Stage 3 Dissertation BA (Hons) Architecture Newcastle University by James Clark

THE OGDEN CENTRE DANIEL LIBESKIND DURHAM UNIVERSITY D U R H A M C I T Y The incentives & implications of employing an international ‘Starchitect’ for a new University development

J . G . C L A R K

What are the incentives & implications of employing an international â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Starchitectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for a new University development? Answered specifically in relation to Durham University employing Studio Daniel Libeskind to design the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics Written by James George Clark

Abstract

In the UK and abroad, ‘Starchitects’ or renowned architects, are employed by Universities to design iconic buildings. This dissertation focuses on Studio Daniel Libeskind’s new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics for Durham University (in-construction) as a case study and idea. It reflects on the architect and the design of the building, the context of the building and its relationship to future contemporary design within the context, and the employment of architects by Durham University. Key incentives in employing the international practice for the University and the implications of the development and employment itself, as well as modern design within the city, are considered throughout. The dissertation concludes mainly that the factors of; client, (Durham University) context (Stockton Road Campus and screening of trees) and programme (Physics Department) highlight its suitability for the ‘Starchitect’ (Libeskind). Open international design competitions with entries from international practices on University projects both within Durham City and on campuses is likely to continue in the future, with Durham University’s non-traditional procurement route minimising the usual cost implications associated with employing ‘Starchitects’. Framework architects, usually local, have a practical advantage but with the University’s policy on ‘iconic buildings’ this procurement route seems less likely for larger developments. Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Simon Hacker for his guidance and supervision throughout the dissertation process. The author would also like to thank Durham University Project Manager of Estates and Buildings / The new Ogden Centre Project Manager, Mr Simon Watt & Deputy Director of Estates and Buildings at Durham University, Mrs Harvey Dowdy, for their time and effort in participating in interviews.

CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction

‘The Starchitect Effect’ The ‘Starchitect’ For Universities For Durham University The new ‘Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics’ Dissertation Structure Academic Context The Aim Research Methodology

Chapter 2: The ‘Starchitect’, Daniel Libeskind, The Architectural Style of ‘Deconstructivism’ & The Design of The Ogden Centre

2 3

5 7 8 8 8

A Short Introduction to Daniel Libeskind 11 Deconstruction in Literature, Jacques Derrida 12 Deconstruction to Architecture, Jacques Derrida 12 Deconstructivism Today, A Misinterpretation? 13 Deconstructivism, Daniel Libeskind 14 Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum/ Between the Lines The Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics 21 Controversial Design

Chapter 3: Durham University’s Role Within The Wider Context – Durham City

World Heritage Site Conservation Area & Topology The Ogden Centre, A Consideration of Context Globalisation, The Homogenous City? The Homogenous Campus?

28 30 31 31 37 40

Chapter 4: Durham University - An Overview of Employment & Development

Historical Employment Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin 1960’s Employment Ove Arup Recent Employment _Space Architects Future Employment Globalisation, ‘Starchitect’ | ‘Locatect’? The Tender, International Design Competition The Prestige Racket? The Procurement Route

42 43 44 45 47 47 50 52

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Bibliography | Illustrations | Appendixes

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1: Introduction ‘The Starchitect Effect’

The ‘Starchitect’ The heroes of post-war 20th century modern architecture in particular, pioneered the celebrity of the architect, with big names like Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright appearing on TIME Magazine covers. Starchitect n. A famous or high-profile architect. The forming of the World Trade Organization has removed trade barriers, opening up new markets for European investors. In addition, the rapid growth of the digital world and of digital design has made it possible for architects to design large scale buildings around the globe without having to set up additional local offices.1 Today, large firms commonly enter international design competitions and are often chosen due to their reputation and distinctive style. It could be argued that there is a difference between ‘Starchitect’ architectural firms who have a fetish for designing iconic buildings which grab the headlines not only in the profession but also in popular culture, and global architects like Norman Foster or Rem Koolhaus who design ‘iconic architecture’ which is driven by its pursuit of quality.2 Cole calls for the end of the term ‘Starchitect’ as a pejorative term for any architect with a higher than average design talent, arguing that this is an insult to an entire profession.3

Wickersham, J. (2015) Code of Context: The Uneasy Excitement of Global Practice. [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/590300/code-of-context-the-uneasy-excitement-of-globalpractice [accessed 15 July 2016] 2 Faulconbridge, J. (2009) The regulation of design in global architecture firms: embedding and emplacing buildings. Lancaster: Lancaster University. p 2540. [online pdf] Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/46/12/2537.full.pdf+html [accessed 15 July 2016] 3 Cole, D. (2015) Commentary: “Starchitecture” Is Not The Enemy Of Urbanism. [online] Available at: http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/12/commentary-urbanists-should-not-view-starchitecture-asthe-enemy/ [accessed 16 August 2016] 1

However, for the sake of the narrative and the term’s reference point, I will continue to use the term throughout the dissertation. For Universities When describing the architects position in relation to University building design, Heathcote writes, “in their attempt to establish a microcosmic city, a place of meaning and transformation through learning, universities remain one of the few building types where architects are not only allowed but encouraged to experiment with extravagance.”4 According to Marmot (Professor of the facility of environment design at UCL and founding architect of AMA), ambitious University leaders bring together the powerful combination of ‘Starchitects’ that play with styles of irregular shapes and geometries (rather than conventional and efficient rectilinear structures), and rich sponsors eager to donate for flagship facilities bearing their name. The promotion of unique or ‘novel’ building design hints that this is a forward-looking organisation whose philosophy is to break down the boundaries of traditional thinking.5 Heathcote argues the notion that Universities need to market and sell themselves to students and their parents by seeking to provide the best facilities has long been the case in the US but is also now being seen in Europe and the UK. Where education was, until lately, state-funded and free, there is now an evolving market where “Universities have suddenly become playgrounds for Starchitects in an explosion of shape-making.”6 For Durham University During an interview conducted on 2 August 2016, Durham University Project Manager of Estates and Buildings and Project Manager of The new Ogden Centre, Mr Simon Watt states, “just to give you a bit of a background to the University… I have been at the University for twelve years, and in the twelve years that Heathcote, E. (2014) How universities are using bold campus architecture to market themselves. [online] Available at: https://next.ft.com/content/a0b4cb1c-283c-11e4-9ea900144feabdc0#axzz4EP5OQJ40 [accessed 10 August 2016] 5 Marmot, A. (2015) Flashy university buildings: do they live up to the hype? [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/21/flashy-university-buildings-do-they-live-upto-the-hype [accessed 15 July 2016] 6 Heathcote, E. 4

I have been here, the University have always tried to commission iconic buildings. We do not just want to stick up square boxes. The University made the decision, years ago now, that they would be prepared to pay a premium over and above what you would expect to pay, for a certain type of building. Because as the University sees it, as do a lot of Universities now, it is all part of selling the University. We definitely do not commission buildings that are just built for the purpose intended. It has always got to be an iconic structure, something different… Something that is going to hit the headlines for the University really.”7 The new ‘Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics’

Durham University selected international architect Daniel Libeskind to design the new £11.5m research centre, ‘The Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics’. It will house two world leading institutes in their field; the Institute for Computational Cosmology and the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology. A donation from alumnus Sir Peter Ogden, of £3.35m has contributed to this new centre which will sit next to the Department of Physics. Professor Tom Ward says “it’s unique design will also make an important contribution to the architectural heritage of the University and Durham City.”8 A further contribution of £1.5m from the Wolfson Foundation was given. Paul Ramsbottom (Chief Excecutive) states, “the new Centre will not only allow outstanding research to flourish but will also be housed in a distinctive and exciting building.”9 The unique design of Libeskind responds to the end user requirements in a stimulating and innovative way. Rather than attempting too hard to fit in with a campus designed as a whole, it perhaps attempts to relate more to the end user and an evolving campus.10

See Appendix A. Watt, S. (2016) Semi-Structured Interview with Mr Simon Watt - Senior Project Manager in the Estates and Buildings at Durham University & Senior Project Manager of the new Ogden Centre development itself. Interviewed by James Clark [face to face interview] Contractors’ site cabins on South Road, Durham. 2 August, 2016, 12:30. 8 Durham University. (2015) Building work to start on “iconic” Durham University research centre. [online] Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=24669 [accessed 10 August] 9 Durham University. (2014) Durham University unveils new landmark building. [online] Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=19741 [accessed 10 August] 10 Durham County Council. (2014) Design and Conservation Advice. [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C3B0D8B6AC1B9B55DD00579D3C FCA8A7/pdf/DM_14_00414_FPA-DESIGN_COMMENTS-229941.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016] 7

Figure 1. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind's proposal for the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics from the Stockton Road Campus

Figure 2. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind's proposal for the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics from South Road

Dissertation Structure

Chapter One introduces the ‘Starchitect’ term, along with the University development, before highlighting the originality of the work, the aim and the research methodology. Chapter Two explores the background of the ‘Starchitect’, Daniel Libeskind and the architectural style of ‘deconstructivism’, before introducing the design of the new Ogden Centre, highlighting some of the design issues and controversy. Chapter Three explores the context of the historical Durham City and the World Heritage Site. It explores theories on the future of modern development, particularly discussing the theory of homogenous modern design. It invariably discusses the consideration of the development itself within the Conservation Area. Chapter Four discusses the University’s employment of architects, historically, recently and in the future. It explores the benefits, disadvantages and reasons for employing local and international practices. It discovers the process by which Studio Daniel Libeskind were appointed and the University’s incentives for the employment. Chapter Five ties together information inherited from the research and interviews, in summarising the incentives and implications of Durham University employing the international practice for the new development and for future development.

Academic Context

The originality of this dissertation stems from the integration of background research of the architect, context, University and the development itself to formulate a framework for direct conversations with Durham University, concerning the key incentives in employing SDL for the (in-construction) development and the implications concerned with this development for the University and for the city. This exposes an almost confidential standpoint on the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behalf. The Aim

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide an informative piece of text which ties together research concerning the concept of a historic University employing an internationally recognised architecture firm. Specifically, to question the reasons for this and consequences of this, what this means for practice, for Durham Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position, and for the context of Durham City. Research Methodology

Primary research includes two separate interviews with the University, directly investigating and informing the conclusions from the questions made. A visit inside and around the construction- in- progress with the Project Manager, provided insight into the design of the development. Books and website articles provided me with background information. Planning Permission documents provided me with information on the proposals and its design considerations. Design websites highlighted the way the building was publicised and introduced.

CHAPTER 2: THE ‘STARCHITECT’, DANIEL LIBESKIND, THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF ‘DECONSTRUCTIVISM’ & THE DESIGN OF THE OGDEN CENTRE

Chapter 2: The ‘Starchitect’, Daniel Libeskind, The Architectural Style of ‘Deconstructivism’ & The Design of The Ogden Centre A Short Introduction to Daniel Libeskind

Daniel Libeskind is an internationally recognised figure in both architecture and urban design, due to his multidisciplinary approach and new critical discourse in architecture. His projects range from major cultural buildings such as museums and concert halls to urban design such as art installations and stage design.11 Libeskind was born in post- war Poland in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1965. He received his professional architecture degree from the Cooper Union for the advancement of Science and Art in 1970, followed by a postgraduate degree at Essex University, in 1972. In 1989, he won the competition for the Jewish Museum in Berlin, which opened to the public on 1998; consequentially winning the Deutsche Architekturpreis in 1999. He has received awards such as the Goethe Medallion, the American Academy of Arts and Letters for Architecture and the Berlin Cultural Prize and honorary doctorates from; Humboldt University, Berlin and from the College of Arts and Humanities at Essex University.12 Deconstructivism n. An architectural style dating from the late 1900s characterized by unconventional, often arresting design elements, such as curved or sloping walls, slanted columns, and asymmetric structures and spaces. To get a notion of what the aesthetics of the Ogden Centre will be like, we must first get a sense of the architectural style Libeskind uses and emulates, namely that of ‘deconstructivism’. Deconstructivism is the architectural manifesto resulting from Jacques Derrida’s semiotic analysis, named ‘deconstruction’.

Libeskind, D., Kipnis, J., Vidler, afterword by A. and Betsky, A. (2001) Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. London: Thames & Hudson, p. 15 12 ibid. 11

Deconstruction in Literature, Jacques Derrida

Deconstruction, widely known to have been developed by Jacques Derrida, initially in his 1967 book ‘Of Grammatology’, is a philosophical and critical outlook concerning the relationship between words and their meaning; although, Derrida himself, would not choose to categorise or define the term. Silverman describes deconstruction as, “the reading of texts in terms of their marks, traces, or indecidable features, in terms of margins, limits, or frameworks, and in terms of their self- circumscriptions or self- delimitations as text.”13 Derrida follows previous philosophers, Nietszche and Heidegger in the critique of western metaphysics. Not only in western thought which uses ‘dichotomies or polarities’ which favour ‘presence’ over ‘absence’ such as good vs. evil, presence vs. absence, nature vs. culture, life vs. death; but also in language. Derrida argues that all speech and text are structured according to ‘logocentric’ means and that language is therefore a set of différances, rather than a collection of independently meaningful units; as language as such is already constituted by the very distances and differences it attempts to overcome. Derrida finds himself expanding on this science of writing in his early work, Grammatology; studying the effects of this différance which western metaphysics has repressed in its search for ‘self- present’ truth.14 Deconstruction, is rather a strategy of writing, aimed at analysing a piece of text or writing, rather than trying to destroy it in terms of proving its meaning is impossible. Stocker writes, “the suggestion that the conditions for the possibility of proper names are also the conditions for their impossibility is typical of Derrida’s deconstructive strategies.”15 Deconstruction to Architecture, Jacques Derrida

Derrida himself, has strong links with architecture, not only through his teachings of deconstruction, which informed and led to the architectural style of deconstructivism; but also in physically designing- in collaboration with Peter Eisenman- a section of the Parc de la Villette entitled ‘Choral Silverman, H. (1989) Derrida and Deconstruction. New York: Routledge, p. 4 Johnson, B. and Derrida, P. J. (1981) Translator’s Introduction in Dissemination. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 8, 9, 10 15 Stocker, B. (2006) Routledge philosophy guidebook to Derrida on Deconstruction. New York: Routledge, p. 56 13 14

Works’, and instigated by Bernard Tschumi. This is turn, would be the demonstration of his theory in practice. Derrida, in his interview, ‘Architecture Where the Desire May Live’ sees architecture as a form of writing, and deconstruction as a metaphor which can be used for ‘architectural difference’, which has strong conceptual uses.16 In ‘Timaeus’, Plato describes the binary structure of a universe, with two parts. The intelligible- that which consists of a world of ideas which are governed by reason- and the sensible- the material and changeable world, an inferior copy. ‘Khora’ is a term which Plato uses to describe the space or site where everything passes through and nothing is retained. Wolfreys when describing Derrida’s essay on the deconstruction of ‘khora’ writes, that it is “another of those ‘nonsynonymous substitutions’ which produces and performs the effect of difference.”17 The word is intrinsic to Plato’s theory of creation, however, at the same time refuting that model and undermining the two concepts of western philosophy; the sensible and the intelligible. Morgan writes, “thus Plato’s binary order contains and relies on its own disruption.”18 ‘Khora’, in turn, would become the concept and theme behind ‘Choral Works’; where the in- between state would, in Eisenman’s belief, go hand in hand with his attempt to challenge the dominance of ‘presence’ in architecture. Spaces would challenge the western tradition of presence being solidarity and absence meaning void; to form spaces which use absence and presence together equally.19 Deconstructivism Today, a Misinterpretation?

From Derrida’s literary deconstruction of texts to the architectural style of deconstructivism comes an abstract transformation of interpretation. This abstract interpretation follows a line of architects fixed on the manipulation of structure to create visually striking forms of a personal style, a possible diversion of the initial meaning of Derrida’s literary explanations of ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ to the wholly architectural ‘difference’. Leach, N. (1997) ‘Jacques Derrida’ in Rethinking Architecture: A reader in Cultural History. New York: Routledge, p. 300 17 Wolfreys, J. (ed.) (1998) The Derrida Reader: Writing performances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, p. 40 18 Morgan, E. (2006) Derrida’s Garden. Vancouver: Filip 19 ibid. 16

In the review of Salinargos, ‘Anti Architecture and Deconstruction’ for the Architectural Review, Meir argues that the architectural style, deconstructivism of today is a wholly negative kind of design. He writes, “architecture cannot go on indulging themselves in the misty atmosphere of ‘constructive ambiguity’, with the logic of cults, the rhetoric of twisted pseudo- philosophy and the terminology of disciplines they have no understanding of. It is time for architects to realise that an aggressive, selfpropelling group has hijacked architecture, its teaching, discussion and raison-etre.”20 Deconstructivism, Daniel Libeskind

According to Johnson and Wigley, the architectural style of deconstructivism, really came into the public forefront due to the 1988 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition in the Museum of Modern Art in New York where works were featured from the likes of; Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi and a certain Daniel Libeskind. The fact sheet for the exhibition reads, “though working independently, the architects share striking formal similarities. Using twisted volumes, warped planes, and clashed lines, they intentionally violate the cubes and right angles of modernism. By challenging traditional ideals of order and rationality, their projects undermine the basic assumptions about building.”21 The work on show from Libeskind was City Edge Competition, Berlin. It takes the form of a large angular bar spanning blocks and streets. Although never built, it remains a legacy of his preoccupation with angles and protruding forms which became realised in many of his subsequent projects. Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum/ Between the Lines (completion 1999) His first international success, and perhaps best known work, ‘Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum’, or what Libeskind calls ‘Between the Lines’, is a true example of this style. It takes the form of two visible Meir, I. (2005) Anti Architecture and Deconstruction. London: Architectural Review, pp. 104-5 Johnson, P. and Wigley, M. (1988) Deconstructivist Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art 20 21

ground level buildings, added to the original Baroque Berlin Museum. Shneider writes, “the Jewish Museum is conceived as an emblem in which the invisible and visible are the structural features which have seen gathered in this space of Berlin and laid bare in an architecture where the unnamed remains the name which keeps still”.22 Large voids, dead ends and complex sculptured interior forms made of reinforced concrete create a compelling experience for the visitor. (figure 3.) The voids are unheated, un air- conditioned and largely unlit. One of the voids is 66feet tall, with Menashe Kadishman’s Schalechet (Fallen Leaves), a series of 10,000 screaming steel faces, referring to Libeskind’s quote “that which can never be exhibited when it comes to Jewish Berlin History: Humanity reduced to ashes.”23 (figure 4.) The design and form of the building takes fruition due to Libeskind’s three identifiable concepts. Firstly, the impossibility of understanding Berlin’s history without understanding the cultural, economic and intellectual impact of Jewish citizens of Berlin. Secondly, the necessity of incorporating the spirituality and physicality of the meaning of the Holocaust into the consciousness of the city of Berlin. The last being the idea that only through the acknowledgement of the erasure and void of Jewish life in Berlin can the history of Berlin and Europe have a future.24 These three separate ideas are implemented due to three identifiable routes, two leading from the main corridor. One leads to the ‘Garden of Exile’ through a glass door; the only path leading externally indicating an idea of exile being the only way to freedom. The other leads to the darkness of the ‘Holocaust Tower’, a bare concrete, unheated space with lighting solely coming from a single window.25 Shneider, B. (1999) Quoted in the preface to Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin. Munich: Prestel Verlag 23 Jewish Museum Berlin (n.d.) The Voids in The Libeskind Building. [online] Available at: http://www.jmberlin.de/main/EN/04-About-The-Museum/01-Architecture/01-libeskindBuilding.php#h5-3 [accessed 10 August] 24 Bianchini, D. (2014) The Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind. [online] Available at: http://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/daniel-libeskind-jewish-museum-berlin/ [accessed 10 August] 25 Shneider, B. (1999) Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin. Munich: Prestel Verlag, pp. 40, 48, 50, 51 22

The exterior is zinc cladded with striking diagonal windows which intersect and penetrate the zig-zag form of the building, inspired from an abstracted Star of David, where lines connect up the locations of the varying historical events. (figure 5.)

Figure 3. Jewish Museum staircase showing interior forms

Figure 4. Jewish Museum void with Menashe Kadishman's â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Schalechetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Figure 5. Jewish Museum Berlin overhead view

Figure 6. The (in-construction) entrance to the new Ogden Centre Figure 7. The (in- construction) faรงade showing its angle Figure 8. * elevation looking south of South Road Figure 9. * elevation looking north of South Road Figure 10. * elevation of the north side of the building

The Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics (completion expected November, 2016)

“Light and openness is at the core of the design of the Ogden Centre”26 The building appears to be two stacked volumes with bands of windows and balconies striking through the facades of red timber cedar cladding. To avoid dark spaces, the offices are placed in a ring so each space has a window with a frosted glass door (figure 14.) to create an open program. Large communal terraces (figure 15.) allow relaxing and fresh air and a large atrium with skylights create light flexible meeting areas.27 It is an office building with a relatively ordinary layout (figure 11.). However, due to the envelope of the building, this causes some unusual shaped rooms and where Libeskind has cut shapes in different floor locations, this creates an unusual atrium (figure 16). In relation to heating, there is a ground sourced heat pump along with thermostatic valves and the building is naturally ventilated via operable windows, as Watt says “that works best” other than fully air conditioned space with mechanical ventilation. He states, “so other than the external appearance it is quite a simple building.”28 Carlos Frenk, the Mexican- British director of the University’s Institute of Computational Cosmology who has twice persuaded the University to create two new buildings, taking an active role in both design processes, argues that good design promotes productivity. Reflecting on the “horrible” proposals for the initial building competition in 2000, he states, “we are trying to have a world-leading research institution dealing with the most fundamental problems in nature, we don’t want to do that in a building that looks like a hospital.” Reflecting on the original 2000 design and its lower budget, he concedes that the design is still attractive; due to having no straight lines but interesting shapes.29

Studio Daniel Libeskind. (n.d.) Ogden Center of Fundamental Physics at Durham University. [online] Available at: http://libeskind.com/work/ogden-center-at-durham-university/ [accessed 10 August] 27 ibid. 28 See Appendix A. 29 Lock, H. (2015) the cosmologist who makes beautiful buildings appear. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/nov/30/the-cosmologist-whomakes-beautiful-university-buildings-appear [accessed 10 August] 26

Figure 11. Ogden Centre floor plans- showing the office buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relatively ordinary layout

According to Frenk, the new Libeskind design reflects its programme or purpose of “asking questions and testing assumptions about what the universe is made of” and that “if you weren’t a scientist you’d still get a sense of what we did when you walked in.”30 Watt says that one of the reasons Studio Daniel Libeskind chose timber cladding (figures 12, 13) was to echo the Palatine Centre on the front of the campus (Stockton Road Campus). This he says, highlights a contextually conscientious approach, noting that Studio Daniel Libeskind actually came over to visit and get a feel for the campus. Watt however explains that there were two big risk areas for the construction of the building. The design does not have an orthogonal grid and needed to be constructed using an in-situ concrete frame (figure 17.) as the form was too complex to utilise a steel frame. Thus, a big issue was in the construction of the shapes and in getting the exposed Class B finished quality of the concrete right internally (figure 18.). Secondly, with the envelope having lots of complex junctions, water penetration is a danger. It was therefore critical to employ experienced sub-contractors and a robust building envelope solution (figure 19.).31 A design flaw I found was that some offices clearly had intruding columns (figure 20.). In these offices, Libeskind favours a steel ceiling fitting to enable the user to still appreciate the concrete surface (figure 21.), which in the top floor offices, causes ceiling services to run through the parallel office parti wall (figure 22.), thereby a further flaw could be in acoustic issues.

Figure 12. insulation stage, June 2016

30 31

Figure 13. cladding stage, August 2016

ibid. See Appendix A.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22. (rotate)

When discussing the design competition drawings for the building, Watt explains, “that is back to 2012 and that is what Libeskind’s did as their design competition and it has not changed since then. The look of the building is exactly the same. Internally when you look at that image there (figure 23.) it is exactly the same.” He does concede that they, along with Interserve, (the contractors) have slightly value engineered the construction, however, asserts that the building is definitely a Libeskind building as there would be no point in him diluting or changing things.32

Figure 23. internal render of the atrium in the Ogden Centre

Controversial Design An implication of ‘Starchitects’ is that, usually, their design or style is controversial. Some Durham County Councillors labelled Libeskind’s design as a ‘monstrous carbuncle’, describing it as being hideous, angry- looking and completely lacking in taste, however Durham County Council’s Central and East Area Planning Committee voted overwhelmingly (six to one) in 32

ibid.

favour of the development.33 Council Planning Officer, Barry Gavillet, described the modern development as “not being to everyone’s taste” and Committee Chair Councillor Paul Taylor directly criticised the building’s “skinny windows”.34 There is further criticism of the windows and the building’s style in general on a ‘Dezeen’ website, publicising the development.35 One user comments, “why the sloping windows? Why the distorted forms? Cut and paste ideas from other projects, that’s why.”36 Another user adds “will someone pass me the wedge template please?”37 suggesting that Libeskind’s initial doodles are transferred on CAD by his many employees without refinement, replicating a previous style through computerisation. A further user adds, “that sketch is just lazy (figure 24.). It’s an iPad app. And it’s not well done either. The building, however, is a bit more appealing than his others.”38 An important note to consider is that these comments were obviously made in relation to the early representational drawings and images of the proposed design and not in relation to the physically built building. However, these comments do clearly display a common dislike towards Libeskind’s architecture.

Figure 24. SDL's sketch of the new Ogden Centre proposal

Durham Advertiser. (2014) Councillors back University’s £10m ‘monstrous Carbuncle’. [online] Available at: http://www.durhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/11327376.Councillors_back_University__39_s__pound _10m___39_monstrous_carbuncle__39_/ [accessed 10 August] 34 ibid. 35 Frearson, A. (2014) Libeskind unveils timber- clad physics centre for Durham University. [online] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/01/14/daniel-libeskind-physics-centre-durhamuniversity/ [accessed 10 August] 36 ibid. 37 ibid. 38 ibid. 33

CHAPTER 3: DURHAM UNIVERSITYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S ROLE WITHIN THE WIDER CONTEXT - DURHAM CITY

Chapter 3: Durham University’s Role Within The Wider Context - Durham City To understand the relative importance of a new abstract architectural development being placed within the wider relationship of the city, I will explore what Also Rossi describes as, “the relationship between the public and private sphere, between public and private buildings, between the rational design of urban architecture and the values of locus or place.”39 Specifically probing whether the development has a role within the conservation of Durham City, or perhaps not as a private University development.

Figure 25. J. M. W. Turner’s 1830-5 watercolour painting of the now, World Heritage Site, Durham Cathedral and Framwellgate Bridge from Prebends Bridge (highlighting its architectural beauty)

Rossi, A. and Eisenman, P. (1982). The architecture of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, p. 21 39

World Heritage Site

After the Norman’s took control of Durham, Bishop William de St Carilef laid the foundation stone of the Cathedral choir in 1093. By 1104 the choir was vaulted and by 1128 the nave was finished, with the vaults of the nave completed five years later; the whole process lasted no more than 40 years. Further additions and alterations were made but by 1490 no further building was carried out. The Cathedral has the earliest surviving example of ribbed vaulting in Europe, due to the choir aisles being finished by 1096.40 Not only is its revolutionary architectural innovations what make it such a magnificent building, but also the way it is placed in the landscape, dominating over the city as a central focal point. George Henry Cook writes, “no great church in this country occupies so majestic and commanding a site, standing as it does on a precipitous mass of rock which rises from the undulating plateau of the surrounding country.”41 (Figure 25.) Bill Bryson (ex chancellor of Durham University) when describing the Cathedral writes, “I unhesitatingly gave Durham my vote for best Cathedral on planet Earth.”42 Adjacent to this wonderful Norman landmark lies another Norman and medieval masterpiece, Durham Castle, with the earliest parts of the Castle dating back to around 1072. The Castle became the residency of the Bishop of Durham, where it remained for 750 years, until the University gained for University College. The Castle, in plan, is of a traditional Norman Motte and Bailey form, with the keep being on a motte and an Inner Bailey below. An Outer Bailey enclosed much of the peninsula, with instances of it still visible today such as the Water Gate at the South Bailey.43 Nikolaus Pevsner and Elizabeth Williamson write, “Durham is one of the great experiences of Europe to the eyes of those who appreciate architecture, and to the minds of those who understand architecture. The Mitchell, A. (1968) Great Buildings of the World: Cathedrals of Europe. Great Britain: Hamlyn, pp. 34, 36, 39 41 Cook, G.H. (1948) A Portrait of Durham Cathedral. London: Phoenix House, p. 10 42 Bryson, B. (2015) Notes From A Small Island. London: Transworld Publishers Ltd, p. 318 43 Brickstock, R. (2007) Durham Castle. Lindley: Jeremy Mills Publishing, p. 1 40

group of Cathedral, Castle, and Monastery on the rock can only be compared to Avignon and Prague.”44 Conservation Area & Topology

Not only is it a World Heritage Site (figure 26.) and a beautiful architectural city is but it’s very beautiful nature is protected due to it being designated as a Conservation Area, since 1968. The World Heritage Site of Durham exists as the basis for which present planning and building developments in the city are determined by, in order that they do not affect views of it. Protecting key views is more important than a definition of a certain buffer zone, nevertheless there is a need to ensure protection of immediate and wider setting of the property and its significant silhouette day and night. This is addressed by determining planning proposals in light of their impacts in terms of views to and from the property rather than just their proximity itself.45 The Ogden Centre, A Consideration of Context

There is evidence of a clear consideration of this issue in the planning proposal application for the new Ogden Centre. “Although a standalone building, the building needs to be considered in the context of its immediate surroundings and the impact on both the World Heritage Site and Durham City Conservation Area.”46 In a letter to Mr. Barry Gavillet (Durham County Council Planning Officer), Rosie Brady (Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings & Areas) writes, “having considered the information provided, English Heritage has no objection to the proposal; the scale of the building, it’s clear context as part of the University complex and the screening afforded by trees is such

Pevsner, N. and Williamson, E. (1990). County Durham. London: Penguin Books, p. 159 UNESCO (n.d.) Durham Castle and Cathedral, Protection and Management Requirements. [online] Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/370 [accessed 10 August] 46 Durham County Council. (2014) Appendix D: Pre- Application Consultation in Building Consultation Response. [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf/DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 10 August] 44 45

that it does not dominate or intrude on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area.”47 In this, Brady, R. is clearly signifying the building’s (or component’s) certain position in relation to the urban composition of what Rossi calls the “organism that is the city”48 as being somewhat ‘screened’ or ‘un-intruding’ to the public and the historical nature of the city.

Figure 26. World Heritage Site original (1986) and revised (2008) boundaries

Figure 27. The Ogden Centre’s position in relation to the Conservation Area (& WHS) boundary

Brady, R. (2014) communication by letter to Gavillet, B. in relation to the consultation of the proposed new physics research building at Durham University Science Park on behalf of English Heritage. 28th March 2014. 48 Rossi, A. and Eisenman, p. 51 47

Figure 28. panoramic view from Whinney Hill- highlighting the building's position within the University complex and the adjacent World Heritage Site >

Figure 29. closer view of Stockton Road Campus' building topology- highlighting the Ogden Centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not that intrusive roof-scape and the surrounding screening by trees

Figure 30. the view as you approach the building- notice the subtle presence of the building, through the screened trees

During an interview on 2 August 2016, Deputy Director of Estates and Buildings at Durham University, Harvey Dowdy upholds that it is vital that a constant dialogue is kept between the World Heritage Site Coordination Committee with the Local Authority, in particular the Conservation Officer, about issues such as ‘key views’ and ‘Seeing the History in the View’ document; whereby the Libeskind building was particularly relevant.49 In addition to the World Heritage Site, there are 630 listed buildings, 569 of which, are situated within the city centre. Whilst preserving the important historical and listed buildings the city contains, this also makes it ever more important for us to think carefully about the cohesive nature of future contemporary developments in and around the city. This may, allow for unique proposals to be made but the very nature of them should be understood in terms of protecting the adjacent conservation area, even if on University grounds. Globalisation, The Homogenous City?

There is a danger that future cities could become homogenous, by architectural globalisation, i.e. architecture firms designing in cities universally in their own style; causing a reduction of the vernacular. With Durham City having a certain architectural heritage and topology it makes it ever more important to consider how modern design fits within the wider context of the city. Rowe and Koetter, in their book Collage City when referring to modernism and the two obligations of the architect, in ‘science’ and to ‘people’ a certain on the one hand a ‘liberalness’ and on the other a ‘vehemence’ begin to cancel out one another; therefore modernism cannot be scientific due to its naiveness. With the architect, absorbed with feelings of ‘unconcious’ self-regulation, visions of super ‘science’ with a selfdepreciation of make-believe “a kind of resurgence of Social Darwinismnatural selection and the survival of the fittest- the rape of great cities of the world proceeds.”50

See Appendix B. Dowdy, H. (2016) Semi-Structured Interview with Mrs Harvey Dowdy – Deputy Director in the Estates and Buildings at Durham University. Interviewed by James Clark [face to face interview] Holly Wing 2, Mountjoy Centre, Durham University, 4 August, 2016, 9:00. 50 Rowe, C. and Koetter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, p. 8 49

Rowe and Koetter reject the acceptance of the modernism of cities, but instead, “a proposal for a constructive dis-illusion, it is simultaneously an appeal for order and disorder, for the simple and the complex, for the joint existence of permanent reference and random happening, of the private and the public, of innovation and tradition, of both the retrospective and the prophetic gesture.”51 Rossi, in his book The Architecture of the City, understands the humanist problem of trying to integrate ‘subject’ (the architect) and ‘object’ (the city) and also the modernist’s attempt of their separation. Rossi understands that it is the process, previously considered neutral, which must contain their forces. Rossi introduces elements of history (and typology) which become an analogical ‘skeleton’ whose condition is measured by time, and the material of the city which becomes the object of analysis. The typology is the apparatus of time’s measurement. These elements are the process and consequentially become the object of the ‘autonomous researcher’ or architect. Rossi proposes that this other ‘object’ or city is defined by the data which is gathered through a complex logic of urbanism, economics and history.52 When discussing the role modern architecture has within the historic city, Dowdy states, “I think Durham has lots of opportunities for really good quality modern design as opposed to pastiche.”53 She also contends that there is actually a lesser danger of areas of Durham City becoming homogenous when employing international firms, as if there are only three or four Practices on the framework agreement, this causes everything to look the same.54

ibid. Rossi, A. and Eisenman, pp. 4, 5 53 See Appendix B. 54 ibid. 51 52

Figure 31. render of FaulknerBrowns' (now built) FreemansReach

Figure 32. render of FaulknerBrowns' proposals for MilburnGate across the River Wear

When commenting on FaulknerBrown’s involvement in much of Durham City’s new development such as the new FreemansReach (figure 31.) and the opposite MilburnGate (figure) which has been approved, Dowdy states, “I have already had a query from Historic England as to ‘who are you going to employ in relation towards some of the other major development sites?’ Because what they do not want is everything to start looking the same.”55 Perhaps, there is a hazard of homogeneous design due to a reusing of the same framework architects. The Homogenous Campus?

Saval writes, “it’s a financial gamble (employing ‘Starchitects’ to design a major campus building) — one that many public institutions find themselves driven to make. And it also threatens something more abstract but no less fundamental: that the University will turn into a luxury brand, its image unmoored from its educational mission — a campus that could be anywhere and nowhere.”56 Dowdy claims that problems may arise when the architect coming in does not have a clear understanding of the planning context. However, Libeskind did the correct thing in employing UK planning advice for that part of the process. Dowdy generally sees international ‘Starchitects’ as being a bonus, provided that everything is transparent and public where people can see the process that determined the employment of the international practice and the particular design.57

ibid. Saval, N. (2015) If You Build It, They Will Come ... Won’t They? [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-wontthey.html?_r=1 [accessed 16 July] 57 See Appendix B. 55 56

CHAPTER 4: DURHAM UNIVERSITY - AN OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT & DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4: Durham University - An Overview of Employment & Development To understand the context of the employment of Studio Daniel Libeskind for the University, we must get an understanding of some of the calibre of architects employed historically, and in recent times. Historical Employment

During an interview conducted on 4 August 2016, Mrs Harvey Dowdy states, “the University, since it was founded in the 1830’s has had a really good track record of procuring really good top quality architects to produce designs that are modern.”58 She gives some examples of University architecture, such as, Jevens House on the Bailey, Geography West building, Trelynn Collage and St. Aidan’s Main Building, designed by Basil Spence who designed Coventry Cathedral. 59 Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin Having already designed numerous churches around the country and designed the interiors for ‘The Palace of Westminister’, A.W.N. Pugin was already a notable architect and a ‘champion of a branch of Gothic Revival’60 when he designed St Cuthbert’s Chapel in 1847.61 The building is now the centrepiece for an array of stone buildings which make up Ushaw Collage.62 He then went on to design the ‘Elizabeth Tower’, or ‘Big Ben’.

See Appendix B. ibid. 60 Curtis, W. (2012) Augustus Pugin (1812-1852). [online] Available at: http://www.architecturalreview.com/archive/reputations/augustus-pugin-1812-1852/8629375.fullarticle [accessed 10 August] 61 Triposo. (n.d.) Ushaw Collage. [online] Available at: http://www.triposo.com/poi/W__46159687 [accessed 10 August] 62 Malcolm Reading Consultants. (2012) A Catholic Jewel In Search of a Future- MRC Project Featured In Country Life. [online] Available at: https://malcolmreading.co.uk/news/story/a_catholic_jewel_in_search_of_a_future_mrc_project_fe atured_in_country_life [accessed 10 August] 58 59

1960’s Employment Ove Arup

The University employed internationally acclaimed engineer and architect, who previously had worked with Jorn Utzon on the Opera Sydney House, to design the award winning ‘Dunelm House’ and the Grade 1 listed ‘Kingsgate Bridge’ in the 1960’s. Architect and Professor, Douglas Wise described the development as “the greatest contribution modern architecture has made to the enjoyment of an English medieval city.”63 Professor Chris Higgins (ex- Vice Chancellor of the University) said: “Sir Ove Arup is responsible for helping to create some of the world’s most distinctive and memorable buildings so it is highly significant that he held the design of the Kingsgate Bridge as an example of his finest work. Kingsgate Bridge and Dunelm House are two of the finest examples of 20th Century architecture in the city.” 64

Figure 33. view towards Durham Cathedral and Kingsgate Bridge from Dunelm House

Figure 34. panoramic view on Ove Arup's Kingsgate Bride looking at his Dunelm House

Henderson, T. (2015) How Durham University has changed the face of the medieval city. [online] Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/how-durham-universitychanged-face-10566219 [accessed 10 August] 64 Arup. (2011) Sir Ove Arup honoured with new bust. [online] Available at: http://www.arup.com/news/2011_10_october/03_oct_2011_sir_ove_arup_honoured_with_bust [accessed 10 August] 63

Recent Employment

_Space Architects A practice involved with recent development of the University, especially the University’s Stockton Road Campus, are Newcastle-Upon-Tyne based practice ‘_Space Architects’. Developments on the campus include the redevelopment of the Bill Bryson Library and along with PH Partnership, the Palatine Centre (figure 35.). The Palatine Centre is not without its controversy, with The City of Durham Trust nominating it for the Carbuncle Cup. “the large, alien structure has drawn a unanimous response from the Trust, English Heritage and architects of national or international standing, who have summarized it as overbearing, unduly intrusive, aggressive, monstrous. Truly, an opportunity lost.”65 However, the building has gained notability by winning awards, such as the ‘LABC Building Excellence Northern Awards 2013, Best Education Building’ and the ‘Constructing Excellence in the North East 2013, Integration & Collaborative Working.’66 Another notable development _Space Architects has designed for the University is the £6.7m Graham Sports Centre (figure 36.) which houses only one of three rowing tanks in the UK and acts as an elite sports hub.67 Although considerably distant from the Stockton Road Campus, the building’s positive addition for the University highlights the welcome role the local practice has with the University, with Simon Watt reaffirming, “yeah we have had quite a good relationship with ‘_Space’ over the years”68

BD. (n.d.) Carbuncle Cup nomination — The Palatine Centre, Durham by PH Partnership and Space Group. [online] Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/carbuncle-cup-nomination-%E2%80%94-the-palatine-centredurham-by-ph-partnership-and-space-group/5057168.article [accessed 10 August] 66 Cundall. (n.d.) Palatine Centre, Durham University. [online] Available at: http://www.cundall.com/Projects/Palatine-Centre--Durham-University.aspx [accessed 10 August] 67 Space Architects. (n.d.) Graham Sports Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.wntestdomain.co.uk/portfolio/graham-sports-centre/ [accessed 10 August] 68 See Appendix A. 65

Figure 35. PH Partnership & _Space Architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; award winning Palatine Centre

Figure 36. _Space Architects' award winning Graham Sports Centre

Future Employment

In an interview conducted on 2 August 2016, Mr Simon Watt discusses a new 9000sq. metre new development which has, he says, “just got on my desk”, across the road from the new Ogden Centre on St. Mary’s playing field. It will be a multi- use teaching facility with lecture theatres, classrooms and catering facilities, which will go to one of their ‘framework’ architects due it being a tight programme. This will be one of the enabling projects to enable the rest of their ‘new estates masterplan’ which happens every ten years to determines the development needed by the University. He states, “we have got lots coming through the pipeline. In the twelve years that I have been here, we have been busy all the time, with new builds.”69 The University is looking at international design competitions for some large, key sites in the city.70 When commenting on a development which will go from Dunelm House, where currently there are the University’s main teaching blocks, at New Elvet, right underneath the Cathedral, which will most likely start next year (2017), Dowdy explains that an international design competition will most likely be advertised due to the varying design considerations on the big site and the project being complex to deliver.71 Globalisation, ‘Starchitect’ | ‘Locatect’?

This section explores the nature of a large international firm compared to a local firm and some of the benefits and disadvantages of either. Direct information is gathered from the interview with Mr Simon Watt on the new development. A global architecture firm may have multiple offices but only be situated in one country, whereas another practice may have offices in ten or so different countries, however these offices may have projects in many more countries and cities than they have offices. It may even be that the nearest office may not be doing all or any of the work on the project, as labor tends to be determined by expertise rather than proximity to the site.72 Rybczynski writes, ibid. See Appendix B. 71 ibid. 72 Faulconbridge, J. pp. 2541-2 69 70

“this has implications as far as the process of situating designs is concerned, not least because the architects designing a building may have little experience of the cultural, economic, political and social context of the place in which a building is to be constructed.”73 Perhaps, the University employed an international firm for their distinction of style in their view of having an ‘iconic’ building. A Design Principle of GIC firm in New York (as cited by Faulconbridge) states, “when somebody hires an architect from New York to design in Dubai or Taiwan, at some level the client is looking for something they don‘t have and so they are looking for an approach that is different to what is there.”74 Perhaps, Studio Daniel Libeskind’s unique design for the Ogden Centre is intentionally trying not to fit in anyway. An interviewee and employee of a large London practice, when describing their style says, “our work is not really contextual. I‘m not saying our work is not specific to the location. It probably is very specific to a location and culture and all that. But I would still think that some kind of international style, we‘re not trying to do a French building in France or a German building in Germany. That‘s exactly what we‘re trying to avoid really.”75 If a local architect was employed, the design would perhaps be more cautious and less ‘out there’. Rybczynski writes, “building in a place where you don’t live, it’s easy to experiment, even to be outlandish... On the other hand, an architect building in his hometown is aware that he, his neighbors, his colleagues and his friends will have to live with the result.”76

Rybczynski, W. (2014) The Franchising of Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/t-magazine/gehry-norman-foster-moshe-safdie-starchitectslocatects-franchising-of-architecture.html [accessed 16 July] 74 Faulconbridge, J. p. 2542 75 ibid. p. 2543 76 Rybczynski, W. 73

Watt deemed Libeskind’s location as being a difficulty during the construction stages, where problems which occurred could not be easily responded to. He states, “it is the fact that you cannot just ring the architect up and say ‘can you pop up along tomorrow and have a look at this?’ When the architect is in New York.”77 Whereas with local architects, he states, “you can call to a meeting at an hour’s notice.”78 Watt says, “there are excellent architects in the North East of England and it makes delivering a project so much easier, if you’ve got architects that are on the doorstep.”79 Watt concludes by saying, “I do not think that we need to go out of the region. I do not think we need to go international to get good quality architecture.”80 However, during the design stage, the international firm were able to use video conferencing with the University’s high tech video facilities where they were able to display drawings on one screen and communicate on the other screen, which worked ‘fine’ but not extremely well. It also helped that SDL has a UK representative, Wendy James, who, although is unable to make any decisions, was able to attend meetings and take information to communicate with Libeskind.81 A user on the ‘Dezeen’ web page, advertising the development, writes “why hasn’t an architect from the North East of England been chosen to work on this project, or at least the UK?”82 to which another user adds, “so many great architects in the North and they choose this contextually irrelevant rubbish. Utterly bemusing.”83

See Appendix A. ibid. 79 ibid. 80 ibid. 81 ibid. 82 Frearson, A. 83 ibid. 77 78

The Tender, International Design Competition

Since the University is a public body and bound by EU procurement rules, there are two routes they can take. The framework agreement allows the architects on the framework to work on projects, usually local. Watt states, “but those architects tend to do our bread and butter type work.” In the case that the University wanted ‘something special’ they will go out on a tender under a design competition inviting proposals from around the world. This is done under a two stage process, under a PQQ, usually advertised in a European Journal or magazine; inviting architects to apply to be on a tender list.84 Watt explains that under the PQQ, there were around fifteen responses, of which were all UK based architects, except Libeskind. However, with Libeskind’s son studying for his Physics doctorate at Durham University there was a link and perhaps if it was not for that link, then Libeskind may not have been interested in a building of this small scale, as his previous buildings tend to be much larger. He asserts that Libeskind applied to be on the list just as all of the other architects did, as he simply wanted to be involved with the University and he emphasises there were definitely no favours between ‘personal relations’.85 The four remaining firms were Studio Daniel Libeskind, FaulknerBrowns (figure. 37), a Leeds and a Manchester based practice which are relatively unfamiliar in the architectural world.86 Watt states, “the three responses that we got, Libeskind’s (figure. 38) was the only one really, that was an iconic design. The other two were pretty ordinary… They were pretty ordinary boxes.”87 He reiterates, “we were looking for an iconic design, especially because of the site. South Road is the main road into Durham, it is what people see when they are coming into Durham.”88

See Appendix A. idid. 86 ibid. 87 ibid. 88 ibid. 84 85

Figure 37. render of FaulknerBrowns’ Ogden Centre proposalhighlighting a relatively ‘ordinary’ proposal design

Figure 38. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind's Ogden Centre proposalhighlighting a more ‘iconic’ proposal design

The Prestige Racket? Saval argues that since “campuses have become places to see the most daring, up-to-date work of globe-trotting ‘Starchitects’” this improves the selectivity of students by inviting more applicants but keeping the successrate relatively low; potentially improving the University’s rank. This is due to state funding declining and the risen cost of University fees, thus Universities have tried to attract higher- paying students, usually international.89 Washington Monthly calls this the ‘prestige racket’ whereby Universities employ big named architects to design large campus buildings in order to attract students to the University.90 With Durham University employing Libeskind, it was a clear attempt to raise the profile or go with their profile of already being world leading research institutions in what they do; particularly the Institute of Computational Cosmology. However, it was not an attempt to bring more international students to the University. Firstly as it ‘does not have to try’, secondly as they are research institutions they are mainly uninvolved with undergraduates, and finally because the University is ‘oversubscribed by tenfold with students’ annually anyway.91 The Procurement Route

With local ‘actors’ such as local construction workers, consultants, contractors, engineers involved in the construction and the process, the building can be affected in subtle ways with the global firm not totally dominant.92 Law (as cited by Faulconbridge) writes, “instead, we need to hold onto the idea that the agent, the actor of the actor-network, is an agent, a centre, a planner, a designer, only to the extent that matters are also decentered, unplanned, undersigned”.93

Saval, N. Project for Public Spaces. (2015) Let’s Stop Letting Starchitects Ruin College Campuses. [online] Availabe at: http://www.pps.org/blog/starchitects-and-campuses/ [accessed 16 July 2016] 91 See Appendix A. 92 Faulconbridge, J. p. 2547 93 ibid. p. 2550 89 90

Therefore, the ‘Starchitect’ solely cannot be totally responsible and this relativity heavily relies on the procurement method for the development. Watt maintains that their non- traditional procurement route for the actual build itself on behalf of himself and the University is a key factor.94 “because, I am quite proud to say that this is on budget, and it is on programme. Bearing in mind we have used a signature international architect here. It’s not often that you hear that.”95 This, is down to his position of Project Manager of the Ogden Centre being the only person who can give any instructions on the project and Libeskind having no authority to make any decisions. It is on a single stage contract however the University novates the design team to the contractor, thus Studio Daniel Libeskind work for Interserve and not for the University. This, he contends, take the powers away from the architects but gives the University control of the costs which is important as “these guys have very little time, or concept, of costs and how costs escalate. All they are interested in doing is building what they want built and they are not interested in budget.”96

See Appendix A. ibid. 96 ibid. 94 95

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Chapter 5: Conclusion To conclude, I have highlighted in Chapter Two that by employing an international deconstructivist ‘Starchitect’, it can be reasonably assumed that the design might lead to some construction difficulties whilst also causing some controversy, whether that be in the physical design or its digital representation. In Chapter Three, I have explained the importance of the conservation of Durham City and the different standpoints on future modern architecture. The particular nature of the University building and the site was such that it was deemed not to be that intrusive. The University is likely to employ more ‘Starchitects’ in the future for University developments within the city and campuses with consideration of, as Dowdy states, “the usual planning guidance, the Conservation Area Appraisal and the World Heritage Site Management Plan”97, and through a ‘transparent’ design process. The University sees international design competitions which allow internationally renowned firms to enter, preferable, to a regurgitation of the same framework architects, designing homogenous buildings. In Chapter Four, I have explained how the principle incentive for Durham University in employing Studio Daniel Libeskind was them wanting an ‘iconic’ design which would match the profile of their world leading physics institutions. This was not a break in their employability approach, but a major step, in which, increasingly, future development will be designed by international practices and, in all probability, by well-known ‘Starchitects’. The University sees advantages in employing local and regional architects, not least for ease of communication, but most likely their continued involvement will be related to smaller developments that are undertaken using the Standard Framework Agreement. An important consideration is that, due to Durham University’s specific non- traditional procurement route, lots of the usual cost and budgeting implications associated with employing an international ‘Starchitect’ are 97

See Appendix B.

mitigated; giving them total control of the whole cost and management process. Since the Libeskind building is in a clear position as being both screened and on the University campus, paid by the University and donors, for solely the University’s academic purposes I cannot reasonably assume it’s value for the wider community. I can however conclude that on Durham University’s behalf, the use of ‘Starchitects’, as explained, can be a positive thing and I would argue that the design proposal is successful in the University’s aim of commissioning an exciting and ‘iconic building’. Notwithstanding, I would argue that this design would find difficulty in being sited more centrally in the city, and further employment by the University of ‘Starchitects’ for projects sited within the Conservation Area should be carefully considered. The main point I have learnt from this process is that the factors of; client, (Durham University) context (Stockton Road Campus and screening of trees) and programme (Physics Department) highlight its suitability for the ‘Starchitect’ (Libeskind).

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIXES

ILLUSTRATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books

Brickstock, R. (2007) Durham Castle. Lindley: Jeremy Mills Publishing

Bryson, B. (2015) Notes From A Small Island. London: Transworld Publishers Ltd

Cook, G.H. (1948) A Portrait of Durham Cathedral. London: Phoenix House

Johnson, B. and Derrida, P. J. (1981) Dissemination. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Johnson, P. and Wigley, M. (1988) Deconstructivist Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art

Leach, N. (1997) ‘Jacques Derrida’ in Rethinking Architecture: A reader in Cultural History. New York: Routledge

Libeskind, D., Kipnis, J., Vidler, afterword by A. and Betsky, A. (2001) Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. London: Thames & Hudson

Meir, I. (2005) Anti Architecture and Deconstruction. London: Architectural Review

Mitchell, A. (1968) Great Buildings of the World: Cathedrals of Europe. Great Britain: Hamlyn

Morgan, E. (2006) Derrida’s Garden. Vancouver: Filip

Pevsner, N. and Williamson, E. (1990). County Durham. London: Penguin Books

Rossi, A. and Eisenman, P. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 61

Rowe, C. and Koetter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Shneider, B. (1999) Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin. Munich: Prestel Verlag

Silverman, H. (ed.) (1989) Derrida and Deconstruction. New York: Routledge

Stocker, B. (2006) Routledge philosophy guidebook to Derrida on Deconstruction. New York: Routledge

Wolfreys, J. (ed.) (1998) The Derrida Reader: Writing performances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Letters

Brady, R. (2014) communication by letter to Barry Gavillet in relation to the consultation of the proposed new physics research building at Durham University Science Park on behalf of English Heritage. 28th March, 2014.

Planning Permission Documents

Durham County Council. (2014) Appendix D: Pre- Application Consultation in Building Consultation Response. [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016]

Durham County Council. (2014) Design and Conservation Advice. [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C3B0D8B6AC1B9B55DD00579D3CFCA8A7/ pdf/DM_14_00414_FPA-DESIGN_COMMENTS-229941.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016]

Thesis’

Faulconbridge, J. (2009) The Regulation of Design in Global Architecture Firms: Embedding and Emplacing Buildings. Lancaster: Lancaster University. [online pdf] Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/46/12/2537.full.pdf+html [accessed 15 July 2016]

Website Articles

Arup. (2011) Sir Ove Arup honoured with new bust. [online] Available at: http://www.arup.com/news/2011_10_october/03_oct_2011_sir_o ve_arup_honoured_with_bust [accessed 10 August 2016]

Bianchini, D. (2014) The Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind. [online] Available at: http://www.inexhibit.com/casestudies/daniel-libeskind-jewish-museum-berlin/ [accessed 10 August 2016]

Cole, D. (2015) Commentary: “Starchitecture” Is Not The Enemy Of Urbanism. [online] Available at: http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/12/commentary-urbanistsshould-not-view-starchitecture-as-the-enemy/ [accessed 16 August 2016]

Cundall. (n.d.) Palatine Centre, Durham University. [online] Available at: http://www.cundall.com/Projects/Palatine-Centre-Durham-University.aspx [accessed 10 August 2016]

Curtis, W. (2012) Augustus Pugin (1812-1852). [online] Available at: http://www.architecturalreview.com/archive/reputations/augustus-pugin-18121852/8629375.fullarticle [accessed 10 August 2016] 63

Durham University. (2015) Building work to start on “iconic” Durham University research centre. [online] Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=24669 [accessed 10 August 2016]

Durham University. (2014) Durham University unveils new landmark building. [online] Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=19741 [accessed 10 August 2016]

Frearson, A. (2014) Libeskind unveils timber- clad physics centre for Durham University. [online] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/01/14/daniel-libeskind-physicscentre-durham-university/ [accessed 10 August 2016]

Heathcote, E. (2014) How universities are using bold campus architecture to market themselves. [online] Available at: https://next.ft.com/content/a0b4cb1c-283c-11e4-9ea900144feabdc0#axzz4EP5OQJ40 [accessed 16 August 2016]

Henderson, T. (2015) How Durham University has changed the face of the medieval city. [online] Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/howdurham-university-changed-face-10566219 [accessed 10 August 2016]

Jewish Museum Berlin. (n.d.) The Voids in The Libeskind Building. [online] Available at: http://www.jmberlin.de/main/EN/04-AboutThe-Museum/01-Architecture/01-libeskind-Building.php#h5-3 [accessed 10 August 2016] Lock, H. (2015) the cosmologist who makes beautiful buildings appear. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educationnetwork/2015/nov/30/the-cosmologist-who-makes-beautifuluniversity-buildings-appear [accessed 10 August 2016]

Malcolm Reading Consultants. (2012) A Catholic Jewel In Search of a Future- MRC Project Featured In Country Life. [online] Available at: https://malcolmreading.co.uk/news/story/a_catholic_jewel_in_sear ch_of_a_future_mrc_project_featured_in_country_life [accessed 10 August 2016]

Marmot, A. (2015) Flashy university buildings: do they live up to the hype? [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/21/flashyuniversity-buildings-do-they-live-up-to-the-hype [accessed 15 July 2016]

Project for Public Spaces. (2015) Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stop Letting Starchitects Ruin College Campuses. [online] Available at: http://www.pps.org/blog/starchitects-and-campuses/ [accessed 16 July 2016]

Rybczynski, W. (2014) The Franchising of Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/tmagazine/gehry-norman-foster-moshe-safdie-starchitects-locatectsfranchising-of-architecture.html [accessed 16 July 2016]

Saval, N. (2015) If You Build It, They Will Come ... Wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t They? [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/if-you-build-itthey-will-come-wont-they.html?_r=1 [accessed 16 July 2016]

Space Architects. (n.d.) Graham Sports Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.wn-testdomain.co.uk/portfolio/graham-sportscentre/ [accessed 10 August 2016]

Studio Daniel Libeskind. (n.d.) Ogden Center of Fundamental Physics at Durham University. [online] Available at: http://libeskind.com/work/ogden-center-at-durham-university/ [accessed 10 August 2016]

Triposo. (n.d.) Ushaw Collage. [online] Available at: http://www.triposo.com/poi/W__46159687 [accessed 10 August 2016] 65

UNESCO. (n.d.) Durham Castle and Cathedral, Protection and Management Requirements. [online] Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/370 [accessed 10 August 2016]

Wickersham, J. (2015) Code of Context: The Uneasy Excitement of Global Practice. [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/590300/code-of-context-the-uneasyexcitement-of-global-practice [accessed 15 July 2016]

ILLUSTRATIONS -

Figure 1. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind’s proposal for the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics from the Stockton Road Campus Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 6 August 2016]

Figure 2. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind’s proposal for the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics from South Road Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 6 August 2016]

Figure 3. Jewish Museum staircase showing interior forms Archide. (2008) [online] Available at: https://archide.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/berlijn_101.jpg [accessed 7 August 2016]

Figure 4. Jewish Museum void with Menasche Kadishman’s ‘Schalchet’ Inexhibit. (2014) [online] Available at: http://www.inexhibit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/jewishmuseum-berlin-libeskind-10.jpg [accessed 7 August 2016]

Figure 5. Jewish Museum Berlin overhead view Pinterest. (2011) [online] Available at: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/109071622200339109/ [accessed 7 August 2016]

Figure 6. the (in-construction) entrance to the new Ogden Centre Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 7. the (in-construction) façade showing its angle Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016] 67

Figure 8. the (in-construction) elevation looking south of South Road Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 9. the (in-construction) elevation looking north of South Road Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 10. the (in-construction) elevation of the north side of the building Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 11. Ogden Centre floor plans- showing the office building’s relatively ordinary layout Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 7 August 2016]

Figure 12. insulation stage, June 2016 Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 20 June 2016]

Figure 13. cladding stage, August 2016 Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 14. frosted glass door designed by Libeskind Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 15. communal terrace Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 16. atrium Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016] 68

Figure 17. third floor image highlighting in-situ concrete ‘frame’ Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 18. concrete staircase highlighting Class B finish Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 19. robust building envelope Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 20. intruding columns in office Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 21. steel ceiling fitting for lighting & services Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 22. steel ceiling fitting for lighting & services going through parti office wall Author’s own from site visit. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 23. internal render of the atrium in the Ogden Centre Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 7 August 2016]

Figure 24. Studio Daniel Libeskind’s sketch of the new Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics proposal Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 8 August 2016]

Figure 25. J. M. W. Turner’s 1830-5 watercolour painting of the now, World Heritage Site, Durham Cathedral and Framwellgate Bridge from Prebends Bridge (highlighting its architectural beauty) Durham World Heritage Site. (n.d.) [online] Available at: https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/images/turner%20crop ped%20704.jpg [accessed 8 August 2016]

Figure 26. World Heritage Site’s original (1986) and revised (2008) boundary Durham World Heritage Site. (2008) [online] Available at: https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/heritage/siteboundaries [accessed 12 August 2016]

Figure 27. The Ogden Centre’s position in relation to the Conservation Area (& WHS) boundary Durham County Council. (n.d.) Edited by Author [online] Available at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/conservationareas [accessed 12 August 2016]

Figure 28. panoramic view from Whinney Hill- highlighting the building’s position within the University complex and the adjacent World Heritage Site Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 17 August 2016]

Figure 29. closer view of Stockton Road Campus’ building topology- highlighting the Ogden Centre’s not that intrusive roof-scape and the surrounding screening of trees Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 17 August 2016]

Figure 30. the view as you approach the building- notice the subtle presence of the building through the screened trees Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 31. render of FaulknerBrowns' proposals for MilburnGate, across the River Wear Twimg. (n.d.) [online] Available at: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Chh8JmoW0AEM_8o.jpg [accessed 8 August 2016]

Figure 32. render of FaulknerBrowns' (now built) FreemansReach 70

FreemansReach. (n.d.) [online] Available at: http://www.freemansreach.co.uk/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/cgi.jpg [accessed 8 August 2016] -

Figure 33. view towards Durham Cathedral and Kingsgate Bridge from Dunelm House Author’s own. (2015) [photography] [taken 17 October 2015]

Figure 34. panoramic view on Ove Arup’s Kingsgate Bridge looking at his Dunelm House Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 4 August 2016]

Figure 35. PH Partnership & _Space Architects’ award winning Palatine Centre Author’s own. (2016) [photography] [taken 2 August 2016]

Figure 36. _Space Architects' award winning Graham Sports Centre Durham City Harriers. (n.d.) [online] Available at: http://www.durhamcityharriers.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/Durham-Clinic-at-Maiden-Castle.jpg [accessed 10 August 2016]

Figure 37. render of FaulknerBrowns’ Ogden Centre proposalhighlighting a relatively ‘ordinary’ proposal design Pinterest. (n.d.) [online] Available at: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/535576580657168094/ [accessed 10 August 2016]

Figure 38. render of Studio Daniel Libeskind’s Ogden Centre proposalhighlighting a more ‘iconic’ proposal design Durham County Council. (2014) [online pdf] Available at: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/onlineapplications/files/C8781FD76D849366567564B4402E4D10/pdf /DM_14_00414_FPABUILDING_CONSULTATION_STATEMENT-220095.pdf [accessed 7 August 2016]

APPENDIX A Semi-Structured Interview with Mr Simon Watt - Senior Project Manager in the Estates and Buildings at Durham University & Senior Project Manager of the new Ogden Centre development itself

Location: Contractors’ site cabins, South Road, Durham. 2nd August 2016, 12:30. Note: The following are the original transcriptions from the interview. I have used edited extracts throughout the dissertation which have tidied up the informal speech, without altering in any way the original meaning. Transcript: (introduction and dissertation outline unrecorded) SW:

Just to give you a bit of a background to the University. I’ve been at the University for twelve years, and in the twelve years that I’ve been here, the University have always tried to commission iconic buildings. We don’t just want to stick up square boxes. And, they made the decision, years ago now, that they would be prepared to pay premium over and above what you’d expect to pay for, a certain type of building. To get an iconic building, y’know? Because as the University sees it, as do a lot of Universities now, it’s all part of selling the University. The package itself, with the buildings you have on the campus. So as I say, we tend, well, we definitely don’t commission buildings that are just built for the purpose intended. It’s always got to be an iconic structure, something different, something that’s going to hit the headlines for the University really.

JC:

I just wondered, if I could ask you around twelve questions - we’ve got about fifteen/ twenty minutes right?

SW:

Sure, no problem. It’s no problem at all James, whatever it takes.

JC:

Thank you, in advance for the taking time out to chat to me.

SW:

I’m always willing to help. Doesn’t seem long ago when I was in your shoes, I know I didn’t do architecture but y’know?

JC:

Yeah… So the first one is, how did the relationship between the University and the internationally renowned practice, ‘Studio Daniel Libeskind’ come about?

SW:

Erm, well… the University are classed as being a public body. So we are bound by EU procurement rules. When we procure an architect or a design team to do a building, there are two routes that we can take. First of all, we have a framework agreement in place with architects on that framework that we call in to do projects for us. Erm… so we can use that route. They tend to be local architects. On the bigger stuff we do tend to do that on time to time. But those architects tend to do our bread and butter type work y’know? That type of thing. If we wanted to do something special, and out of the ordinary, we’ll go out to tender, for an architect under a design competition.

JC:

So this competition…

SW:

This is a competition where we’ll go out into the market, and we’ll invite proposals from any architect around the world to come back and tell us how they’re going to build this building for us. Now, because we fall under what we call EU Procurement rules, that has to be done under what we call a two stage process. We initially go out under what we call a PQQ which is a post qualification exercise. So all we’re doing there is, we’re going out into the market, it’s usually an advert in a European journal or you can put adverts in architectural magazines or whatever and we’re just inviting architects to apply to be on a tender list.

JC:

So, who were the other sort of, architects?

SW:

Well, at that time when we went on PQQ if I remember rightly, and bare in mind, this was a few years ago now. I think we got about fifteen responses. From various architects.

JC:

Internationally?

SW:

Erm, not internationally, Libeskind, well obviously international because they were based in New York in the US. The rest were all UK based architects. I have to say that when we do go out to tender, we tend to get quite a few European ones that normally apply to get on a tender list. We don’t normally get international ones. But, there was a link with Libeskind’s in that his son studied Physics here.

JC:

Oh right, so the relationship was already there, kind of…

SW:

So, when I say there was a relationship his son had done his doctorate here. So Libeskind was aware of the University and I think that he generally just wanted to be involved with the University with his son being here. He applied to be on the list, as anybody else really. But he was genuinely interested in building a building for the University. So there was that link there, and maybe if it wasn’t for that link, Libeskind maybe wouldn’t have been interested in a building of this size, y’know? And if you think of the other stuff he’s done around the world it tends to be bigger stuff than this. So we got out fifteen responses to the PQQ, that was whittled down to four architects that we shortlisted, there was Libeskind’s, there was FaulknerBrowns, and the other two’s names escape me now, there was one that was based in Manchester and I think the other one was a Leeds based architects but not familiar names in the architectural world. So other than Libeskind, the other three were UK based. The three responses we got, one dropped out. The three responses that we got, erm… Libeskind’s was the only one really, that was an iconic design. The other two were pretty ordinary, y’know? They were pretty ordinary boxes.

JC:

Yeah, there was a render of FaulknerBrowns I found on a design website [passing an image of the render to Simon]…

SW:

Yeah, that was the FaulknerBrowns one.

JC:

Yeah, it’s not very ‘out there’, so you were definitely going for the sort of ‘out there’ design?

SW:

Yeah, I mean we were looking for an iconic design, especially because of the site, where it is as well y’know? South Road’s the main road into Durham, it’s what people see when they’re coming into Durham. So, because of the nature of the site, we wanted something iconic. So, Libeskind, were appointed, and if I remember correctly, that was the beginning of 2012, when Libeskind was appointed.

JC:

Erm, the next question is, do you think this design will attract more students internationally? Was this a key incentive for employing the firm? And so… Sort of, was it a motivation to attract students to that specific Facility? Or do you hope to raise your international profile more generally?

SW:

Erm, yes and yes. The two research institutes that are going to move into this new building, there’s the Institute of Computational Cosmology and the Institute of Particle Physics Phenomenology. They’re both part of the Physics department, but, these guys are world leaders in what they do, y’know? They’re world renowned, particularly the ICC. Err… so they were looking for something to raise their profile, or to go with their profile really. Hence, the reason why, or one of the reasons why Libeksind’s were the chosen architect. And just because of the iconic appearance of the building. They want it to stand out.

JC:

Do they hope to get more international students after competition?

SW:

Erm… I’ll be quite honest, we don’t have to try. We can get as, I’m not being funny here, but Durham University can get as many students as they want. I think annually, it’s something like the University is oversubscribed by tenfold with students who have the right grades to get in here y’know? So we don’t have to go out of our way.

JC:

So it’s not an attempt to…

SW:

[Interrupting] It’s not an attempt to increase student numbers or anything like that but its most definitely an attempt to raise the profile of those two institutes. They’re research institutes they don’t tend to get involved a lot with undergraduates. So it 76

definitely wasn’t an attempt to increase student numbers, we really don’t need to do that. JC:

So how do you think, the design is tailored to the users… like specifically to the physics students?

SW:

Well, it’s quite a simple building actually. Essentially, it’s an office building. Erm, these guys, both of these institutes what they do is, essentially they sit on a computer all day at a desk. It’s not researching, where you need high tech laboratories or anything like that. It’s purely… these guys need an office, and they need quiet surroundings, to be able to think.

JC:

I was looking at the plans itself and there is sort of, a main atrium, with just a series of offices around, with lots of light I’d imagine…

SW:

It is, it is. There’s nothing out of the ordinary, about the layout of the building, when you look internally I mean obviously you end up with some strange shaped rooms just because of the external envelope and the way they’re all connected together. But internally, it’s very simple. You’ve got office accommodation around the perimeter. You’ve got your central atrium in the middle which is a bit out of the ordinary just the way Libeskind have cut out some shapes and stuff and the different locations. Erm… Services wise, it’s a simple building. It’s naturally ventilated in almost every area so it’s just a matter of opening windows to ventilate the building. The heating system is pretty straight forward other than we’ve got a ground source heat pump out there. But y’know? It’s radiated with thermostatic valves so there’s nothing out of the ordinary there. So it is quite a simple building, and that’s on purpose mind because we tend to find that that works best and the users like that better than having fully air conditioned spaces with mechanical ventilation and what have you. So other than the external appearance its quite a simple building.

JC:

Yeah, so it doesn’t really differ than if you got a local architect. It’s a pretty similar design…

SW:

No, it’s a pretty simple design. The components that make up the building itself are quite simple. We probably have two big risk areas for the construction of the building. First of all, because of the shape of the building, we had to go for an in-situ concrete frame. And, that was because there were no pre-cast manufacturers out there which would touch it with a barge pole because they would have to manufacture mould. It’s not on a standard grid or anything like that. They were going to have to manufacture moulds to be able to do it. So, pre-cast manufacturers was (were) out of the question. Steel as well, it was going to be too complicated with steel. So, we ended up with in-situ concrete. And because there is a lot of exposed concrete in the building which is a feature of most Libeskind buildings, y’know? He likes bare concrete. One of the big issues was trying to get the quality right, internally on the concrete.

JC:

For smooth finishes?

SW:

Yes, and no. Libeskind doesn’t particularly like polished concrete. So, it’s what we call a Class B finish which is not particularly high quality but it was just getting it right, if you know what I mean? [laughs] I mean, the shape and everything of that structure erm… wasn’t easy to construct. The other big risk element was the envelope. And again it’s because of the junctions. You can see it yourself, when you look at the structure you’ve got all the junctions and you’ve got all those weak points that could leak in the building. So, it was getting that right as well. Getting the design of that right. Again, it’s quite simple in nature. It’s a… an SFS system, y’know? Like a Metsec system. Structural framing system the same as what you see on most commercial buildings in this day and age. But it was getting the right sub-contractors to look like that. There was quite a bit of structural steel that went into that behind the SFS system, to get that right.

JC:

Okay… What’s the University’s general view on international ‘Starchitects’? Do you see them as a benefit? Or (if so).. What are these benefits?

SW:

Well I personally knew that this wouldn’t be easy because of who Libeskind is but more than that, where he is located y’know? To me it brings great benefit if you can employ a local architect who 78

you can call to a meeting at an hour’s notice or whatever. They’re on the doorstep, they’re on the site on a regular basis. It’s communication y’know? Now during the design stage of the project it wasn’t too bad because we used video conferencing a lot. Erm… so that turned out to be a lot less hassle than I thought it was going to be. We had a lot of design team meetings, we’ve got some quite high tech video facilities in the University where we’ve got multiple screens so that Libeskind’s can put a drawing on one screen and we can be talking to them on another screen. That did work, I wouldn’t say extremely well but it was fine. Y’know? It wasn’t difficult to do. Libeskind’s also have a UK representative who is based down London. She’s a lady called Wendy James who has her own architectural practice but she’d worked for Libeskind in the past and whenever he does a building in the UK, she acts as the UK representative for Libeskind. Now she doesn’t actually make any decisions but she’ll come to meetings and she’ll be the representative of the meeting and she’ll take whatever she needs to take from that meeting and communicate with Libeskind’s on that. So that did help well. So, during the design stage it wasn’t too bad. In the construction stages it’s been more difficult because as you’ll appreciate there are issues (which) crop up every day, especially when you are doing a bespoke design like that. And it’s the fact that you cannot just ring the architect up and say “can you pop up along tomorrow and have a look at this” or whatever when the architect is in New York. Erm, and he’s only been across three times during the build itself. So that hasn’t been an easy process. JC:

That’s good. Erm, can you tell me sort of any other new exciting developments (for the University)?

SW:

Yeah, I’ve just started on a one right over the road from the Libeskind buiding here, the other side of South Road here, called St. Mary’s playing field there. We are looking at putting in a teaching facility on there. It’s a multi-use teaching facility. There are going to be lecture theatres in there, there will be classrooms, there will be catering facilities. Erm, there’ll be computer suites. That’s about nine thousand square metres so it’s just over four times bigger than the (Libeskind building).

JC:

Who’s designed that? 79

SW:

Nobody yet I’ve just got it on my desk so I’m just looking at going out now to appoint a design team. It’s quite a tight programme on that. So because of that we’ll not be going out a design competition we are just going out to our framework architects. Erm, but the University are just in the process of concluding a new estates masterplan. So every ten years or so we’ll do a masterplan which is linked to the academic strategy and that’ll identify what accommodation we need in the university, what new buildings we need in the University. We are hoping to conclude that by the end of the year and that’ll identify what new buildings we need for the next ten years, really. This one over the road here, is, is sort of, it’s one of what you call the enabling projects, to enable the rest of the masterplan forward. So, yeah we’ve got lots coming through the pipeline, in the twelve years that I’ve been here we’ve been busy all the time with new builds. Erm I worked on the Palatine Centre, you know the…

JC:

Yeah yeah…

SW:

The building on the front there, I worked on that. Erm, I worked on the Bill Bryson Library, we put an extension on there and then we refurbished the rest of the erm… I did the Mountjoy Centre, which is up out of the way. You won’t see it, unless you were up at the site. I did the geography building, which is just over the road here. So, you know, it’s constant at the University really, we are always refurbing and doing new builds.

JC:

That was by, was it Space Architects with PH Partnership?

SW:

Yeah, it was PH Partnership. PH Partnership did the initial concept and they weren’t really a big enough practice to be able to deliver it, so they brought Space on board.

JC:

They (Space) did the one down (at) Maiden Castle as well, the sports (development)…

SW:

Umm… Yeah, that’s right, Space did that as well. Yeah we’ve had quite a good relationship with Space over the years, yeah. So we’re always very busy, we’ve always got lots of new buildings in the pipeline, y’know? 80

JC:

Yeah, so would you say it was important to employ local architecture firms for builds?

SW:

Erm… I’m very keen to employ local architects. I think we have some excellent local architects and I’m… I’m very keen to see work given to local architect practices y’know? I’m passionate about that. I don’t think that we need to go out of the region. I don’t think we need to go international to get good quality architecture. Well, I mean the EU Procurement does drive us down that to a large extent, and maybe that’ll change now. But, as I say personally there are excellent architects in the North East of England and it makes delivering a project so much easier, if you’ve got architects that are on the doorstep. They can be here on a regular basis. There’s probably one thing that you haven’t actually asked, is the procurement process for the actual build itself…

JC:

Right…

SW:

And how we do that… Because, I’m quite proud to say that this is on budget, and it’s on programme. Now, bearing in mind we’ve used a signature international architect here. It’s not often that you hear that y’know? And a lot of that is down to the way that we procure buildings and how we control the design of buildings. First of all, the only person who can give any instruction on that project is me. The architect has no powers to give any instructions on that build, so everything has to come through me. Libeskind have not been given any authority to make any decisions. It’ll all come through me. And that’s essential really [laughs] otherwise it can just run away with itself. Erm… We’ve also done it on a single stage design and build contract but it’s not probably how you think of single stage design build. You probably think single stage design and build where you go to a contractor and say, “can you design and construct a building for me?” We don’t do it that way. What we’ll do is we bring an architect on and we’ll get the architect, under our control to do the design up until, essentially everything is done other than just very detailed design y’know? So, I keep control of that design process all the way through. It’s there that we bring a contractor on board, so essentially it’s like a traditional contract but the big difference is 81

that we novate the design team across to the contractor. So the contractor takes the responsibility for that design process during the construction. And again, that’s essential to controlling cost because it means that the contractor can’t come back to me and say, ‘Simon your architect hasn’t completed the design for this bit… therefore we’re in delay and we’re going to put in a claim for that.’ The contractor has control for those designs and it’s up to him to make it work. Contractors will put a premium on that price for that. They’ll include a risk premium for that. But the University feel that that’s worthwhile because it gives us cost certainty. And we’ve done that for probably the last ten years now on projects and it tends to work well. Where in the early days, you’ve got control of the design but during the construction period the contractor take responsibility for the design. So Libeksind from this point in time, or from construction works starting, Libeskind are working for Interserve, not for me. Now, architects don’t like that. Architects don’t like it but that’s the way it tends to work. And you probably don’t wanna hear this [laughs], but it takes the powers away from architects but it gives me control of the costs, and that’s, that’s y’know? If you think about projects, like the Scottish Parliaments for example [laughs], you know where I think it went to three million pounds over budget that was done over a traditional procurement route. So it’s… JC:

Well, you guys are the client so…

SW:

That’s right, I’m the client and the project manager so I’ve got full control over everything really, which tends to work well. Erm… particularly when you’re using a signature architect. Because, y’know? These guys have very little time, or concept of costs and how costs escalate. All they’re interested in doing is building what they want built and they’re not interested in budget.

JC:

Do you think they (SDL) had a big concern over the context at all really? Or do you think their signature style…

SW:

[interrupts] Don’t get me wrong, these images that you see here, this was actually from the design competition [points towards project drawings on the wall]. So, that’s going back as far as that. Yeah I mean, so that’s back to 2012 and that is what Libeskind’s 82

did as their design competition and it hasn’t changed since then y’know? The look of the building is exactly the same. Internally when you look at that image there… Internally, it’s exactly the same. JC:

So you wouldn’t say they’ve sort of had to like…

SW:

[interrupts] we haven’t value engineered it to death, we have value engineered it and, and Interserve have played an important part in that y’know? Because Interserve can bring a lot to the table, and say, ‘well, Simon we can achieve this a slightly different way and it’s gonna save you X pounds…’ So Interserve have been very valuable at... But what you see out there will be a Libeskind building and you know, what my ethos throughout this, this project has been this is not a Simon Watt building, this is a Daniel Libeskind building so there’s no point in me changing things and diluting it, because then Libeskind’ll just say well “hey that’s, well that’s not my architecture, I’ll walk away, that’s not what I want.” So it definitely is a Libeskind building.

JC:

Have they had many site visits to this actual area or are these drawings done four years ago…

SW:

[interrupts] No they did, they came over actually when we went out to tender the competition. Libeskind’s came across and they had a look around the campus to get a feel for the campus, to get a feel for the other buildings. Erm… for example one of the reasons why it’s timber cladding was to marry in with the Palatine Centre on the front there. Erm… so y’know? They did take the time and effort to come across to look around the campus.

JC:

So there was… Good then…

SW:

So do you want to go and have a look around?

JC:

Yeah can do that’d be great…

SW:

We’ll get you kitted out with some PPE…

APPENDIX B Semi-Structured Interview with Mrs Harvey Dowdy – Deputy Director in the Estates and Buildings at Durham University

Location: Holly Wing 2, Mountjoy Centre, Durham University. 4th August 2016, 9:00. Note: The following are the original transcriptions from the interview. I have used edited extracts throughout the dissertation which have tidied up the informal speech, without altering in any way the original meaning. Transcript: JC:

Thank you in advance. I just wanted to start by asking, what’s the University’s role in the conservation of the city? And how much does this factor in modern builds by the University?

HD:

Okay, I sit representing the University on the World Heritage Site Coordinating Committee, that’s the first thing. So we input into that as a key stakeholder ‘cos we own around seventy listed building’s in the city and the large proportion of those are right on the peninsula in the World Heritage Site. So that’s really important. We also, by inputting into the County Council’s draft plan, erm, we’ve just started again at the issues and options stage of the County Durham plan, (for the) second time in my life, which is irritating [laughs]. Erm, so we’re going to go back to First Principles on Policy in relation to heritage. So we input in two ways really as a key stakeholder. We’ll obviously manage all of the historic buildings. We have maintenance programmes and contracts. We’ve put in place framework Conservation Management Plans for Palace Green, Castle and City Walls and the Riverbanks Garden’s. And on top of that, the next layer down. So, World Heritage Site plan at the top, then the framework Conservation Management Plans and then underneath that a raft of historic buildings appraisals. We also input into the Conservation Area Management Plan for the city and that involves, well this time they did it using the Oxford Method as it’s called. So, volunteers from various interest groups were asked to help and they produced these huge documents, as really project 84

work. And, we’ve done input by having some moderation of that as well just to make sure the facts are straight and we’ve got out all our colour things sorted out. The main thing that we do is have significant amounts of dialogue on a daily and weekly basis with the local authority and particular the Conservation Officer about things like ‘key views’. So have you heard of, ‘Seeing the History Within the Views’? … JC:

Erm, no I don’t think so…

HD:

That was particularly relevant to the Libeskind building because in Durham, you can’t do any development unless you’ve properly taken into account the key views to and from the World Heritage Site…

JC:

Oh yeah I’ve looked at all of that yeah…

HD:

So, if you look at a document called ‘Seeing the History Within the Views’.

JC:

Yeah in the proposal brief and stuff…

HD:

Yes, probably, erm… that’s important. The usual planning guidance, the Conservation Area Appraisal and the World Heritage site management plan, so all of those kind of things are important. Which is why they’ve got a Conservationist Specialist Planner [laughs]…

JC:

Erm, right, so what’s your sort of general view of employing ‘international firms’ on builds by the University?

HD:

I think in the context of many of the sensitive sights we’ve got, it’s a bonus. Provided, if you can be shown to have been doing something by a way of international design competition that keeps everything very transparent so it keeps everything above board, people can see exactly the process that you’ve gone through in order to arrive at a particular architect and a particular design, erm, where you can have problems down the line is getting them to understand the particular constraints around the city but my role is to work on the client’s side to make sure that any architect coming in from a distance, whether they’re a ‘Starchitect’ or 85

whatever, has really got an understanding of the planning context. And actually Libeskind’s did the right thing by employing UK planning advice in order to take them through that bit of the process. JC:

Okay so they had specific UK advice then…

HD:

Yes…

JC:

So do you think that by employing more ‘Starchitect firms’ with their own style, they (Durham County Council) are running the risk of a danger of areas becoming homogenous, in a way?

HD:

No I think there’s actually less danger because if you have a framework for procuring architectural services and you’ve only got, say three architect working on the framework, the opposite accusation that could be levied on you is that produces everything that looks the same. So for example we employ FaulknerBrowns, who are great architects but they do have a house style and you can spot it. So, they’ve just done FreemansReach. They’re going to go onto MilburnGate. And I’ve already a query from Historic England as to “who are you going to employ in relation towards some of the other major development sites?” Because what they don’t want is everything to start looking the same.

JC:

Right okay, so are they (Durham University) starting to bring other architects into it? Or…

HD:

I suspect we will, yes. There are some key sites that we’re looking at, for example, New Elvet, where we would be looking to have another international design competition ‘cos it’s a big key site…

JC:

What’s the development there?

HD:

It’s going from Dunelm House where we’ve got all our main teaching blocks at the moment, particularly unlovely bits of streetscape [laughs], so, but it’s a big site, it’s going to be very complex to deliver, it’s right underneath the Cathedral by the river, so there’ll be a lot of factors to take into account.

JC:

That’s interesting, when’s that starting? 86

HD:

Probably next year sometime (2017), we’ll start to do that, yes.

JC:

So after speaking with Simon, he was saying the specific site for the Ogden Centre, is why they wanted a ‘striking design’ ‘cos it’s on South Road- the first thing you see when you drive into Durham. I just wondered what you think the general balance is, between wanting these unusual designs, and designs that are in keeping with their surroundings, what’s the balance there?

HD:

I think Durham has lots of opportunities for really good quality modern design as opposed to pastiche. The University, since it was founded in the 1830’s has had a really good track record of procuring really good top quality architects to produce designs that are modern. I’m thinking here of Jevens House on the bailey for example, that pulls off a really good trick. Geography West building, in the middle of the Science site is (was) very innovative at the time, it looks, very much like Festival Hall if you look at it, if you stand back at it and look at it, you sort of think, “oh yeah you do actually look like Festival Hall”. So, if you think about how those buildings came on, particularly in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Erm, Trelynn College, St. Aidan’s Main Building was designed by Sir Basil Spence, who did Coventry Cathedral, so the University does have a really good track record of getting…

JC:

Obviously Ove Arup as well, in the 60’s…

HD:

Yep… Of getting architects in to produce good modern design…

JC:

Okay I think that’s about it really, I was only going to ask you a few questions. Thanks a lot for your time…

HD:

That’s alright! That’s an absolute pleasure. Thank you.