Page 1

Justin William Moorton B.A. Arch. Studies Stage 3

Session 2011_12


P o r t f o l i o A r c h i t e c t u r e

CONTENTS:

+ ARC_3001- Year Design Report..............................................................................................4-5 + ARC_3001- Graduation Project: The right to music- Northern Music Rooms.................................6-21 + ARC_3015- Principles and Theories: Building critique..............................................................22-25 + ARC_3013- Technology- Structure and Environmental Strategy.................................................26-39 + ARC_3001- NRFTA Middlesbrough Film Archive........................................................................40-57 + ARC_3001- BA Charette project............................................................................................58-67

Stude n t ID : A 9156 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


This year has been without a doubt the time when my progression within the field of Architectural Studies has improved the most rapidly. My first inclination is to suggest that perhaps this is due to the aquiration of knowledge in using a very useful BIM and presentation toolAutodesk’s Revit Architecture, however on further contemplation it is more the framework of how I perceive architectural language and the great leaps I have felt in being able to ‘control space.’ Looking at my stage 2 work I realise that it was always my inability to get to grips with efficient ways of working and good work- flow patterns in terms of presentation that would let me down and prevent me from thinking about the aspects of architecture that really matter- such as materiality, ambience, flow and communication. Presentation has never been my strong point- a flaw that I put down to my background as an abstract/ expressionist artist: I entered this course with a naive defiance to social norms and conditioning. I was under the impression that the rigid quadrilaterals that most of us spend our entire lives in could be somehow fought against with

less regular geometries. It is amusing to see that my design proposals have slowly become less defiant in this way, evolving from a student guesthouse with nearly no straight walls in early stage 2 to an angular banqueting hall; followed by a still unconventional film archive but with much more pure geometries and a greater simplicity of form. I would say that it was the Middlesbrough film archive project that really gave me the greatest leap in terms of grades and architectural communication and spacemaking, yet the graduation project has given me something even greater- the appreciation for the beauty of the right angle- the square is a fantastic symbol of human cosmology and creation and orientates us in our perceptions of reality. The charette project at the very start of the year was a huge success. I really hope that this idea is repeated for many years to come as it gives a great platform for not only social interaction between stages, but is mutually beneficial in providing understanding of exactly how much improvement is made year by year.

It is also a good opportunity to employ skills of leadership and co-operation, whilst finding ways of taking exciting and fresh ideas and converting them into more sophisticated architectural statements. As I already mentioned the ease of presentation and work-flow improvements provided by Revit meant that the Middlesbrough project was hugely succesful for me. Yet this aquiredskill helped the most by inspiring me to find methods of working that are non-destructive; where nothing goes to waste and imperfections need to be accepted in order to move on quickly and communicate as much as possible to others. I feel now that this fexibility is essential in refining design ideas and systematically working through a project to secure a higher chance of success. This area could still be greatly improved as I am generally a slow worker and tend to not be able to accept imperfections so that the project can progress. In this way I usually do not have a great deal of development work as I ofen do not have the time. I really need to take these ideas and ap-


ply them to my design methodology- so that creating development drawings and models become second nature. I have never had a series of development models to present in a final crit but can see how this is essential in exploring novel ideas fast and without wasting time. The graduation project was my most effective project in terms of simplicity of concept and it’s translation into a built form. This came more out of trial and error than a systematic approach, so even though I am happy with the outcome I realise that a more reliable method is needed. The intensive analysis stage and detailed site modeling was definately invaluable in developing a good mental projection and understanding of the site. Another area where great improvement is needed is in the understanding of detailing and building science. I feel that a greater knowledge would greatly benefit my design and crafting techniques- the elements

that can make up a building are to the architect like the palette is to the artistic. Similarly a more careful analysis of precedents would definately inform my designs and is usually an aspect I fail to adress: even though this is something I am not too worried about at the moment due to the conceptual and hypothetical nature of most of our projects to date. However the principles and theories module was definately very informative in terms of analysing exemplary architecture and learning from it. Overall I feel as though I am at the begining of finding a consistent architectural style and approach. I like to be minimal with the application of materials and details and prefer to think of independent spaces as forms in their own right. Interestingly both projects this year can be disected in this way to leave independent buildings within the whole. I also feel that my presentations reflect this desire to articulate strongly the differentiations of spaces

since I tend to focus on trying to sell my building with few simple yet informative images. I am always more interested in trying to provoke the feeling I intend to be felt in a space to the viewer than working on presentation for the sake of presentation. Being greatly opposed to shallow aesthetics and modern advertising or architectural ‘unique selling points’- I don’t necessarily feel this is a bad thing. `However the clarity and order of my presentations still have alot of work to go. I definately feel that the last three years have taught me how to think like an architect and I feel competent in being able to move into the professional world with ease. Often there is alot of angst and worry involved in presenting buildings that are bold or unusual, yet I think for many exploring such options is important in order to learn why it is that such proposals are indeed unusual. Even so the university has not diminished this desire for novelty and creativy, and for this I am grateful.

5


June 2012 ARC_3001

THE NORTHERN MUSIC ROOMS The Right to Music- Graduation Project

Stude n t ID : A 915 6 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


THE NORTHERN MUSIC ROOMS This centre of music aims to be anything but an institution. By aiming to build an indoor street an urban living room is created, sheltering passers-by from the wind and rain or opening up to the summer air. It was never an intention to create a school but more a place for congregation, where many sounds and interesting things were happening on multiple levels. In this way it is the music and the sounds that dictate the space, and are the most important part of the centre. The large areas of glazing make sure that ample light enters the street and through to the residential block behind, whilst mainting the alley- atmosphere at the back of the site with tall walls. Solar shading has been employed to minimize glare and to help prevent over-heating. Inspired by street- artists, the centre offers a flexible program, with a comfortable environment for many to use with little or no cost. Music study rooms with basic recording equipment are provided, which anyone can use to capture their sonic creations. This freedom of use is surveilled by a small administrative team who observe from high vantage points. The alleyways of Grainger Towen converge into this building where with the existing exposed building and the new insertion with balconies and alcoves create a new alleyway and the pedestrian feels as though the worlds of interior and exterior have blended into one.

+ S it e p hot og r ap hy + I nit it a l c onc ep t im a g e s


A tmo sph e ri c Concep tu al I m age

So uth El e vat i o n 9


Fl o o r P l an s: 1: 200


11


Secti o n B : 1: 100


13


Big

gm

Bigg market

Loc a

l bu

Local c o

St John church

ssin

ark

et

ess

es

mmun

ity

Music Institute

Second entrance: + opens the music centre to the green church grounds +provides ease of access for the sharing of facilities

r eu at cian Am usi m

Head of steam bar

Facade: + maintains the ‘alleyway atmosphere’ of Granger Town + allows light to filter through to residential building

Island: landmark To Tra uris ns ts fe rin gp

as

se

ng

er

s

St John church

Train station

ad

Site A nal y si s

o te r tga

s We

Head of steam

An entrance that acts as a a profile connecting: + train station +head of steam +potential of the landmark +prestigous street Westgate road

n

tatio

s Train

I nit ia l D e s ig n S t r a t e g y


Study Rooms with basic recording facilities +Professional recording studios on basement level with skylights to ‘street’ Administration overlooking ‘indoor street’

Music Library and Archives

‘Indoor Street’ continues the flow of the alleyways and provides ample space for many people to congregate + a public livingroom

Auditorium + Flexible seating arrangment and stage + Provides a professional acoustic environment for intimate or traditional performances

Bu i l di n g c i rc u la t ion

Bu ilding P ro gra m

Performer’s facilities +WC +Instrument storage +Lockers

15


P e r s p e c t iv e : S out h Fa c a de

S e c t ion B : 1 : 1 0 0


Section C: 1:200

Section D: 1:200

17


I n te ri or Pe rspe c t i ve l ook ing S out h- We s t


Ex p lo ded v iew 3 D mo del

P erspective : S o u th F a c a d e

19


P erspective : In t e ri o r 21


April 2012 ARC3015

PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES Building Critique

Stude n t ID : A 915 6 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


Justin Moorton

20/04/2012 Volume 1, Issue 1

Justin Moorton

20/04/2012 Volume 1, Issue 1

 PRINCIPLES & THEORIES 3.1: ARC 3015 Secon East-West

Task 2: Building Critique

STUDENT ID: 091560670

WORD COUNT: 1650

Architecture is about life. The buildings around us are to some extent a reecon of our cosmologies or that of those involved in the many processes surrounding the symphony of building. Good architecture represents the values and world-views of the people who use it and by doing so sases our funconal emoonal and even spiritual needs when this is deemed important. I believe the Sage Gateshead by Foster and Partners represents a building which has taken into account the needs of its users and surrounding community to an exemplary degree… In 1997, Foster and Partners won the oeon to e rhtets o Gateshead’s new us entre out o 100 regstered alants. Yet ths was not a shee that artner o Foster and head arhtet Sener de Grey would e gven ree ren on. The Sage Gateshead s a rojet that nvolved onsderale ollaoraon. long wth the general ul, the Northern Snona Chaer Orhestra and Folkworks, an organaon roong ja, lues and olk), were oth nvted to take art n the reaon o ther new hoe. ru ouss layed an nds-

Plan view first floor

Isolated enclosures with ‘Shrink– Wrapped‘ roof

Site Plan

ensale role n the desgn roess ro the outset. Conssng o a an audtoru, a saller erorane sae or onteorary usans and the Northern Foundaon hall, the three enlosures were oneved as searate saes or au aous solaon. The ste, however resented an nteresng redaent n orenng these as the wnds on the stee rver ront an e strong at the est o es. The soluon was a ul onourse onneng these eleents, to e enlosed wth a stanless steel roo whh s ‘shrnk-wraed’ ro eneath the rver-sde onourse and flows over the to to the South o the

Exterior view from Quayside

  (v) ff vv v- x v  v jvkv8 qvBuldings within a building– allows atmospheric circulaon

Foster’s Concept Sketch

Newcastle University

-jkvvvk vvfi WEfi vjMB  The concourse v v F xx:fi ffvv

Newcastle University


Justin Moorton

20/04/2012 Volume 1, Issue 1

k  v‘’A  vk; vvM‘P’q v v;v vIv  F ‘v’ kvk zv v kFv vx                     

20/04/2012

Justin Moorton

Volume 1, Issue 1

DKM v  Bkk x  S xV’Mkv A q q xIvx vv: ; kk Sxfivz         Main Auditorium (Hall 1)

xx  ffzS   vqF ’ v - vvvfifiq  jzzk - x vk xv 

MB PvEEvfi- vG  v 8j v£1  v; Sv  k- v(£7)v G - S 15vk M v IG v- -

ro n enronen ersecevv k v z fiS S’kx   Gv v L(7 )fivvff vB-

Interior view of concourse Newcastle University

Newcastle University

25


January 2012 ARC_3013

STRUCTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY Technology Coursework

Stude n t ID : A 915 6 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


STRUCTURAL INTENT The fundamental conceptual aim of the building was to bring back a sense of identity to Middlesbrough through its industrial heritage. Therefore, from the onset I was interested in creating a very simple, industrial aesthetic that is honest and easily read by using a structure that is robust and visible. Apart from the circulation and service towers, the two main forms of the building are in contrast, evoking the relationship Middlesbrough has with its old and new town. It was important for me to make this clear by using different structural systems for each, one being heavy, the other light. I did not want to reflect any existing local building types since these were few and variant, so I decided upon structural concrete for the lower form and a lightweight panelised load-bearing, cold formed steel wall system for the auditorium. This steel box would be the predominant image and identity of the building, standing out from the concrete being separated from it by light flooded gaps. The supports for this box would be massive and simple, echoed in the towers for continuity.

Diagram 1- Primary Structure Existing brick wall Reinforced concrete columns, structural walls and beams (cast in-situ) Elevator shaft

Justin Moorton ARC3013: Architectural Technology Middlesbrough Film Archive 3-Dimensional Structural Diagrams 1:200


Diagram 2

Cast in situ concrete floors Steel panel auditorium

29


Diagram 3 Concrete staircase Steel walkways (supported by structural curtain walls- see diagram 4) Concrete structural walls of service tower


Diagram 4 Structural steel curtain wall systems Pre-cast concrete non-structural panels for circulation tower, allowing for continous openings

31


Diagram 5 Roofs and external staircase


Diagram 6 Building in context

33


Constructional Study Section Line

Elevation West 1:100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

aluminium window, (profile mass 1.25kg/m), double glazed (aluminium window unit) treated plywood window cill EPS grade 200e wallblock insert to prevent cold bridging thin coat polymer modified cement render light steel ‘U’ bar light steel rebars at 300mm centers in situ 65% GGBS C30 concrete plasterboard and emulsion plate vapour retarder EPS grade 200e sheet mineral fiber safing vinyl tile flooring bracing and ceiling hanger eyebolt main runner 35mm channel plasterboard and emulsion plate damp proof membrane seperating/ slip layer 100mm EPS sand binding hardcore wash gutter system thin coat polymer modified cement render 100mm EPS roof membrane EPS grade 200e wallform lintel block lintel reinforcement expanding foam aluminium window unit

Justin Moorton ARC3013: Architectural Technology Middlesbrough Film Archive Constructional Study 35 1:20


BREEAM Estimator1BREEAM Credits

BREEAM Estimator1BREEAM Credits

BREEAM Rating Benchmarks

Indicative Overall BREEAM Score

PASS

30%

GOOD

45%

VERY GOOD

55%

EXCELLENT

70%

OUTSTANDING*

85%

62.96%

Minimum BREEAM Standards New Build Refurb Area (m2)

Ref

Title

Higher Education Criteria

Number of BREEAM credits available

545

150

Achieved? Total predicted 'area weighted' BREEAM credits achieved

Pass YES

Good YES

Very Good YES

Excellent NO

Hea 3

Glare Control

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that an occupant-controlled shading system (e.g. internal or external blinds) is fitted in relevant building areas.

1

0

1

0.22

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 4

High frequency lighting

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that high frequency ballasts are installed on all fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps.

1

1

1

1.00

1

1

1

1

1

Hea 5

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that all internal and external Internal and external lighting levels lighting, where relevant, is specified in accordance with the appropriate maintained illuminance levels (in lux) recommended by CIBSE.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 6

Lighting zones & controls

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that, in all relevant building areas, lighting is appropriately zoned and occupant controllable with the option for commonly required lighting settings to be selected quickly and easily.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 7

Potential for natural ventilation

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that fresh air is capable of being delivered to the occupied spaces of the building via a natural ventilation strategy, and there is sufficient user-control of the supply of fresh air.

1

1

0

0.78

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 8

Indoor air quality

One credit where air intakes serving occupied areas avoid major sources of external pollution and recirculation of exhaust air.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Volatile Organic Compounds

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the emissions of VOCs and other substances from key internal finishes and fittings comply with best practice levels.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 10

Thermal comfort

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that thermal comfort levels in occupied spaces of the building are assessed at the design stage to evaluate appropriate servicing options, ensuring appropriate thermal comfort levels are achieved.

1

0

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 11

Thermal zoning

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that local occupant control is available for temperature adjustment in each occupied space to reflect differing user demands.

1

1

0

0.78

-

-

-

-

-

Hea 12

Microbial contamination

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the risk of waterborne and airborne legionella contamination has been minimised.

1

1

1

1.00

1

1

1

1

1

Hea 13

Acoustic Performance

Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that all spaces in the building meet the appropiate standards required for indoor ambient noise levels and reverberation times.

2

2

2

2.00

-

-

-

-

-

4.00

-

-

-

6

10

Outstanding NO

Minimum required credits by BREEAM issue and rating

Number of BREEAM credits Achieved

Management

Man 1

Commissioning

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that an appropriate project team member has been appointed to monitor commissioning on behalf of the client to ensure commissioning will be carried out in line with current best practice.

1

2

1.00

1

1

1

1

2

Two credits where, in addition to the above, evidence provided demonstrates that seasonal commissioning will be carried out during the first year of occupation, post construction (or post fit out).

Hea 9

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that there is a commitment to comply with best practice site management principles. Man 2

Considerate Constructors Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that there is a commitment to go beyond best practice site management principles.

2

1.00

1

-

-

-

1

2

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that 2 or more of items a-g (listed below) are achieved. Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that 4 or more of items ag (listed below) are achieved.

Man 3

Construction Site Impacts

Three credits where evidence provided demonstrates that 6 or more of items ag are achieved: a. Monitor, report and set targets for CO2 or energy arising from site activities b. Monitor, report and set targets for CO2 or energy arising from transport to and from site c. Monitor, report and set targets for water consumption arising from site activities d. Implement best practice policies in respect of air (dust) pollution arising from the site e. Implement best practice policies in respect of water (ground and surface) pollution occurring on the site f. Main contractor has an environmental materials policy, used for sourcing of construction materials to be utilised on site g. Main contractor operates an Environmental Management System.

4

2.00

2

-

-

-

-

-

Indicative Health & Wellbeing (weighted) Section Score

One additional credit where evidence provided demonstrates that at least 80% of site timber is responsibly sourced and 100% is legally sourced.

First credit A Building User Guide that contains the information described under the ‘User Guide Contents’ heading (see additional guidance) has been developed. The guide is relevant to the non-technical building user and appropriate to the stakeholder(s) that will occupy the building. Man 4

Building user guide Second credit A Laboratory User Guide that contains the information described under the ‘User Guide Contents’ heading (see additional guidance) has been developed. The guidance is relevant to the laboratory users that will occupy and use the facilities

Man 5

Site Investigation

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the design team has carried out a detailed site investigation of the selected site.

1

0.00

0

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

Ene 1

Reduction of CO2 Emissions

Up to fifteen credits where evidence provided demonstrates an improvement in the energy efficiency of the building’s fabric and services and therefore achieves lower building operational related CO2 emissions.

15

Ene 2

Sub-metering of Substantial Energy Uses

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates the provision of direct submetering of energy uses within the building.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

1

1

1

Ene 3

Sub-metering of high energy load One credit where evidence provided demonstrates sub-metering of energy Areas and Tenancy consumption by tenancy/building function area is installed within the building.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Ene 4

External Lighting

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Man 6

Consultation

0.00

-

-

-

1

1

-

1

2

1.00

-

-

-

-

Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the first credit has been achieved and there is a 10% reduction in the building’s CO2 emissions as a result of the installation of a feasible local LZC technology.

-

Ene 5

Low zero carbon technologies

Two credits where, in addition to the above, evidence provided demonstrates that these facilities can be accessed without compromising the safety and security of the building and its occupants.

2

1.00

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

Man 9

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the design team are Publication of building information committed to publicising information about the environmental performance of the new development via the internet, newsletters, site visits, presentations etc.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

1

Man 10

Development as a learning resource

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the proposed building AND/OR landscape design provides a learning resource that can be used to facilitate development of environmental issues for building users and visitors.

1

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

1

Man 11

Ease of Maintenance

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that specifications for the building and the building services/systems and landscaping have considered ease and efficiency of maintenance in line with best practice.

1

0.22

-

-

-

-

-

Man 12

Life Cycle Costing

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Security

1

0

1.00

1

-

-

-

-

Ene 6

Building fabric performance & avoidance of air infiltration

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that appropriate design and as built performance measures (as identified in the compliance requirements) are taken to minimise heat loss and air infiltration through the building fabric.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Ene 8

Lifts

Up to two credits are available where evidence provided demonstrates the installation of energy-efficient lift(s).

2

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Ene 10

Free Cooling

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates the building incorporates a free cooling strategy that completely displaces the need for conventional mechanical cooling systems (excluding exceptional localised circumstances with small scale systems, for example server rooms) and the thermal comfort requirements of credit Hea 10 are achieved.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Ene 20

Energy Efficient IT solutions

One credit where evidence demonstrates that data centres and server-based IT suites are designed in accordance with the EU Code for Data Centres and best practice energy efficiency measures.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis based on the feasibility study proposals has been undertaken on the building design at a strategic and system level. Two credits where, in addition to the above, evidence provided demonstrates that the results of the feasibility study and consideration of LCC have been implemented.

Indicative Mangement (weighted) Section Score

Indicative Energy (weighted) Section Score

2

1

Daylighting

Up to two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that all occupied spaces are adequately daylit.

Tra 1

Provision of public transport

Up to five credits are awarded on a sliding scale based on the assessed buildings’ accessibility to the public transport network.

5

5

5.00

-

-

-

-

-

Tra 2

Proximity to amenities

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the building is located within 500m of accessible local amenities appropriate to the building type and its users.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Tra 3

Cyclist Facilities

2

2

2.00

-

-

-

-

-

6.13%

2

1

0

0.78

-

-

-

-

-

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that covered, secure and well-lit cycle storage facilities are provided for all building users. Two credits where, in addition to the above, adequate changing facilities are provided for staff use.

Hea 2

View Out

Copyright of BRE Global Ltd

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that all relevant building areas have an adequate view out.

8.04%

Transport

Health & Wellbeing

Hea 1

0

3

A maximum of one credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a contract with an energy supplier is in place to provide sufficient electricity used within the assessed building/development to meet the above criteria from a 100% renewable energy source. (Note: a standard Green Tariff will not comply)

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that an Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) or Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) from the local police force has been consulted at the design stage and their recommendations incorporated into the design of the building and its parking facilities (if relevant).

Man 8

Three credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the first credit has been achieved and there is a 15% reduction in the building’s CO2 emissions as a result of the installation of a feasible local LZC technology. Or alternatively:

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that shared facilities have been provided as a consequence of consultation feedback. Shared Facilities

One credit where energy-efficient external lighting is specified and all light fittings are controlled for the presence of daylight.

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a feasibility study considering local (on-site and/or near site) low or zero carbon (LZC) technologies has been carried out and the results implemented.

Two credits where, in addition to the above, evidence provided demonstrates that the consultation process is being, or has been, undertaken using an independent method such as DQI, DQM or School Works, facilitated by a third party.

Man 7

4

1

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that consultation has been, or is being, undertaken and feedback given to the local community and building users. Higher Education Laboratory Building type or function present: A stakeholder engagement workshop has been undertaken at RIBA stage B. A design team meeting has been undertaken at RIBA stage C or equivalent with a focus on appropriate sizing, optimisation and integration of laboratory equipment and systems The results of the above activities have been summarised in a design intent document, which has been approved by all parties involved and formed the basis of subsequent quality control.

11.57%

Energy

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

Tra 4

Pedestrian and cycle safety

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the site layout has been designed in accordance with best practice to ensure safe and adequate pedestrian and cycle access.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Tra 5

Travel plan

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a travel plan specific to the building has been prepared, which encourages the reduction of user reliance on forms of travel that have the higest environmental impact.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

29/01/2012

Copyright of BRE Global Ltd

29/01/2012


BREEAM Estimator1BREEAM Credits

BREEAM Estimator1BREEAM Credits

One credit w here evidence provided demonstrates there is a vessel on site for composting food waste, and adequate storage for such waste generated by the building’s users and operation.

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates no more than one parking space is provided for every fifteen building users. Tra 6

Maximum car parking capacity Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates no more than one parking space is provided for every twetny building users.

Wst 5

2

2

2.00

-

-

-

-

Composting

-

1

OR

Indicative Waste (weighted) Section Score Tra 7

Tra 8

Travel information point

One credit is available where evidence provided up-to-date information on transport routes and timetables.

1

1

1.00

-

Deliveries & manoeuvring

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that vehicle access areas have been designed to ensure adequate space for manoeuvring delivery vehicles and provide space away from manoeuvring area for storage of refuse skips and pallets.

1

0

0.00

-

Indicative Transport (weighted) Section Score

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.00

-

Water meter

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a water meter with a pulsed output will be installed on the mains supply to each building/unit.

1

1

1

1.00

-

1

1

1

1

Major leak detection

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a leak detection system is specified or installed on the building's water supply.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Wat 4

Sanitary supply shut off

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that proximity detection shut-off is provided to the water supply to all toilet areas.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Wat5

Water recycling

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates the specification of systems that collect, store and, where necessary treat, rainwater or greywater for WC and urinal flushing purposes.

1

0

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

Irrigation systems

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a low-water irrigation strategy/system has been installed, or where planting and landscaping is irrigated via rainwater or reclaimed water.

1

1

1

2

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

LE2

Contaminated land

One credit is awarded where evidence provided demonstrates that the land used for the new development has, prior to development, been defined as contaminated and where adequate remedial steps have been taken to decontaminate the site prior to construction.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

LE3

Ecological value of site AND Protection of ecological features

One credit is awarded where evidence provided demonstrates that the construction zone is defined as land of low ecological value and all existing features of ecological value will be fully protected from damage during site preparation and construction works.

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

LE4

Mitigating Ecological impact

2

2

2.00

-

-

1

1

1

3

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

2

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

One credit where the design team (or client) has appointed a suitably qualified ecologist to advise and report on enhancing and protecting the ecological value of the site; and implemented the professional’s recommendations for general enhancement and protection of site ecology.

LE5

Enhancing Site Ecology

0

1

0.00

-

-

-

-

Three credits where, in addition to the above, evidence is provided to demonstrate a positive increase in the ecological value of the site of 6 species or greater.

Long term impact on biodiversity Two credits where the client has committed to achieving the mandatory requirements listed below and at least four of the additional requirements.

-

Indicative Land Use & Ecology (weighted) Section Score

4.50%

Up to six credits are available, determined by the Green Guide to Specification ratings for the major building/finishing elements.

6

3

3.00

-

-

-

-

-

Mat 2

Hard landscaping and boundary protection

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that at least 80% of the combined area of external hard landscaping and boundary protection specifications achieve an A or A+ rating, as defined by the Green Guide to Specification.

1

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

Mat 3

Re-use of building façade

One credit is awarded where evidence provided demonstrates that at least 50% of the total façade (by area) is reused and at least 80% of the reused façade (by mass) comprises in-situ reused material.

1

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

Mat 4

Re-use of building structure

One credit is awarded where evidence provided demonstrates that a design reuses at least 80% of an existing primary structure and for part refurbishment and part new build, the volume of the reused structure comprises at least 50% of the final structure’s volume.

1

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

Up to 3 credits are available where evidence provided demonstrates that 80% of the assessed materials in the following building elements are responsibly sourced: a. Structural Frame b. Ground floor c. Upper floors (including separating floors) Responsible sourcing of materials d. Roof e. External walls f. Internal walls g. Foundation/substructure h. Staircase

Pol 1

Refrigerant GWP - Building services

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates the use of refrigerants with a global warming potential (GWP) of less than 5 or where there are no refrigerants specified for use in building services.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Pol 2

Preventing refrigerant leaks

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that refrigerant leaks can be detected AND that the provision of automatic refrigerant pump down is made to a heat exchanger (or dedicated storage tanks) with isolation valves. Or where there are no refrigerants specified for the development.

1

1

1

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

3

3

3

3.00

-

-

-

-

-

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the maximum dry NOx emissions from delivered space heating energy are 100 mg/kWh (at 0% excess O2).

Pol 4

2

3

2.00

-

-

-

-

NOx emissions from heating source

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that thermal insulation products used in the building have a low embodied impact relative to their thermal properties, determined by the Green Guide to Specification ratings.

Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the assessed development is located in a zone defined as having a low annual probability of flooding.

2

2

2

2.00

-

-

-

-

-

Pol 5

Flood risk

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that thermal insulation products used in the building have been responsibly sourced.

Designing For Robustness

One credit where protection is given to vulnerable parts of the building such as areas exposed to high pedestrian traffic, vehicular and trolley movements.

Indicative Materials (weighted) Section Score

1

1

1

1.00

Wst 1

Construction Site Waste Management

-

-

-

-

4

4.00

Recycled aggregates

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates the significant use of recycled or secondary aggregates in ‘high-grade’ building aggregate uses.

1

1

1

1.00

Recyclable waste storage

One credit where a central, dedicated space is provided for the storage of the building’s recyclable waste streams.

1

0

0.00

2.00

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Minimising watercourse pollution

One credit here evidence provided demonstrates that effective on site treatment such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) or oil separators have been specified in areas that are or could be a source of watercourse pollution.

1

Pol 7

Reduction of Night Time Light Pollution

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the external lighting design is in compliance with the guidance in the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE) Guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light, 2005.

1

-

-

-

-

Pol 8

Noise Attenuation

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that new sources of noise from the development do not give rise to the likelihood of complaints from existing noise-sensitive premises and amenity or wildlife areas that are within the locality of the site.

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

Indicative Pollution (weighted) Section Score

Wst 3

2

Pol 6

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that a significant majority of non-hazardous construction waste generated by the development will be diverted from landfill and reused or recycled.

Wst 2

3

-

6.67%

4

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the assessed development is located in a zone defined as having a medium or high annual probability of flooding AND the ground level of the building, car parking and access is above the design flood level for the site’s location. One further credit where evidence provided demonstrates that surface water run-off attenuation measures are specified to minimise the risk of localised flooding, resulting from a loss of flood storage on site due to development.

Waste Up to three credits are available where evidence provided demonstrates that the amount of non-hazardous construction waste (m3/100m2 or tonnes100m2) generated on site by the development is the same as or better than good or best practice levels.

Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the maximum dry NOx emissions from delivered space heating energy are 70 mg/kWh (at 0% excess O2). Three credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the maximum dry NOx emissions from delivered space heating energy are 40 mg/kWh (at 0% excess O2) and emissions from delivered water heating energy are 100 mg/kWh or less (at 0% excess O2).

-

Additionally 100% of any timber must be legally sourced.

Mat 7

5.00%

Pollution

Materials Specification (major building elements)

Insulation

Two credits where, in addition to the above, there is a positive increase in the ecological value of the site of up to (but not including) 6 species.

One credit where the client has committed to achieving the mandatory requirements listed below and at least two of the additional requirements.

Mat 1

Mat 6

5.36%

1

Two credits where evidence provided demonstrates that there is no negative change in the site’s existing ecological value as a result of development.

Materials

Mat 5

-

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the majority of the footprint of the proposed development falls within the boundary of previously developed land.

LE6

Indicative Water (weighted) Section Score

-

One credit where evidence provided demonstrates that the change in the site’s existing ecological value, as a result of development, is minimal.

3

Wat 6

-

Re-use of land

7.43%

3

Wat 3

-

LE1

-

3

Wat 2

-

Land Use & Ecology

Up to three credits where evidence provided demonstrates that the specification includes taps, urinals, WCs and showers that consume less potable water in use than standard specifications for the same type of fittings.

Water Consumption

0.00

-

Water

Wat 1

0

Where space or access is limited, there is a dedicated space for compostable food waste to be stored prior to removal and composting at an alternative site.

1

7.27%

Innovation - Exemplary Level Criteria Where post construction, a Considerate Constructors Scheme certificate can be provided demonstrating that the site achieved CCS Code of Considerate Practice with a score of at least 36. Innovation Man 2: Considerate Constructors

OR

1

Where post construction, the site has complied in full with the alternative, independently assessed scheme, and the alternative scheme addresses all the mandatory and optional items in Checklist A2.

Copyright of BRE Global Ltd

Copyright of BRE Global Ltd

29/01/2012

29/01/2012

37


BREEAM Estimator1BREEAM Credits

Innovation Hea 1: Daylighting

Innovation

Ene 1: Reduction of CO2 emissions

At least 80% of the floor area (for the building spaces/room identified above in the standard requirements) has an average daylight factor of 3% in multi-storey buildings and 4% in single-storey buildings.

One additional innovation credit can be awarded where evidence provided demonstrates the building is designed to be a carbon neutral building as defined by the NCM (i.e. in terms of building services energy demand), as follows: a. A new building achieves a CO2 index less than 0 on the benchmark scale. b. A refurbished building achieves a CO2 index equal to or less than 0 on the benchmark scale.

1

0

0

0.00

2

0

0.00

1

0

0.00

1

1

1.00

I find the management section of the BREEAM assessment to be an extremely important process in the overall sustainability of construction since the category takes into account and calls for the involvement of a large scope of people into the project, making the most of inter-disciplinary expertise, pushing towards a socially inclusive process and diminishing any margins of error. Similarly, the publication of building information is particularly significant since I feel there is a need for contemporary practices to develop values of transparent design decisions, and improved communication of ideas within the architectural community and with other disciplines such as the sciences. This can expand the database of evidence for design and allow faster improvements in the sustainability of architecture. Development as a learning resource is an aspect I myself did not take into account but is undoubtedly important for the same reasons of knowledge sharing.

Two additional innovation credits can be awarded where evidence provided demonstrates the building is designed to be a True zero carbon building (in terms of building services and operational energy demand).

Innovation

Ene 5: Low or Zero Carbon Technologies

A local LZC energy technology has been installed in line with the recommendations of a compliant feasibility study and this method of supply results in a 20% reduction in the building’s CO2 emissions. Where sub meters are fitted to allow individual water-consuming plant or building areas to be monitored such as cooling towers, car washes, catering areas, etc. If the building does not have any major water consuming plant this exemplar credit is not available. Each sub meter has a pulsed output to enable connection to a Building Management System (BMS) for the monitoring of water consumption.

Innovation Wat 2: Water Meter

In addition to the above, for sites with multiple departments e.g. large health centres or acute hospitals, separate pulsed sub meters are fitted on the supply to the following areas where present: a. Staff and public areas b. Clinical areas and wards c. Letting areas: On the water supply to each tenant unit d. Laundries e. Main production kitchen f. Hydrotherapy pools g. Laboratories h. CSSD/HSDU, pathology, pharmacy, mortuary and any other major process water user. One exemplary BREEAM credit can be awarded as follows:

Innovation Materials Specification

a. Where assessing four or more applicable building elements, the building achieves at least two points additional to the total points required to achieve maximum credits under the standard BREEAM requirements.

1

0.00

1

0.00

b. Where assessing fewer than four applicable building elements, the building achieves at least one point additional to the total points required to achieve maximum credits under the standard BREEAM requirements.

Where, in addition to the standard BREEAM requirements, 95% of the Innovation Responsible Sourcing of Materials applicable materials, comprised within the applicable building elements, have been responsibly sourced.

Overall I feel as though the transport section may be given a slightly higher weighting than necessary since this is most likely down to external factors and the building may rely on shared or public car parking. On the other hand it is reassuring to see that a buildings energy performance is now penalised for its construction away from public transport, yet the question there is if it is indeed sustainable to deter development in such areas. Furthermore, perhaps the water section deserves a higher rating considering “there is also an energy component in storing and transporting it” and that fresh water is ultimately our most valuable resource, threatened by global warming and unprecedented population growth. (Peter S. Smith, Architecture in a Climate of Change: A Guide to Sustainable Design (Architectural Press, 2005) p.115)

Where non-hazardous construction waste generated by the building’s development meets or exceeds the resource efficiency benchmark required to achieve three credits (as outlined in the guidance).

Innovation

Wst 1 Construction Site Waste Management

Where at least 90% by weight (80% by volume) of non-hazardous construction waste and 95% of demolition waste by weight (85% by volume) (if applicable) generated by the build has been diverted from landfill and either: a. Reused on site (in-situ or for new applications) b. Reused on other sites c. Salvaged/reclaimed for reuse d. Returned to the supplier via a ‘take-back’ scheme e. Recovered from site by an approved waste management contractor and recycled.

1

0

0.00

2

0

0.00

Where all key waste groups are identified for diversion from landfill at preconstruction stage SWMP.

Innovation - BREEAM Accredited Professional Innovation BREEAM Accredited Professional

Up to two credits are available for the comprehensive use of a BREEAM Accredited Professional (AP) throughout project work stages.

Indicative Innovation (weighted) Section Score

1.00%

Having scored quite low in the materials, energy and waste categories, I feel as though the assessment may still be slightly too kind to rate the project as being ‘very good,’ since in my opinion we should be working towards the majority of the factors tested for becoming common practice in the U.K.

The simplicity of the building and its elements means that there is a great reduction in materials when compared to a building of the same scale built on conventional levels. The simplicity also means that changes can easily be made in the future, in the ground floor hall in particular where light-weight partitions create all the room’s spaces. This space can ultimately bed used for a variety of functions and the building as a whole could operate as an auditorium and exhibition space with any theme. There is an opportunity for sourcing reclaimed metal elements for the construction of the auditorium, especially due to the huge steel-manufacturing history of Middle haven. This would also represent a material of cultural and environmental value. I have decided upon using Insulated Concrete Formwork for the concrete construction due to its incredibly high green guide rating of A+. With a U value of 0.15 W/ m2k this represents an extremely valuable material that has little to non Eco toxicity and can recycled. The use of large voids such as in the curtain wall walkways element would encourage stack ventilation and the concrete floors and walls on the south side of the building would act as thermal masses to collect solar energy in winter. Copyright of BRE Global Ltd

29/01/2012


39


September 2011 ARC_3001

MIDDLESBROUGH FILM ARCHIVE

Stude n t ID : A 915 6 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


S ec t io n A- 1 :1 0 0 43


B

B

4

3

2

1

A

A

0

-1

Floor Plans 1:400 45


En trance pe rspe c ti ve

Justin Moorton Portfolio

Contents

C onc e p t I ma ge

Site Plan 1:500

47


49


51


53


Ga ller y per s pecti ve

55


(Right )- Co mp eti ti on Boar d


IdentIty

al

WC

iv id u

E

SE RV IC

CI RC

en re

Sc

+ n

In d

pt io ce

Re

PROGRAMMING: SOUTH PERSPECTIVE Viewing

AUDITORIUM

Office/Meeting

Video Editing GALLERY SPACE

AR

CH

IV E

ST OR AG

E

Of

f ic

e

in g

UL AT

IO N

Middlesbrough Film Archive

CAFE

Plant Room

Kitchen

Group Screening BYPASS/ENTRANCE

ENVELOPE MATERIALITY

MASSING + ZONING

PROGRAMMING: NORTH PERSPECTIVE

Where alchemists Were born Below Cleveland's hills A giant blue dragonfly Across the Tees Reminds us every night We built the world, Every metropolis Came from Ironopolis

PERSPECTIVE: NORTH-WEST

ELEVATION: NORTH

PERSPECTIVE: STATION PLATFORM

Ironopolis - Ian Horn

Justin Moorton

Competition Board

57 CONTEXTUAL MODEL


September 2011 ARC_3001

Charette Project

Stude n t ID : A 915 6 0 6 7

J

u

s

t

i

n

M

o

o

r

t

o

n


61


63


65


67

BA Architectural Studies Part 1 Portfolio  

Academic portfolio comprising work completed at Newcastle University.