Figure1.18 Exploded isometric drawing depicting structural arrangement

54

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

6m STRUC T URA L GRI D

S ERV I C E C ORE S

1.18

55

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

S E C OND A R Y

F A B R I C

Secondary Fabric (Substructure / Finishes) The partition walls are also built of Lignacite and are explicitly non-loadbearing in order to maximise spatial reconfiguration. Indeed in between 2009-11 over 180 renovation projects have been through the superintendent’s office. Most surfaces within the laboratories are very neutral in colour and texture (Fig. 1.15). The tiles are necessary for fire regulations, although the current Laboratory Superintendent, Peter Bystricky, has expressed a preference for easy access exposed services.

S U S PEN D ED C EIL IN G TIL ES

W H ITE EM U L S IO N ED L IG N AC ITE B LO C KWORK

Figure 1.15 Photos of laboratory secondary fabric Figure 1.16 Photos of tertiary fabric

56

VIN YL F LO O R IN G

1.1 5

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Secondary Fabric (Substructure / Finishes) Partitions seem to be stud walls and plasterboard, which are potentially quite flexible. Finishes here consist of ceiling tiles, vinyl flooring and white plasterboard, displaying a neutrality almost identical to that of the Cavendish.

S U S PEN D ED C EIL IN G T I L ES

P L AS TER B OAR D / B LO C KWO R K WA L L S

VIN YL F LO O R IN G

1 .1 9

57

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

T E R T I A R Y

F A B R I C

W IR IN G + S E RVIC IN G H AN G F RO M C E IL I NG

The Cavendish Although many laboratories have fixed perimeter benching, most benches are freestanding or clustered in rooms, are standard sizes and (semi)moveable. Electrics and services are dropped vertically from the ceiling as well as tracked along the walls, physically animating the rooms. Whilst the equipment such as fume hoods and laser machines are housed in special accommodation and kept in decent condition, they are inevitably surrounded by the idiosyncratic “lab mess” that provides a visual activity even in vacant rooms.

In smaller research labs there is a hierarchy of space useage, whereby the machinery takes precedence over mid-experiment write up. Internal screens are generally fitted with blinds to allow for degrees of privacy. A characteristic of the Cavendish circulation is that it too is populated by equipment and dewers (liquefied gas containers), most probably due to its expansive width to allow ease of access to equipment.

M ID -EX PE R IM EN T W R ITE U P

EX PE R IM EN TAL EQU IP M ENT

“L A B MES S ”

58

R E CO N F IG U R AB L E L AB TAB L E S 1 .1 6

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

CSCR Standard furniture fills the general laboratory space, rigid in its layout. Microscopes are common to almost every laboratory “bay� made up of 4-6 shared deskspaces and only a short distance from a sink. Each bay also has at least one fridge in the under-desk zone. Large fume extract hoods and other microscopes are contained in the designated sensitive rooms in the central zone.

H IG H LY P O P U L ATE D O PE N S H E LVE S TO RAG E

F IX E D L AB O R ATO RY B E N C H ES IN BAYS

S I NK + BOX E D I N S E RVIC ES

E X TR AC T H O O D S

1 .2 0

59

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

P R I M A R Y

+

T E R T I A R Y

This is a drawn representation of the Centre for Stem Cell Research juxtaposing primary [urban] fabric with tertiary [laboratory] fabric.

What is clear from this piece of analysis is the urban patterns that can be read in the layout and use of laboratory furniture.

Clear axes through the building are read as streets with benches clustering to form nodes or neighbourhoods - a similar notion as discussed by Yaneva (2010).

Figures 1.21 CSCR primary-tertiary fabric analysis

60

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

61

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

62

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C O M M UN I T Y

:

B U I LD I NG

+

C A M P U S

Following on from this interior urbanity it is prudent to address the physical context of each case study building. Alongside the identification of the wider community in which the buildings site, is the immediate communities within the buildings that coexist and what relationships these have to one another.

63

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

W e st

cambri d g e

Site Areas + Volumes Approximate Built Volume Total Site Area

503 514 m3 691 834 m2

Built Volume/m2

0.728 m3

Average no. of storeys 2.2 (based on estimated average storey height of 3m)

Both example buildings are well-located in a community of scientific research buildings, but largely differ in density.

(Fig. 3.1 + 3.3) Within the example buildings are sub-communities of research groups that tend to be co-located according to discipline and shared facilities. The graphics opposite give a general idea of the research community within the Rutherford building.

Figure 3.0 (overleaf ) Blackboard in the Cavendish’s Rutherford Building tearoom Figure 3.1 Departments housed in surrounding buildings Figure 3.2 Research groups housed in the Rutherford building as many “urban blocks” under one roof.

64

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

CO MP U T E R L A BO R ATO RY

PH YS IC S O F M ED IC IN E B U ILDI NG ELEC TRI C AL ENG I NEERI NG

I NTERDI S C I PLI NARY NANOS C I ENC E C ENTRE

MI C RO ELEC TRO N I C S + HI ATC H I L AB

OPTOELECT RI C S / NANOPHOTO N I C S

3.1

CAMBRID GE ENT E RP RI S E LT D ( BRO E R BU IL D IN G )

COTO N PATH / F IEL D S

M AG NET I C R E S O N AN C E R E S EA RCH

65

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

OLD

A DDEN B R OOKE S

Site Areas + Volumes: Approximate Built Volume 138 429 m3 Total Site Area 29 099 m2

Built Volume/m2

4.757 m3

Average no. of storeys 3.2 (based on estimated average storey height of 3m)

Figure 3.3 Departments housed in surrounding buildings

66

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

3.3

D EPARTM EN T O F PHARM ACOLOGY

J U D GE BU S I NE S S S C H O O L

D E PARTM EN T O F B IO C H EM IST RY + C AN C ER R ES E ARC H U K G U R D O N IN S TIT U T E

67

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

HIGH ENERGY PHY SICS Ato m i c , M e s o sc o p i c + Op t i c a l P hys i cs

social “ squ a r e ” social “ squ a r e ” D ETE C TOR PH Y S I C S

3.2 ASTROPH YSIC S TRAFFIC FLOW

Key:

N

L ABORATORY DESK / OFFICE

T E A C H I N G SOCIAL/RESOURCES

I N T E R I O R

U R B A N I T Y

Each research group has its laboratories on the ground floor with offices embedded in or on the floor directly above, almost creating an enclosed “formal urban” environment of buildings within buildings, each group having its own urban block. (Fig. 3.2)

68

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C AM B R ID G E S YS TEMS B IO LO G Y C E N TR E

I nstitute of B iotechnology

Key:

N

L ABORATORY DESK / OFFICE S O C I A L / R E S O U R C 3.4 ES

[Academic use only]

69

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

CSCR statistics No. of researchers No. of research groups

86 8

Average no. of researchers per group

10.75

Laboratory area Level 0 Laboratory area Level 1 Laboratory area Level 2 Total Laboratory area (sqm) Laboratory space in (cubic m)

450 467 586 1503 4133

17.48

Volume of space per researcher

48.06

Area (sqm) per researcher

3..4

S C I EN T I F I C

P R O C E S S

The actual process by which the researchers using the case study buildings might work is two-fold: individual experimentation and analysis in pursuit of particular research interest, experimentation and analysis as part of work contributing to wider research group.

Interestingly, the researcher and space statistics pictured opposite demonstrate the ration of laboratory area to researcher to be far greater at the CSCR, despite the Cavendish’s vast size. This might explain its pending movement to new facilities

Figures 3.4 Researcher working in the laboratory at CSCR Figures 3.5 Researchers in the tea room at the Cavendish

70

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Cavendish statistics No. of researchers No. of research groups

570 15

Average no. of researchers per group

38

Laboratory area Level 0 Laboratory area Level 1 Laboratory area Level 2 Total Laboratory area (sqm) Laboratory space in (cubic m)

4455 711 0 5166 17177

Area (sqm) per researcher

9.06

Volume of space per researcher

30.14 3.5

71

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

S O C I A L

S P A C E

In these example buildings, social interaction might occur in designated or opportunistic areas. Whilst the Centre for Stem Cell Research lacks designated social space, its open plan arrangement allows for constant informal social interaction as users are constantly walking past each other in the general lab and office spaces. (See Fig. 3.10)

Figures 3.6 Interaction at desk space Figures 3.7 Focused work at desk space Figures 3.8 Interaction in cafeteria Figures 3.9 Overlays of social activity during a half hour tea break in the Rutherford building

72

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Conversely, at the Cavendish there is ample provision of designated space in the form of the tea rooms and cafeteria, but in addition to this there is evident intention to allow for chance meetings in the circulation areas, especially at nodes. (See Fig. 3.11) A bell is rung twice-daily for tea time in the Rutherford building, an interaction encouraging method with evident legacy in other labs spawned by the Cavendish such at the Medical Research Council Laboratory for Molecular Biology on the New Addenbrookes site. (Watson, 2003)

73

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

G OW N LO C K L IN K TO D ES K S PACE

C I R C UL A T I ON Circulation through these buildings is set up as a function of the primary fabric - structure - and therefore falls into that brack of analysis. This figure demonstrates a 3D view of the circulation zones at the CSCR, and it is evident that a large portion of the circulation is open plan (hatched area).

This open plan circulation works quite like a street through the ‘neighbourhoods’ of lab benching, allowing visual connection between users of the building, and in this sense is a demonstration of interior urbanity.

O PEN L AB O R ATO RY C IRC U L ATIO N

Figure 3.10 Isometric drawings isolating circulation routes around the buildings. Circulation makes up 13% of the CSCR’s floor area.

74

O PEN L AB O R ATO RY C IRC U L ATIO N

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Key:

Open plan circulation

75

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

G L AZ ED WAL KWAY L I NK

C I R C UL A T I ON The Cavendish has a far more complex circulation strategy but can be conceptualised as a series of ‘rat-run’ double loaded corridors with a long linking corridor that runs through all three main buildings.

Still evident however from the 3D drawing is a sense of streets and neighbourhoods, with informal seating areas strategically places at nodal points.

CO R R ID ORS

Figures 3.11 Isometric drawings isolating circulation routes around the buildings. Circulation takes up 23% of the Rutherford buildings floor area.

76

IN F O R M AL S EATIN G AR EA

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

77

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

78

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

ENV I R ON M EN T A L

C ON T R OL

The example spaces chosen from the case study buildings represent a range of types of control, but in general these laboratory spaces are highly controlled environments subject to heavy artificial cooling in order to protect from heat gains / delicate experimental nature. Some spaces are also true ‘black boxes’, with little to no natural light.

79

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C ON T A I N M EN T - A I R C ON T R OL The Cavendish has a hybrid ventilation set up, whilst “landlocked� rooms are air conditioned, many of the laboratories have openable windows allowing to some extent natural (mostly) single-sided ventilation. This is supplemented by an electric heating system, which is quite inefficient due to insufficient insulation.

The Cavendish has some similar but larger contained experimental spaces, as well as some certified Class 100 (ISO 5 equivalent, see table below) clean rooms for use by groups such as the Detector and Optical Physics group.

These rooms are accessed via an airlock that is linked to the main corridor. The levels of containment are vital to maintaining standards, limiting the number of pollutant particles and/or bacteria in the room. This is an example of a case where the experimental matter must be protected from the scientist.

Nanoscience experiments are very sensitive to vibrations, so while most lab spaces are on the ground floor where such interference is minimized, the engineers have provided some isolated walls through to first floor. These sensitive areas sit on isolated concrete footings that are separated from the main body of the slab with a 12mm layer of Plastizote (similar to rubber) which goes some way to reduce transmission of vibration through the slab.

Accomodation such as the laser or magnet rooms benefit from this and are shown on plan.

Figure 2.3 Clean room classification table, and stringent robing procedures and limited access are in place to ensure the rooms are not compromised

80

Figure 2.4 Diagram highlighting ventilation systems

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Laboratory Ventilation / Air Control: N ATURA L ( W IN DOW ) ME CHA N ICA L (CO MFO RT CO OLED) ME CHA N ICA L (A IR CO NDITIONED)

L A S ER

ROOM

ROOM

C L EAN

AIR LO C K

2.4 [Academic use only]

81

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C ON T A I N M EN T T H R E S H OLD S The Centre for Stem Cell Research has a very clear strategy for containing hazardous experimental matter and reducing contamination, as demonstrated in the zoning on plan. Deskspace is separated from laboratory space by narrow gown lock corridors (Fig. 2.1) It is exemplar of a laboratory situation where the scientists must be protected from the experiment, as they often handle viruses and bacteria.

The floors occupied are entirely comfort cooled, with full air conditioning to specific rooms such as those that contain the -80oC refrigerators.

The rooms down the central spine are accessed directly from the general laboratory space and allow a cellular enclosure where extract hoods can be accommodated and tissue culturing can take place with minimal distraction and interference. In the same zones are microscope “farms� delineated from the general lab space simply by doorway and blackout curtain.

Figure 2.1 Diagram highlighting ventilation systems - gown locks and heavy duty door seals (highlighted) are among measures to support contamination control

82

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Laboratory Ventilation / Air Control:

GOWN LO C K S

C O L D ROOM

S EAL ED

N ATURA L ( W IN DOW ) ME CHA N ICA L (CO MFO RT CO OLED) ME CHA N ICA L (A IR CO NDITIONED)

2.1

83

200

20

100

0

AVERAGE DAYLIGHT HOURS

0

CLIMAT E S UMMAR Y J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

RAI

RELATIV

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

40

2k 0k

0

S C

J

4 8 12 16

The windows each building are homogenous, at the Cavendish the windows occupy specific 300-900mm horizontal strips of faรงade allowing high-level windows into each room, dropping down to bench height at regular intervals. There is little differentiation between treatment of differently orientated faรงades.

200

8

160

6

120

4

80

2

40

0

0

TOTAL SUNSHINE HOURS

In terms of laboratories, examples exist with and without windows at the Cavendish, and of those with windows or glazing are at times retrofitted to mask out daylight and sunlight.

50 TEMPERATURE (oC)

Daylighting Analysis

SOLAR RADIATION (W/m2)

10 2.15 Annual average daylight hours Figure

40 30 20 10 H

100

500

80

400

60

300

40

200

20

100

0

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

900mm

900mm

Figure 2.12 South and west facing office + laboratories suffer from glare and overheating - blinds utilised year round Figure 2.13 Landlocked offices + laboratories on first floor use rooflights to supplement electric lighting Figure 2.14 Continuous clerestory glazing aids deeper plan daylighting, rhythm of lowered panes allows views out

84 [Academic use only]

Figure 2.16 Typical window arrangement

O

N

D

0

8k RAINFALL (MM)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

0

6k 4k 2k 0k

SC

J

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

2.12

2.13

2.14

85

200

20

100

0

AVERAGE DAYLIGHT HOURS

0

CLIMAT E S UMMAR Y J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

RAI

RELATIV

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

40

2k 0k

0

S C

4 8 12

10

200

8

160

6

120

4

80

2

40

0

0

TOTAL SUNSHINE HOURS

The Centre for Stem Cell Research has a 1600mm high band of windows around its floors of the building, none of which are openable due to the comfort cooling in place.

Both desk space and general laboratories have access to natural light, but here uniform electric light is provided to all space and all windows are sealed to allow its for cooling system, essentially rendering the windows useless other than for their limited views out. This connection to change of light over the course of the day is arguably better for the researchers wellbeing (Kling Stubbins, 2010), although in actuality this aspect is another “nice to have”.

50 TEMPERATURE (oC)

Daylighting Analysis

SOLAR RADIATION (W/m2)

16

40 30 20 10

H

100

500

80

400

60

300

40

200

20

100 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

1600mm

0

Figure 2.18 Band of windows on Level 2 Figure 2.19 Interior of windows, provide views out along whole length of laboratory

86 [Academic use only]

Figure 2.20 Typical window arrangement

O

N

D

0

8k RAINFALL (MM)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

0

6k 4k 2k 0k

SC

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

2.18

2.19

87

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

DETECTOR PHYSICS NORTH ASPECT

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

D A Y L I G H T I NG G A I N S

V S

Illustrated here is a summary of environmental analysis comparing the relative daylight factors against the potential average solar radiation on the summer solstice. A full explanation of the analysis is available in Appendix A, This analysis asks whether the connection of laboratories to the exterior is worth the views and light, especially at the risk of increased glare and solar gains. Currently the best lit rooms just approach a decent daylight factor (3-5%) in their deepest reaches, but benches line the rooms’ perimeters where there is risk of sunlight falling directly onto and disturbing experiments (Fig. 2.12 + 2.19). This suggests the benching does not maximise the most environmentally useful and comfortable room space.

Figure 2.17 Daylight factor analysis: data for North and South facing rooms suggest generally darker rooms

88

DETECTOR PHYSICS WEST ASPECT

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

[Academic use only]

Atomic, Mesoscopic and OpticaL PHYSICS SOUTH ASPECT

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

89

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

C ON T R OL - S E C U R I T Y The two case study building offer a reasonably variance in security. The Cavendish is easily accessible by a visitor, not every area benefits from the expensive commodity of retrofit card access in the region of ÂŁ2000 per door. From personal experience the building users are usually quite aware of any persons who appear to not know the buildings and are quick to speak directly to them. During daylight hours most corridors are freely accessible but every office or lab will have key or card access.

In complete contrast the Centre for Stem Cell Research has incredibly high security. The entrance is overlooked by the building itself as well as its neighbours. The reception is the only point of access, after which there are up to 5 card access doors before one reaches the most secure rooms in the basement.

Security is of paramount importance due to the contentious nature of some of the research in the building.

90

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

Key:

Formal access (reception)

Informal access (user key / card)

2.23

91

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

L A B O R A T O R Y T Y P OLOG Y C ON C LU S I ON S Historically, laboratory design theory has evolved with the evolution of scientific practice (Leslie, 2008). There is, therefore, a constant pressure on the architecture of a research institution to constantly improve or move.

Broadly, this is demonstrated in this study at each of the three levels of analysis. Adaptability is designed into primary fabric, as it is near impossible to anticipate the future needs of a laboratory. Returning to the introductory discussion of the movement of research institutions to the city’s periphery, these case study buildings reiterate the acontextuality of laboratory typology, as highlighted by Gieryn (2008) and Kohler (2010).

Yet while these spaces are generic, they are characterised by tertiary fabric and the associated patterns of inhabitation. The specifics of thresholds in these rooms, from door seals to blackout fabric, enable the scientists and researchers to manage and control the environment to protect the experiments of indeed themselves. These finer details of the laboratory allow it to properly operate and contain, and are what really make it function.

Flexible and efficient working spaces are characterised by rigid and generic furniture, but as the insolation studies show, traditional layouts are not always ideal in terms of glare and overheating. The physical models highlight that whilst the glare is unfavourable, there is some benefit gained by periphery placement of furniture in acting as a light shelf to deepen daylight penetration.

From the open plan laboratories of the CSCR, to the enforced socialising in the Cavendish’s Rutherford building’s tea room, it is evident that suitable social space is worth consideration equal to the laboratory itself. Social spaces like the tea room offer a respite from these heavily controlled environments.

Study of circulation and organisation of these buildings has revealed an interior urban condition of streets, neighbourhoods and places of congregation. Within each research group’s “urban block”, the scientists both perform highly specialised research yet are still provided with individual deskspace and space for social interaction with their intrainstitutional community. This “interior urban” architecture is constantly updated and redefined by its tertiary fabric.

Ultimately, this interface between laboratory architecture and its primary and tertiary fabric is a key issue specific to this typology and warrants careful attention during the design process of a research institution.

92

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

[

L A B O R A T O R Y P R I M A R Y

=

F A B R I C

]

adaptable

Structure Circulation

S E C O N D A R Y =

generic

Material Spatial Qualities Comfort

T E R T I A R Y

= specific

Occupation / Inhabitation Furniture / Equipment Comfort

93

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

DE S I GN

S T UD Y

H Y P O T H E S I S

Following on from these historical and typological studies, a design study was undertaken to address certain issues raised about the demise of the urban laboratory.

The University’s Downing site is a key example of a community of Departments within the School for Biological Sciences that require colocation, that are unlikely to move from their central location, according to their occupants.

Can the urban characteristics of density be used to exploit the benefits of colocation and facilitate the cross-fertilisation of ideas that was so evident and nourishing historically with the MRC and the Cavendish.

94

CENTRE FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH

CAVENDISH LABORATORY

CAMBRIDGE SCIENCE PARK

DOWNING SITE

OLD ADDENBROOKES

NEW MUSEUMS

WEST CAMBRIDGE

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

95

| P RO J EC T BAC KG RO U N D |

96

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

|

DESIGN | OBJECTIVES

Urban Strategy Community Comfort

97

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

I E N H A N C E D

U R B A N

S T R AT E G Y

The site is slightly less dense than the New Museums site to its north-west and the area to east that faces onto Regent Street. It does however, lack clarity with regard to its urban grain. There is a tendency towards a pattern of courts but these currently contain large gaps, rendering their implied enclosure incomplete.

Opposite is a repeated exercise of the Building Typology study in order to better understand site and relationship of existing building interiors to the urban environment. At first floor level there is a variety of inhabitation across the site, from formally rigorous laboratory space and lecture theatres to the more sporadic population of specialist laboratories or offices.

DOWNING SITE DENSIT Y

built footprint

15 921m2

total block area 34 532m2 density

98

46%

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

99

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

KEY Uni - College Uni - Dept Uni - Dept (Science) Uni - Other Commercial / Retail Cultural Residential

B L O C K

U S A G E

This mapping exercise underlines the clustering of science departments in this part of the city.

While many Departments are moving out to the University’s West Cambridge site (see Project Background section) the School of Biological Sciences, which dominates Downing Site, is unlikely to make this shift easily colocation is essential for sharing equiment and facilities between Departments.

100

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

101

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

P U B L I C

E N G A G E M E N T

The Earth Sciences Sedgewick Museum is a public attraction, with the main entrance through the northernmost “court� of the site.

The forecourt is currently used for car parking and currently unuseable for people, hence key design objective is to reappropriate this area for pedestrian only use by both users and visitors to the site.

102

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

103

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

C O H E S I O N O F E X I S T I N G L A N G U A G E Whilst all being constructed from bricks, the existing buildings vary in treatment, with regard to fenestration, colouring and ornamentation. Ornamentation reduces with the later buildings toward the south of the site.

An architectural design objective is ensure any intervention to these buildings act to reconcile these varied materials rather than add any further texture.

104

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

105

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

I I O P P O R T U N I T Y

F O R

I N T E R A C T I O N

At the moment a lot of interaction takes place outdoors on the ground level of the site (see opposite). Buildings are entered from inconsistent points and hence there is a lack of intermediate space between inside and out. The potential use of entrance as a space for social interaction calls for a version of an atrium space to be appropriately adapted to the site.

106

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

107

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

S I T E

A C C E S S I B I L I T Y

The image opposite depicts the current accessible entrance to the Experimental Psychology building on the site. Another objective within interaction would be to improve access into the main entrances.

108

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

109

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

I M P R O V E

G R O U N D

C O N D I T I O N

Currently, Downing Site is incredibly congested. It is dominated by extremely narrow roads lined with parked cars. In fact there are over 200 car parking spaces, forcing the following hierarchy of the ground condition. The proposal should act to improve this.

110

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

VE H I C L E B I C YC L E P E D E ST R I A N

N 111

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

S H A R E D

F A C I L I T I E S

As expressed in the Synopsis of Issue section, shared facilities are key to encouraging social interaction within a scientific community. Examples of such space exist currently: the images opposite are of the common room and library in the Experimental Psychology building on the site. The design proposal should seek to improve and augment these sorts of facilities and, where appropriate, make them available to users of adjacent buildings belonging to related disciplines.

112

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

113

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

I I I P R I V I L E G I N G

C O M F O R T

C O N D I T I O N S

This final objective leads on from enhancing opportunity for interaction. Using local precedents of the colleges and the New Museums site, there are a number of idiosyncratic sheltered outdoor spaces to be considered. These typologyies might be considered as comfortable intermediate spaces more appropriate to the site that atria.

114

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

115

| DESIGN OBJECTIVES |

E X P L O I T

E X I S T I N G

C O N D I T I O N S

Analysis of equinox daily solar radiation (below) and equinox daily shadow range demonstrate an average of existing environmental conditions to be investigated and exploited through the site design.

116

| D E S I G N O B J EC T I V E S |

N 117

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| DESIGN PROPOSAL |

Site Strategy Primary Secondary Tertiary

119

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

S I T E

S T R AT E G Y

:

E D I T I N G

The overarching strategy of the proposal comes down to an editing process of the site’s key issues, including intervening at Primary, Secondary and Tertiary component level. Coordinating these components will allow for the design proposal to fulfill its objective of privileging social interaction.

The convoluted vehicle access and excessive amounts of car parking present a very real limit to the site’s potential, both in terms of landscaping and inhabitation. The City Council’s Cambridge Local Plan (Department of Environment + Planning: 2006) encourages significant reductions in on-site parking, especially in the Controlled Parking Zone, which includes Downing Site.

120

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

121

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

H E R I T A G E :

S I T E

A X E S

The site, originally a green space, purchased from Downing College by the University at the turn of the 20th century in order to provide much needed laboratory space.

The Sedgewick Museum and Earth Sciences building were the first to be erected, and as the site developed a strong axis was maintained along the existing footpath - pointing toward the centre of town.

The proposal acts to enhance this north-south axis and reestablish it as a pedestrian route right the way through the site (there is no vehicular access to Downing Street), whilst a vehicle access only route will be retained east-west linking Tennis Court Road and Downing Place as indicated on the 1926 historical map.

122

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

1903

1926 123

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

C O N C E P T

:

D E F I N E D

C O U R T S

The existing pattern of courts is illustrated here showing a gradient of public (top of site) to private. This is overlayed with the existing north-south axis.

124

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

125

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

C O N C E P T

:

L I N K

G AT E WA Y S

These courts are then defined by placement of gateway buildings that link the existing departmental buildings where appropriate.

The potential for soft surface in the landscaping is then juxtaposed to illustrate the emerging revised site pattern. These spaces were later finalised using the site solar analysis demonstrated in the Design Objectives:

126

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

127

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

G AT E WA Y

P R E C E D E N T

On the page opposite are examples of college gateways experienced at St John’s and Gonville and Caius Colleges.

Whilst often being a simple through route, some examples will act as a nodal point where one can be funnelled off into adjoining spaces.

These gates act to exaggerate the contrast between enclosure and openess, light and dark, wet and dry, but above all provide an intimate space for potential interaction that is synonymous with the collegiate model.

128

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

129

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

R E V I S E D S I T E

H I E R A R C H Y

P L A N

+

M O D E L

The most important revision made to the site is to remove the majority of carpark and replace with a new paved shared surface aimed at pedestrians and cyclists. A hierarchy of served and servant courts helps to ensure clarity of use for these spaces.

130

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

E X I ST I N G P E D E ST R I A N AC C E S S

NEW F O R E C O URT + M A IN E N T R A N C E

NEW PUB L I C C OURT

B IK E / STOR E YA R D

S E M I P R I VAT E C OURTS

VE H I CL E AC C E S S

P R I VAT E C OURT

E ICL VEH E SS ACC

N 131

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

A

P U B L I C

C O U R T

The forecourt to the Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences resurfaced according to the new site plan.

132

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

N E W P U B L I C R E N D E R I N G

C O U R T

133

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L A N D S C A P I N G Soft surface - grass Hard surface - pedestrian Hard surface - shared Paving Road surface Greenery

134

S T R AT E G Y

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

135

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

136

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

P R I M A R Y

F A B R I C

S T R U C T U R E C I R C U L AT I O N

137

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

A F F E C T E D

D E P A R T M E N T S

A number of Departments would be affected by this design strategy.

In order to develop the links in enough detail, the top three links are being investigated, as indicated opposite.

138

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

H S T R CE A E EN I C S

1

PH

T S N A CE L P EN I SC

Y

O SI

LO

2

G

EN

ET

IC

G

Y

+

N

S

E X Y P C T H . +

A

E OG I MO L R H E P C Y X E PS

S

P

T

3

L Y

D

A

N

A

T

O

M

E

P

A

M R

I X T E M D E N

T

S

Y

139

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

E X I S T I N G

P R O G R A M M E

The existing programme of each link has been simplified into isometric pictograms of each floor affected.

140

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L | General Laboratory Hazard / Sensitive Lab Office Social Space Lectures / Resources

141

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

P R O G R A M M E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Several programme options were considered for each link building (see opposite.

Having considered the adjacent accommodation, the following options were chosen:

142

1

P UB L I C C A F E

2

M E ET IN G R O OM / C ONF E R E N CE SUIT E

3

L IB R A RY E XT E NS I ON / R E A DIN G RO OMS

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

143

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

G AT E WAY L I N K 1 This link is most intrusive into the existing building at ground floor level where there is a massive disused area where the herbarium used to be in the Plant Sciences building. The interventions into the existing incorporate a new series of ramps in order to allow for better disabled access.

144

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

N E O C M N A M R O C NT W E E N OM O R

NE W L RE ACC EV EL CE E PT SS IO N

145

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

G AT E WAY L I N K I I Here there is potential to connect existing formal interaction spaces together using a series of stairs and walkways.

146

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

T

T

O

C

O L NN H E E C EC A T T U T R R E E

C TO ON SE NE RO MI CT OMNA R

147

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

G AT E WAY L I N K I I I The major opportunity here is to connect through from the Craik-Marshall building to the main Experimental Psychology building, through the use of a shared library.

148

H

A

C O L N F - NE L A CT N D T IN O G

S

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L

E X IB PA R N D A R Y

149

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

C I R C U L AT I O N 1.

+

S T R U C T U R E

CAFE

The structure divides area beneath the link into two so as to create a new gateway entrance into each building. These are intended as informal “common room� type rooms with the recption built into them (see plans).

2.

CONFERENCE SUITE

The link is anchored into the back of the Biffen Lecture Theatre. The circulation core connects directly into the theatre, while a small stair allows access from the Physiology building.

3.

READING ROOMS

The reading rooms are accessed directly from the adjacent spaces in the existing building. The link also creates a gateway entrance into the Experimental Psychology Building.

150

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

151

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

S T R U C T U R A L 1.

D E S I G N

CAFE

The base structure of the link 1 is shown opposite. The archway spreads much like a tree canopy into a vaulted shell that carries the reinforced in-situ concrete beam and slab floors as demonstrated in the structural plans opposite.

152

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

S L A B

F R A M E

zone for stair opening in concrete shell

B A S E [Academic use only]

153

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

V O I D 1.

D E S I G N

CAFE

Daylighting studies were conducted for the ground level, lower and upper floors of the cafe building in order to ascertain a suitable void size. The stair runs up through the void which is a glazed but unheated space, open to the ground below. See Appendix B for all option studies.

154

5.4

2.1

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

%D F 80.1+ 72.1 64.1 56.1 48.1 40.1 32.1 24.1 16.1 8.1 0.1

%D F %D F 85.4+ 80.1+ 77.4 72.1 69.4 64.1 61.4 56.1 53.4 48.1 45.4 40.1 37.4 32.1 29.4 24.1 21.4 16.1 13.4 8.1 5.4 0.1

%D

%D F

%D

80.1+

80

72.1

72

64.1

64

56.1

56

48.1

48

40.1

40

32.1

32

24.1

24

16.1

16

8.1

8

0.1

0

%D F

%D F

85.4+

82.1+

77.4

74.1

69.4

66.1

61.4

58.1

53.4

50.1

45.4

42.1

37.4

34.1

29.4

26.1

21.4

18.1

13.4

10.1

5.4

2.1

82

74

66

58

50

42

34

26

18

10

2.

N 155

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

156

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

S E C O N D A R Y

F A B R I C

S P AT I A L Q U A L I T Y M AT E R I A L S C O M F O R T

157

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

B A L A N C I N G

L I G H T

+

D A R K

This early model explores the use of an unheated glazed void cut into the link to provide some much needed daylighting into the centre of the plan up to 12m long in the case of Link 1.

It also exposed the spatial qualities in the gateway space below, with the void allowing light to penetrate into the centre of the gateway, creating a more dramatic contrast ratio in the space.

158

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

159

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

160

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

M AT E R I A L : E L E VAT I O N S Sandy hue concrete was chosen to match the concrete and stone lintels that are common to all the existing buildings on the site.

Conceptually this would mean that the links are material extensions of the buildings that reach out to form a new wing.

161

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I

:

N O R T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I

:

S O U T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I I

:

N O R T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I I

:

S O U T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I I I

:

N O R T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I I I

:

S O U T H

E L E VAT I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

174

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

175

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

F A C A D E

D E S I G N

:

R E V E A L S

A base facade design consisted of 500mm concrete reveals on the south facade. These were initially designed to be perpendicular to the line of the facade.

This was environmentally tested to ascertain the relationship between daylighting and solar gain during the summer - results are shown opposite.

176

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 32.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 0.0

D A Y L I G H T I N G

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 Wh 32.0 2100+ 24.0 1930 16.0 1760 8.0 1590 0.0 1420 1250 1080 910 740 570 400

I N S O L AT I O N

S U M M E R

S O L S T I C E %D F

N

80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 Wh 32.0 22140.00+ 1930

177

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

F A C A D E

A M E N D M E N T S

These reveals were then tilted through 300 through to further block out solar gain from the west and were re-tested to confirm that the desired effect was achieved. The visual below shows how people might start to inhabit the reveals.

178

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 32.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 0.0

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 Wh 32.0 2100+ 24.0 1930 16.0 1760 8.0 1590 0.0 1420

D A Y L I G H T I N G

1250 1080 910 740 570 400

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 Wh 32.0 2 12040. 0+ 1930 16.0 1 786. 00 1590 0.0 1420 1250 1080 910 740 570 400

I N S O L AT I O N

S U M M E R

S O L S T I C E

N 179 Wh 2100+ 1930

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

180

T E R T I A R Y

F A B R I C

I N H A B I TAT I O N

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K P U B L I C

1

:

C A F E

The long section through the Public Cafe demonstrates how people ascend into the building using the lift core and spiral stair.

The two levels and roof terrace provide well-lit intimate spaces for both members of the public and users of the site.

182

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L O N G

S E C T I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

183

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

184

I

-

C A F E

P R O V I D E S

S P A C E

F O R

I N T E R A C T I O N

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

185

186

I

-

@

C A F E

1 : 2 0 0

P U B L I C

F L O O R P L A N S

L I N K

N

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

187

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

2

C O N F E R E N C E

188

: S U I T E

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L O N G

S E C T I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

189

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

190

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K

I I

-

S H E L T E R E D

G R O U N D

C O N D I T I O N

191

192

I I

-

@

1 : 2 0 0

C O N F E R E N C E

F L O O R P L A N S

L I N K

N

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

193

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L I N K R E A D I N G

194

3

:

R O O M S

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

L O N G

S E C T I O N

@

1 : 1 0 0

195

196

I I I

-

@

1 : 2 0 0

R E A D I N G

F L O O R P L A N S

L I N K

R O O M S

N

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

197

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

P R I M A R Y

+

T E R T I A R Y

The figure-ground / furniture analysis was amended to include the three inhabited link buildings. This shows the useage of these links as helping to define the community around the courts by providing an interactive infill.

198

199

| D E S I G N P RO P O S A L |

200

| C O N C LUS I O N |

| CONCLUSION |

181

| C O N C LUS I O N |

D E S I G N

S T U D Y

C O N C L U S I O N S

The proposals for this project are a hybridisation of two components: the college gateway and the atrium. At a site level these link buildings use a system of urban microsurgery in order to maximise the potentials of the site as a collaborative science campus. They also act to enhance its sense of place and use architecture to provide a cohesive physical community.

The plan drawings show that dealing with the internal reorganisation of the existing buildings has been a complicated spatial planning exercise, as not all buildings are easily entered from this new spine of gateways.

An example of this is at the ground condition of Gateway 2 (the Conference suite) the sunken ground floor laboratories of the Physiology building and the placement of the heavily used Biffen Lecture Theatre - a rather convoluted series of stairways was required to solve this and create a link at first floor level. In the case of the Link 3 (Library extension and reading rooms) this was much simpler, using the design objective of shared facilities to link two buildings with an overlapping field of Experimental Psychology.

Arguably, the links are successful at creating a rhythm of contrasting exterior spaces for outdoor interaction. The cover from rain is an obvious benefit, as is the formal establishment of a “high street� to the site. It is hoped that these gateways, inspired by and remeniscent of the college gateways, help orientate site users but also define the courts to pay homage to the enclosure and intimacy of the collegiate model.

182

| C O N C LUS I O N |

The environmental detail design of a typical southern facade reveal was a useful exercise in reconciling environmental comfort and social interaction. The reveal is deep enough and has an optimised geometry to reduce solar gain into the space during the summer whilst still allowing a warm sun trap large enough for two people to sit in with the sun on their backs during the winter months.

Daylight factor analysis of stair void options was useful for creating a palette of geometries to choose from that were specific to location and context. How successful these voids are at mirroring the sky-worship of the classic corporate atrium as described by Yaneva (2010) is less obvious. Achievement of the design objective of comfortable spaces worth seeking is difficult to assess, however the variety of light and solar access provided within each link might possibly see to this.

A retrofit can only go so far to improve a site’s potential for interaction before major building intervention is needed. Design of a new science campus from scratch presents a different set of problems, but the placemaking exercises at different scales gleaned from this design study provide some sort of benchmarking by which one can govern the massing and arrangement of a new science campus.

183

| C O N C LUS I O N |

B I B L I O G R A P H Y AECOM, University of Cambridge. (2010, June). Stakeholder Workshop and Public Exhibition. Retrieved November 2011, from North West Cambridge: www.nwcambridge.co.uk Brand, S. (1994). How Buildings Learn: what happens after they’re built. New York, USA: Penguin Group.

Burton, F. (2000). The Nobel Prize. New York: Arcade Publishing.

Cavendish Development Office . (2011, 01 01). The Future of the Cavendish. Retrieved 11 18, 2011, from Department of Physics, Cavendish Laboratory: http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/development/future/ Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. London/Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Crawley Cooper, E. (1994). Laboratory Design Handbook. London: Boca Raton.

Crick, F. (1990). What Mad Pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery. London: Penguin.

Crowther, J. G. (1974). The Cavendish Laboratory 1874-1974. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd. Echenique, M., Pearce, B., Fawcett, W., & Palmer, J. (2003). Cities of Innovation: Shaping Places for High-Tech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, B. (2000). Laboratories and Research Buildings. In B. Edwards, University Architecture (pp. 96-108). London: Spoon Press.

Environment & Planning Dept. (2006). Cambridge Local Plan. Cambridge : Cambridge City Council Finch, J. (2008). A Nobel Fellow on Every Floor : A History of the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology.

Cambridge: MRC LMB. Galison, P. &. (1999). The Architecture of Science. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Gaston, J. (1973). Originality and Competition in Science: A Study of the British High Energy Physics Community. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press.

Gieryn, T. F. (2006). Cities as Truth Spot: Laboratories and Field Sites in Urban Studies. Social Studies of Science , 36 (1), 5-58.

Gieryn, T. F. (2008). Laboratory Design for Post-Fordist Science. History of Science Society , 99, 796-802.

Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What Buildings Do. Theory and Society , 31 (1), 35-74.

Griffin, B. (2000). Laboratory Design Guide (2nd Edition ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.

Henderson, D. R. (2012, February 21). MRC Laboratory for Molecular Biology. (S. Chadha, Interviewer) Human, B. (2008). Life on the edge: the Growth of Cambridge. Cambridge Architecture , 57, 3-4.

Industry, D. f. (1999). Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy. UK Government. London: DTI. Industry, D. f. (2006). Science & Innovation: Making the most of UK Research. UK Governement. London: Department for Trade & Industry.

Kohler, R. E. (2008). Laboratory History: Reflections. Isis , 99, 761-768.

Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In K. D. Knorr-Cetina, & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (pp. 142-169). Michigan: SAGE Publications.

Leslie, S. W. (2008). “A Different Kind of Beauty”: Scientific and Architectural Style in I. M. Pei’s Mesa Laboratory and Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences , 173-209.

Leslie, S. W. (2010, April). Laboratory architecture: Building for an uncertain future. Physics Today , 40-45.

Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space. London: Routledge.

184

| C O N C LUS I O N |

Menin, S. (2003). Constructing Place: Mind and Matter. Abingdon: Routledge.

Payne, J. R. (1976). Notes on the Building: Cavendish Laboratory Cambridge. Cambridge: Building User Manual.

Pippard, P. S. (1975). The Move to West Cambridge. In Various, A Hundred Years and More of Cambridge Physics. Cambridge: University Physics Society.

Purvis, M. J. (1973). Laboratory Planning. London: Bailliere Tindall.

Rawle, T. (1985). Cambridge Architecture. London: Trefoil Books Ltd. Rawle, T. (1985). Cambridge Architecture. London: Trefoil Books Ltd. Macfarlane, A. (Director). (2007). A Tour Around the Old Cavendish [Motion Picture].

Schaffer, S. (2012, January 6th). BBC Radio 4 Documentary: “The books that shaped history”. (M. Bragg, Interviewer) Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd. (1985). The Cambridge Phenomenon: the Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town. England: Burlington Press Ltd. Shrödinger, E. (1944). What is Life. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.

Spargo, P. E. (2005). Investigating the site of Newton’s laboratory in Trinity College, Cambridge. South African Journal of Science , 101, 315-321.

Watson, P. J. (2003, February). “I remember floating that whole spring”. (B. News, Interviewer) London, UK. Yaneva, A. (2010). Is the Atrium More Important than the Lab? Designer Buildings for New Cultures of Creativity. Geographies of Science: Knowledge and Space , 3, 139-150.

Websites: AECOM, University of Cambridge. (2010, June). Stakeholder Workshop and Public Exhibition. Retrieved November 2011, from North West Cambridge: www.nwcambridge.co.uk Cavendish Development Office . (2011, 01 01). The Future of the Cavendish. Retrieved 11 18, 2011, from Department of Physics, Cavendish Laboratory: http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/development/future/ Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) and the Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland (DEL). (2008). Retrieved 10 10, 2011, from Research Assessment Exercise: http://www.rae.ac.uk/ UK Science Park Association Website. UKSPA - The History of UKSPA. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://www.ukspa. org.uk/

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S University of Cambridge:

Departmental + Visiting Critics

Peter Bystricky | The Cavendish Physics Laboratory Clare Rumsey | The Cavendish Physics Laboratory Richard Henderson | MRC Laboratory for Molecular Biology Mark Hammond | Centre for Stem Cell Research

Spencer de Grey Makoto Saito Arie Graafland Alfred Jacoby Koen Steemers

Dr. Peter Foreman | Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology Jenny Hill | Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute

Supervisors

Alison McDougall-Weil | Engineering Design Centre Hilary Glegg | Estates Management

Ingrid Schroder Joris Fach

185

A P P E N D I X

A

C A S E S T U D Y E N V I R O M E N TA L A N A L Y S I S

TEM AVERAGE

16 0

H 200 500

8 80

160 400

6 60

120 300

4 40

80 200

2 20

40 100

0 0

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

8k TOTAL SUNSHINE HOURS RAINFALL (MM)

10 100

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%) SOLAR RADIATION (W/m2)

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

20 12 10

0 0

6k 4k 2k 0k

S C

J

50

This however does not imply that these example buildings exhibit perfect environmental performance. The Insolation Analysis data depicting average daily solar radiation in December and June (Fig. 2.8), underlines that the western aspect of the the CSCR laboratories is susceptable to extremely high passive solar gair year round. This explains the failures of the faulty comfort cooling system, as reported by Mark Hammond, Principle Assistant & Centre Safety Officer, on site visits.

40 30 20 10 0 100

500

80

400

60

300

40

200

20

100

0

Figure 2.8 Insolation analysis for CSCR general laboratory December and June daily averages, range 72-172Wh and 4001800Wh respectively.

Underlines the extreme solar gains of south west orientation.

H

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

0

8k RAINFALL (MM)

As Cambridge enjoys a temperate maritime climate, which is by definition quite mild, it is a suitable region for research buildings that contain environmentally controlled spaces as its systems need deal with fewer climatic extremes.

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

Solar Gains Analysis

TEMPERATURE (oC)

Figure 2.7 Climate data relevant to Insolation Analyses

6k 4k 2k 0k

S C

J

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

DAILY AVERAGE - DECEMBER

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

SUNLIGHT PENETRATION - 21 DECEMBER

Figure 2.8a A physical model of the same laboratory space supports the data of the computer modelling.

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

SUNLIGHT PENETRATION - 21 JUNE

TEM AVERAGE

16 0

H 200 500

8 80

160 400

6 60

120 300

4 40

80 200

2 20

40 100

0 0

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

8k TOTAL SUNSHINE HOURS RAINFALL (MM)

10 100

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%) SOLAR RADIATION (W/m2)

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

20 12 10

0 0

6k 4k 2k 0k

S C

J

Insolation Analysis The following three studies test the varied orientations of laboratories in the Cavendish’s Rutherford building (see legends for details) and als underline the south and west orientations susceptibility to glare.

TEMPERATURE (oC)

50 40 30 20 10

100

500

80

400

60

300

40

200

20

100

0

Figure 2.9 Insolation analysis for Cavendish Detector Physics north facing general laboratory December and June daily averages, range 72-172Wh and 400900Wh respectively.

Can be used as a control study for more extreme orientations.

H

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

0

8k RAINFALL (MM)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

0

6k 4k 2k 0k

S C

J

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

[Academic use only]

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

DAILY AVERAGE - DECEMBER

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

[Academic use only]

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

Figure 2.10 Insolation analysis for Cavendish Detector Physics west facing general laboratory December and June daily averages, range 72-272Wh and 400-2100Wh respectively.

Holding laboratory for ISO clean room, susceptable to extreme gains - must use blinds year-round to prevent overheating

DAILY AVERAGE - DECEMBER

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

[Academic use only]

DAILY AVERAGE - JUNE

Figure 2.11 Insolation analysis for Cavendish Atomic, Mesoscopic and Optical Physics south facing general laboratory December and June daily averages, range 72-172Wh and 400-2400Wh respectively.

Deep solar penetration in winter months and shallow but strong penetration in the summer.

DAILY AVERAGE - DECEMBER

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

DETECTOR PHYSICS NORTH ASPECT

DETECTOR PHYSICS WEST ASPECT

Figure 2.17 Daylight factor analysis: data for North and South facing rooms suggest generally darker rooms

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

[Academic use only]

Atomic, Mesoscopic and OpticaL PHYSICS SOUTH ASPECT

2 | CONTROL | Environmental Conditions

Figure 2.21 Daylight factor analysis: data for typical CSCR laboratory (west facing) shows surprisingly high factor of 3.2% on deepest wall The physical models above demonstrate the effect of furniture at increasing reflected light further into the room.

Environmental Conditions | CONTROL | 2

CSCR GENERAL LABORATORY WEST ASPECT

A P P E N D I X

B

V O I D D E S I G N D A Y L I G H T A N A L Y S I S

V O I D

D E S I G N

CONTROL: NO VOID

%D F 84.5+ 76.5 68.5 60.5

44.5

52.5 %D F 44.5 84.8+ 36.5 76.8 28.5 68.8 20.5 60.8 12.5 52.8 4.5 44.8

36.5

36.8

28.5

28.8

20.5

20.8

12.5

12.8

4.5

4.8

%D F 84.5+ 76.5 68.5 60.5 52.5

OPTION 2: RECTANGULAR VOID (NORTH-SOUTH)

%D F 80.4+ 72.4 64.4 56.4

40.4

48.4 %D F 40.4 80.4+ 32.4 72.4 24.4 64.4 16.4 56.4 8.4 48.4 0.4 40.4

32.4

32.4

24.4

24.4

16.4

16.4

8.4

8.4

0.4

0.4

%D F 80.4+ 72.4 64.4 56.4 48.4

202

OPTION 1: SMALL SQUARE VOID (3m)

%D F

%D F

84.5+

84.8+

76.5

76.8

68.5

68.8

60.5

60.8

52.5

52.8 %D F 44.8 84.5+ 36.8 76.5 28.8 68.5 20.8 60.5 12.8 52.5 4.8 44.5

44.5 36.5 28.5 20.5 12.5 4.5

36.5 28.5 20.5 12.5 4.5

OPTION 3: RECTANGULAR VOID (EAST-WEST)

%D F

%D F

80.4+

80.4+

72.4

72.4

64.4

64.4

56.4

56.4

48.4

48.4 %D F 40.4 80.4+ 32.4 72.4 24.4 64.4 16.4 56.4 8.4 48.4 0.4 40.4

40.4 32.4 24.4 16.4 8.4 0.4

32.4 24.4 16.4 8.4 0.4

203

| C O N C LUS I O N |

F A C A D E

204

D E S I G N

:

A L T E R N AT I V E

O P T I O N

%D F 80.0+ 72.0

| C O N C LUS I O N |

64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 32.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 0.0

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 Wh 40.0 2100+ 32.0 1930 24.0 1760 16.0 1590 8.0 1420 0.0 1250 1080 910 740 570 400

%D F 80.0+ 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 Wh 40.0 2100+ 32.0 1930 24.0 1760 16.0 1590 8.0 1420 0.0 1250 1080 910 740 570 400

Wh 2100+ 1930 1760 1590 1420 1250 1080 910 740 570 400

205