'Testing Ground' Live Build Project - Welcome Point

TESTING GROUND 2017 WELCOME POINT // Stage 6 Linked Research Submission

2

3

4

THEWelcome NATURE OF LIVE BUILD Point NCL S tude nts

Ro

Sup plie rs

So

ph

ie

Cob

ley

Grah

Fa am

er

rm

ll Cove lstov m Ho Arte

Pam

NCL

Internal Seating + Wooden Facade

Design Team Meetings Diagram: A representation of each meeting we have attended with the wider design team members.

NCL

Ja Mi m gh es ton La glis Pro th hW am du oo cts dlan Ltd ds Tim Mat thew be r Char lton Joist Hang ers Jew sons Screw Fix

bbie Evan Alex s Ba ldw Ulw in-C in Bee ole tha m

Sam Halliday

Kathleen

Su pp lie rs

eDecks

RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX DIAGRAM

Matthew Westgat e Lauren ce As hley Fishe r

arkets Superm Metal Laser Acorn td oL &C hern line Sout s On d em s Lt Syst ild nage Ch rd ua tin feg Mar Sa

Drai

En

MH

Robert Dunca

External Consultants - NCL

n

External Consultants

Live Build An alternative approach to architectural research.

Jenkins

NCL Stu den ts

Kat ie

01

Roofing Superstore

Peter Sharpe

Hugh Miller

Dailey Joanna

Jane

rso n

Ltd ter Wa an bri um rth No

Pud

ne y

t

p.12 & 13

n so ttin Pa rs ge Ro drew An on Ralst Ben yers k Sa Jac

Ltd ter Wa an bri um rth No

land Wildlife Trust Northumber

berland Wildlife Trust Northum

Macle nnan

ter

Forestr y

Comm ission

Inte rpr eta ti

UK

Alex

art

et er Ev

Pe

Duncan Hutt

Forest ry Co mmi ssio n

L

ve

Inte rpr eta tiv eC on su lta nt s

02

Kelly Hollings

Mar cu s By Yv onn ron eC onc hie

Stu

an Dan Chapm

p. 06-11

ner

Cook

Ande

Livin gW ild

- NW tants nsul al Co ern Ext

Katy

ibble e Gr Dav on Davis rtin on Ma bins Ro on Ian as kM Nic

tt Sco

nts ulta ons al C ern Ext

Lynn Tur

arsh

Visit Kield er

dm Rob Hin

THE PROJECT & OUTPUT

Panoramic Visual

The Project: “Introduction & Live Projects”

The Output: “The 3 Structures”

p. 16-19

p. 14-15

Circular Bench

Tables + Shelves

Existing Signpost

Panoramic Visual Site Plan

Internal Visual

03

The key concept driver for this proposal evolved around the idea of wrapping, with one of the existing pine trees acting as the main focal point for the design. A series of wooden slats are vertically stacked upon one another to eventually create a sheltered canopy overhead that provides adequate cover for informal gatherings. These wooden slats also offer integrated benches and tables allowing for the use of a cohesive single material throughout. The external façade of the screening has an alternating warped geometric façade that is inspired from the scales of the pine cones that are present on site.

Design Concept

STRATEGIC DESIGN

Declaration & Brief Research of Context

Masterplan

Site Strategy

Concept & Pragmatics

p.20-23 p.24-25 p.26-27 p.28-29

p.30-33

Design Presentation: Strategic Design culminated to a final DTM meeting with client where we presented ideas to be discussed and decided upon. p. 34-35 NOTES

04

-Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning purposes.

-Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

A A

DEVELOPED DESIGN Design Development: “From Concept to Design”

p. 36-41 Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

Description

Revision Schedule

client

Planning Drawings & Approval KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUST

project

KIELDER BIRDHIDE KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESERVOIR

title

PROPOSED WELCOME POINT SITE PLAN

p. 42-45 drawing status scale

p. 41

PLANNING date

1:100 @ A2

drawn by

drawing number

checked by

MW A107

25/04/2016 revision

-

A A

Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

N C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK

T: +44 (0) 191 208 5831 F: +44 (0) 191 208 6115 E: APL@ncl.ac.uk

5

05

TECHNICAL DESIGN

Consultant Input

p.64-67

Sourcing Materials

p.68-71

Final Drawing Package p.72-79

p46-55 Developing the Detail

Reduction in Scale (Time Constraints) p. 80-83

p56-63 Prototyping

06

CONSTRUCTION

Site Set Out

Prefabrication

p.92-95

p.84-89 p.90-91 Sequence of Works

The Build p.96-105

07

COMPLETION

08

HANDOVER & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

p.106 Lessons Learnt

Final Images p.106-115

Project Programme p. 118-119 The Future Time Management Hygromorphics & p.116-117 Lessons Learnt A Critical Reflection p.120-123

The End....

6

INTRODUCTION

7

Chapter 01

The Nature of Live Build An Alternative Approach to Architectural Research.

“Live projects ...exist in complex, unpredictable spaces where skills of negotiation, fleetness of foot, resourcefulness, time management, and ability to deliver within (changing) constraints to a range of audiences are at stake and of value.”1

T

he work within this document reflects the live project research we have undertaken alongside Professor Graham Farmer. In the context of this project, the term ‘Live Build’ is not only associated with a change in architectural pedagogy, but also relating to a specific kind of research methodology. This methodology of ‘research by design’ becomes an important idea to discuss, challenging the thought that research in architecture is just “a structured investigation of which the goal is communicable knowledge” .2

he research through design within this project has come about through the process of a ‘Live Build’ —this live project has been undertaken by students of Newcastle University

T 1

Harriss,H. & Widder,L. (2014). Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Foreword.

2

Hauberg, J. n.5 (2011). Research by Design - a research strategy. Revista Lusófono de Architectura e Educaçào - Architecture & Education Journal.

and an external collaboration with Northumbrian Water and Kielder Art and Architecture for mutual benefit. The process involves negotiating a brief, client, budget, realistic timescale, and product.3 In the current architectural system, students often have very little or no experience working with clients, contractors or directly in the construction process until post graduation. In order to overcome the lack of experience with regard to the gap between education and practice, the architectural educational system has introduced live projects.

L

ive projects are often taught away from core design studio modules4, since the focus of these projects refers to the ‘...engagement of real clients or users, in real-time settings.5’ The unpredictable nature of the live project is a key aspect of the process; students have to grapple with complexities, adapt to overcome ‘real life’ problems and create solutions. It has been said that ‘Live projects exist between the two tectonic plates of learning in academia and in practice.’6 Change in pedagogy of architecture allows for this opportunity to experience the inevitably unpredictable 3

Anderson, J. and Priest, C., 2012. Developing a liveprojects network and exible methodology for live projects. In: Architecture Live Projects Pedagogy International Symposium 2012. Oxford Brookes University, 24-26 May 2012.

4 Harriss,H. & Widder,L. (2014). Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Foreword.

5 Sara, R. (2006). Live Project Good Practice: A Guide for the Implementation of Live Projects. Available: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/ les/Brie ngGuide_08.pdf. Last accessed 16th Jan 2015.

6 Harriss,H. & Widder,L. (2014). Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Foreword.

8

“The Live Build project provides the ‘value’ of the ‘real world’ experience, with multiple actual variables: the brief, the concept, client meetings, planning authorities, budgeting, suppliers, lead times, health and safety, design for access, consultants, detailing, tender, construction and hand over.”

nature of the “real world”. Although live projects seek to solve problems that arise through the design and construction process, we will use this process as a research methodology to provoke further questions and inspire further research.

‘Often, the research process starts with a research question, passes through a methodological reasoning and then arrives at a new, true or possible answer or solution. Research by design suggests a practice somewhat in the opposite direction where research may arise from design from the proposal, model or experiment to the generalisation and rationalisation by consciously extracting rules about the object of the research process - nomothetic research.’1

A

lthough as a group we have all only previously used conventional architectural research methods ranging between the sciences and humanities, our research work over this module focuses on a research through design methodology. Scientific research seeks to provide quantifiable explanations with definite knowledge, which can be observed, tested and proven correct,2 alternatively humanities are concerned with exploring research questions pertaining to mankind, based on generally acknowledged arguments and writings, theories and philosophies.3 It is important to understand that as researchers of architecture 1

Harriss,H. & Widder,L. (2014). Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Foreword.

2 Ibid.

3 Archer, B.(1995, January). The nature of research. Co-design, Interdisciplinary Journal of Design.

we position ourselves between humanities and sciences, as both form integral parts of our work; our own advancement of architecture is linked to the acquirement of knowledge through research and these varied research contexts allow us to interrogate and develop4. Although research in architecture is part of humanities and science research methodologies, Jørgen Hauberg argues the most important way in which the architect achieves new cognition is through work with form and space - drawings, models and completed works.’5 It can be extended to say that architectural works, products, structures and buildings are evidence in the architectural cognition. Architectural knowledge lies to some extent in the building, but also, elsewhere, in its representation, theories and philosophies, processes of sketching, designing and building.

Therefore, the boundaries of architectural research should also expand beyond the final product.

R

Research by Material

esearch by design is inevitably ‘bound to materials … Knowing materiality and context of the place is necessary to build.’6 Therefore this research differs from previous research methodologies, since it is naturally concentrated around material or manufacturing experimentation.

4

Till, J. (Date unknown - late 2000s). Architectural Research: three Myths and One Model. RIBA Research Committee.. www.architecture.com/files/ ribaprofessionalservices/researchanddevelopment/whatisarchitecturalresearch.pdf 5 Hauberg, J. n.5 (2011). Research by Design - a research strategy. Revista Lusófono de Architectura e Educaçào - Architecture & Education Journal.

6 .Ibid

9

DTM 1

DTM 2

01.02.2016

12.07.2016

15

1

11

1

14

13

9

2

4

8

3

2

4

3

5

DTM 3

DTM 4

15.09.2016

13

30.09.2016

16 1

1

12

11

12

13

7

3

11

10

2

2

4 5

3

7

6

4

6

5

DTM 5

DTM 6

11.11.2016

10.01.2017

13

13

1

15

1

11

12

12

2 2

10

4

11

5 4

5

7

8

∆ Topic Breakdown diagram for each Design Team Meeting attended

7

8

9

10

10

Hauberg states: ‘Architecture is in the most fundamental way about how ideas are embodied. This inherent focus on the material and the practice of making permeates architectural thinking, its concepts and its language.’1 In relation to the live project we have undertaken, our interaction with materials, has become the crux of the process, in particular our work with hygromorphics and timber. We are breaking the traditional boundaries of labour, not only undertaking a process of research by design, but also research through production. In line with Hauberg’s ideas, this research method will propose work between architectural practice and research process and methodology, since both can fundamentally be said to consist of the following elements within our process (originally outlined by Hauberg):2 Basic perceptions: As previously stated, we have looked at other research methodologies to place our research within the context of wider architectural academic work. It is important that we read around the most recent articles of hygromorphic research as well as researching the material in order to understand and build on existing theoretical and practical work. This research process will provoke discussion and in part become advocated for further research, potentially surrounding the changing pedagogy of architecture.

Subsequent rationalisation: Through research by design, research by material and testing in practice, we will subsequently deduce a series of arguments, research topics and theoretical explanations pertaining to the process work.

Communication: The material will be presented in the form of a research document accompanied by an extensive appendix. This will show the relation of our process with the research methodology in a consistent, reasoned and evidential manner. 3

T

o conclude our architectural design process will take a path through research with new methodologies, practices and products. This research through design will allow further research to arise from the design process.’4 With these methodologies in mind, we seek a different architectural pedagogy in the educational system through the introduction and integration of live projects. We believe these projects rethink, interrogate and research the gap between education and practice, and challenge the current academic perceptions of research.

Investigation: Our live build process will provide the testing ground for our investigation and critical analysis of the design, construction method, materials used and the local environment. We will use a research by design methodology in order to probe for new questions at the end of the process and raise further investigative topics for future research.

Programme: We will work within and understand the various stages of the RIBA Plan of Work (2013), and aim to quantify the knowledge gained from the process assignment. We aim to solve the briefs with the intention of strategically researching through the programme procedure. We aim to complete this research by the end of the 2017.

Proposals - (product) development work: We will design and construct spatial proposals to various briefs. This experience will provide research independent of our analysis.

1 2

Hauberg, J. n.5 (2011). Research by Design - a research strategy. Revista Lusófono de Architectura e Educaçào - Architecture & Education Journal.

Hauberg, J. n.5 (2011). Research by Design - a research strategy. Revista Lusófono de Architectura e Educaçào - Architecture & Education Journal.

3

Hauberg, J. n.5 (2011). Research by Design - a research strategy. Revista Lusófono de Architectura e Educaçào - Architecture & Education Journal.

4 Ibid.

11

∆ We heavily documented & communicated our Live Build Project, recording all our learning & project milestones.

12

Su pp lie rs

rkets

aser

L Co

eDecks

erma l Sup

rn L Aco

& ern

nlin

td

O ms

e

sL

Sup plie rs

td

ard gu

es La nP th sh rod am Wo uc od t sL lan td ds Tim Ma tth be ew r Cha rlto n Jois t Ha nge rs Jew sons Screw Fix

gli

e yst

ild Ch

Ja m

fe Sa

gh to

th Sou

eS

rtin Ma

Mi

Meta

MH

nag

i Dra

En

RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX DIAGRAM

Robert D uncan

RooďŹ ng Superstore

Joanna

- NW tants nsul o C l a ern Ext

L

arsh indm

ldlife Trust

Alex Mac len

ildlife Trust

For e s t r y Comm ission

UK

Ma

ve

Yv on ne

Duncan Hutt

nan

rcu sB yro n Co nc hie

e ibbl e Gr v a D n iso Dav n i rt Ma so n bin o R on Ian as M k Nic

In t e rpr eta ti

Forest ry C o m miss ion

Inte rpr e t ati ve C on su l t an ts

nts ulta s n l Co rna e t Ex

Rob H

Dailey

13

ew W estga te Laur ence A sh ley Kat ie F ishe r Ro bbi eE van Ale s xB ald Ul w wi innB Co le ee th am

Jenkins

Matth

Kathlee n

Sam Halliday

NCL Stu den ts

NCL S tude nts

So

ie ph

y b le o C

NCL

NCL

er arm F ham Gr a ell Cov m a P tov Hols m e Ar t

External Consultants

External Consultants - NCL

Peter Sharpe Hugh Miller

Lynn Tur

J an

ne r

C oo k

eA n de rso n

Livin gW ild

ot Sc

St ua rt

Visit Kield er

Katy

Ltd ter Wa an bri um rth No

tt re ve tE

ins att rP

on

e og wR

rs

Ltd ter Wa an bri um rth No

n

yers k Sa

an Dan Chapm

Kelly Hollings

sto R al

Jac

Ben

dre An

te Pe

Pu dn ey

∆ This diagram demonstrates the totality of communications across the wider design team Live Build .

The Live Build Team

land Northumber

berland W Northum

14

15

Chapter 02

THE PROJECT We took part in four live projects: two primer projects and two larger construction projects for the Linked Research module spanning two years of our Masters. These have required different sets of design and construction skills from the students taking part.

T

hese early engagements refined our ability to collaborate and build. They helped us to prepare for our three larger study projects:

∆

The Wildlife Hide was designed to replace an existing bird hide at Bakethin Reservoir at the northwest end of Kielder Reservoir. The sensitivity of its setting - much loved countryside - meant there was vital liaison and collaboration with a number of actors, notably Kielder Art and Architecture, the Forestry Commission and Northumbrian Water Limited all working for Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust. It is part of a larger scheme to reintroduce ospreys into the area through specific nesting sites.

Finally we also put through planning a third structure, View Point. Though due to time constraints we only achieved planning consent for the structure.

∆

O

ur second primer project was essentially small scale working alongside artists, furniture designers and curators at the MIMA Gallery in Middlesbrough. The work, entitled ‘Dis(Connect)’, used Stephanie Misa’s ‘Grandstand’ as a springboard for an exhibition.

The project revolved around the rewriting of the brief to contextualize the project and look at social identity within Middlesbrough.

Dis(Connect) is based around the idea of the congregation of various groups of people with differing identities. The modular design of the work encourages users to configure their own spaces and physically interact with the pieces overcoming social barriers whether cultural or language.

In addition to the hide, a new Welcome Point forming part of an overall Bakethin masterplan was to be located in the visitor car park. The project was curated in a way to attract both serious wildlife enthusiasts and general public.

The design incorporated original and emergent responsive hygromorphic material technologies.

The group had been in dialogue with PHD student & project structural engineer Artem Holstov of Newcastle University to exploit research developments in a real life architectural setting.

∆

T

he first primer for the module involved assisting previous stage six students in the construction of their project at Rochester, Northumberland. We were able to garner valuable information and understanding of the construction process on site. Seeing at close hand both its successes and failures, being able to analyse strengths and weaknesses, gave us an insight into our own project.

T

he module has brought us up close with the realities of turning design into construction.

We were dealing with a beautiful and protected site but one which is both rugged, remote and subject to extremes of weather. This creative process will give us a better understanding of the differences between design expectations and construction realities. We will be both designers and builders, disciplines often undertaken separately and rarely together. This opportunity enables us to gain valuable insight taking a project from conception to construction, an experience which should resonate for each one of us in future practice.

The Focus

This book focuses on the Welcome Point Structure. It showcases our journey through designing and building it. And reflects upon our trials, tribulations and realities having taking it from concept to hand over.

Note - A thorough compilation of all work is compiled within main Live Build Book.

16

The 3 Structures (Output) The following two spreads show our design boards for the all three structures. These were presented to the client & steering committee, before being taken through Planning.

Wildlife Hide

Welcome Point

he deviation in level of the existing bird hide offers an opportunity to create two pods with varying viewing options. The bird watching pod is positioned at a higher level approximately one metre above the ground; designed to be fully accessible. The geometric form of the pod allows for an angled view directed towards the ospreynesting pole. Other views are provided catering for all seasons, bird types and the contingency that the ospreys do not end up nesting in this location.

The reduced height creates a darker, more enclosed experience. Bird watching is a naturally horizontal viewing experience, so the viewing slots reflect this. Movable benches allow for flexible use of the space and disabled access. An important aspect we took from the existing bird hide is how the disabled/wheelchair position is only in one place, almost segregating or limiting the experience of the disabled user to one position. Therefore, we extended the length of horizontal viewing slots to make it fully accessible. We are looking to expose the internal geometric structure of roof to create a unique aesthetic. It is important to make each space an interesting experience even when there is no wildlife to see.

he key concept driver for this proposal evolved around the idea of wrapping, with one of the existing pine trees acting as the main focal point of the design. A series of wooden slats are vertically stacked upon one another to eventually create a sheltered canopy overhead that provides adequate cover for informal gatherings.

These wooden slats also offer integrated benches and tables allowing for the use of a cohesive single material throughout. The external facade of the screening has an alternating warped geometric facade that is inspired by the scale of pinecones that are present on the site.

T

T

Viewpoint

T

he origin of the design is based on the simple form of an equilateral triangle. We looked at how shifting the shapes by fixed amounts created a unique sculptural geometric pavilion. The sets of triangles are separated into three sections for ease of construction and to allow light into the pavilion structure. Internally it is sheltered from the wind and looks south along the lake. This would provide an alternative manner of displaying information that would not detract from the simple form of the triangles. Tiered set of seats are positioned symmetrically on either side of the structure following the rippling effect of the triangles. Seats face the lake and a sheltered set face the path. The seats are spring loaded like cinema or stadium seats. The underside can be used as individual display panels.

∆

he adjoining Forest pod would in positioned at ground level and would also be fully accessible. Influenced by the verticality of the forest, the internal space is taller allowing for extended vertical openings. These are intended to create specific views from the forest floor up into the canopy, changing how the users view/experience the landscape. Varied positions of windows cater for a mix of user groups from families to the professional.

By trimming back the lower branches of the existing views, we can break through into the forest allowing for increased opportunities to view undisturbed wildlife. We are currently researching responsive materials that react to the natural environment and how these can be integrated into wall panels or screening. Use of such innovative materials would make for an exciting experience for the users.

T

Image - Presentation Board for Welcome Point design, shown and discussed with client in early Design Team Meeting.

17

Welcome Point

Internal Seating + Wooden Facade

Panoramic Visual

Circular Bench

Tables + Shelves

Existing Signpost

Panoramic Visual Site Plan The key concept driver for this proposal evolved around the idea of wrapping, with one of the existing pine trees acting as the main focal point for the design. A series of wooden slats are vertically stacked upon one another to eventually create a sheltered canopy overhead that provides adequate cover for informal gatherings. These wooden slats also offer integrated benches and tables allowing for the use of a cohesive single material throughout. The external faรงade of the screening has an alternating warped geometric faรงade that is inspired from the scales of the pine cones that are present on site.

Internal Visual

Design Concept

18

19

20

“There is one timeless way of building. It is a thousand years old, and the same today as it has

ever been. The great traditional building of the past, the villages and tents and temples in which man feels at home have always been made by people who where very close to the center of this way�

- Christopher Alexander

RIBA STAGE

21

00 01 02

Chapter 03

STRATEGIC DESIGN: “Stage

0 is used to ensure that the client’s Business Case and the Strategic Brief have been properly considered before the Initial Project Brief is developed.”

Section Overview

W

e were introduced to the client to understand what they wanted from us as designers. We started to explore, strategize and discuss in pre-application and pre-concept discussions between ourselves and with Graham Farmer (Live Build tutor) and Peter Sharpe (Kielder Art and Architecture representative). The first primer for the module involved assisting the previous Stage Six students in the construction of their project at Rochester,

Northumberland. By getting involved in the construction process on site, we gathered invaluable information and understanding into the processes on site. Working alongside their team seeing the risks, opportunities and problems that arose.

Witnessing the successes and failures of their project, gave us an insight into the future of our own projects.

Learning and reflecting on our involvement allowed us to plan a strategy for the basic information we had on the client’s requirements.

22

Live Build -Initial Brief The proposed project involves the development of three structures: a Wildlife Hide, a Welcome Point and a View Point (later put on hold); at Bakethin Reservoir in Kielder National Park, Northumberland.

“This Linked Research project will give you the opportunity to participate in an ongoing programme of live build projects. The first ‘primer’ task is to design and construct a deployable “Grandstand’ to facilitate discussion and debate in various locations. You will work in collaboration with Vienna-based artist Stephanie Misa , the School of Fine Art and a range of local partners. The main project will be the design and construction of a bird hide at Kielder, Northumberland where you will work with a variety of organisations including the Kielder Art and Architecture programme. You will also collaborate with engineers and utilise innovative new hygromorphic materials. You will have the opportunity to produce the world’s first permanent building integrated demonstration of these technologies.”

- Graham Farmer, Director of Architecture at Newcastle University

23

24

Client, Brand “Kielder” & Wider Context Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust are engaging with the ‘bigger picture’.

Creating a programme of works which will add to the variety of core attractions at Kielder.

“Twenty pieces set across an area of sixteen square miles, making the Park the largest outdoor square to experience art in the UK” - www.visitkielder.com

T

each making their own mark on how we view and experience the landscape around us. The push from Kielder representatives to enhance the location’s identity for tourists is focused around a series of interventions that encourage the increase of visitor numbers. This allows us to place our approach within a functional as well as a diverse context, and makes for an exciting context to situate the design in.

∆

he unique collection of art and architecture around Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust has continued to expand over the last twenty years. All pieces have individually challenged and responded to the surrounding environment, with its diverse and captivating history.

The art and architecture programme, run by Kielder Art and Architecture, on the behalf of Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust have been responsible for putting together the abundance of contemporary art and architecture pieces which are dotted around the banks of Kielder water. The collection forms an inspiring context of diversity, offering us an opportunity to explore the diversity within our own brief, and in doing so strengthening the existing collection of art and architecture in Kielder. The diversity further strengthens Kielder as a tourist destination, not just a place for forest retreats, but an area of enchanting interventions,

Images - All highlighted projects within wider Kielder area (right) are mapped out on next spread.

25

55/02 sixteen* (makers), 2009

Belvedere, Softroom Architects, 1999

The structure’s name refers to the latitude and longitude of the site and highlights the importance of the building’s location to its design. Seating orientates visitors towards particular views of the wider lake and into smaller inlets nearby.

The shelter has been constructed from stainless steel that reflects the natural environment, causing the shelter to change its appearance in different weather conditions, at different times of the day, and as the seasons change.

Cat Cairn: The Kielder Skyspace,

Freya’s Cabin, Studio Weave, 2009

Cat Cairn: the Kielder Skyspace is a sculptural artwork located on a rocky outcrop overlooking Kielder Water and Forest Park by internationally renowned American artist James Turrell.

Freya’s Cabin is one of a pair of small buildings located on opposite sides of the Kielder reservoir that together tell the fairytale story of Freya & Robin.

Janus Chairs, Ryder Architects, 2009

Silvas Capitalis, SSIMPARCH, 2009

Based on the idea of flower petals in different stages of unfolding, the seats can be arranged to face each other, face the sun or the desired view, or turn their backs to inclement weather.

The head has been conceived as a watcher, an imagined presence who has observed the passing occupation of the landscape over past millennia.

James Turrell, 2000

26

Bakethin Masterplan TH SOU END

UT

SO

OTHER STRUCTURES PATHWAYS OUR STRUCTURES

H WA

Butteryhaugh Ca r Pa rk

E

SID

TER

NOTES

-Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning p -Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

Castle Hill Devil's Lapful Long Cairn

Butteryhaugh Bridge

Homestead

The Birches

Sh=

330mm

Sh=

90mm

Sh=

160mm

Sh=

190mm

Sh=

250mm

Sh=

200mm

Sh=

300mm

Sh=

230mm

Welcome Point

River North Tyne

ct Viadu d Woo

All

ery

Cle

ug

h

ct

du

Via Deadman

Cairn

Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

Descript

Quarry

Overlook

Revision Schedule

(disused)

client

KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TR

Bakethin Reservoir

Bird Hide

project

KIELDER BIRDHID KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESER

March Sike

Reservoir

title

(covered)

Hobbs Knowe

Enclosure

LOCATION PLAN

drawing status

Sturdy Brae

PLANNING

Plantation

Lak

scale

esid

eW

ay

La

ke

(Pa

th)

1:5000 @ A2

drawn by

sid

eW

ay

(P

date

12/

checked by

RE

drawing number

ath

)

A101 FB

Ne

196m

Sc Pla

N C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

Weir

Ne NE UK

197m

T: F:

urn

B on

E:

p

Ca

Capon Holes

Bakethin Masterplan The structures will form part of a wider Bakethin Masterplan, from Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust and Kielder Art and Architecture. We were asked by the client to provide a coherent design package, which together would form a journey for visitors starting at the castle carpark and then heading towards Kielder lake. Thus, providing not just a bird watching experience but instead aim to meet the needs of many and reinforce the Kielder brand.

Reservoir (covered)

VISUAL LINK PATH

210

Homestead

5 19

215

5 20

195

d ntle ma Dis

190

190

200

235

Sewage Works

250

The Birches

240

∆

230

200

∆

205

225

CARPARK (START)

185

SITE MASTERPLAN

27

Butteryhaugh Bridge

220

225

205

185

190

210

245

ay

ilw

Ra 255

5

18

200

195

0

24

duc

230

Via t

0

25

235

215 190

195

190

205

185 20 0

185

200

190

195 18 5

190

195

Bakethin Reservoir

200

∆

∆

205

∆

210

WILDLIFE HIDE

WELCOME POINT

VIEW POINT

FB

0

0

5

22

21

19

28

Initial Site Visit & Survey There were a series of initial site visits, throughout differing stages leading up to the planning submission. One of the intitial visits was for site surveying.

T

he first site visit involved the whole group, this was important in order for us all to gain a larger perspective on the area, thus informing a richer group perspective of site and richer designs. We first travelled to the three specific sites, as well as other completed installations dotted around the lake, this gave us an understanding of the wider Kielder Architecture package. Following this we then drove up to the tallest hill which surrounded Kielder lake. This gave us an obvious broader understanding of the lake and surrounding area, as well as atmosphere, but also how the project situated itself into this Northumberland landscape and other key Kielder locations.

This was a sharp learning experience as many the team had very little if not no previous experience of undertaking surveys. Appropriate equipment was taken, such as: level poles, laser triangulation measurer, measuring tapes, and string. Following the successful recording of all three sites, naturally the challenge then became the process of translation from site annotations into drawings, some of which were undecipherable, due to realities of site (mud) and quick fired annotations. This meant that we had to return to the sites, due to some discrepancies with information, and at some points in the annotation information was missing or not taken down accurately.

L

ater site visits were conducted to survey and photograph all three sites to a greater level than had been achieved before. Marking up of trees as well of tree trunk positions was an obvious task for the Welcome Point, as the structure was intended to wrap around the forest landscape.

∆ The WP site was covered with forest brash, this made it very tricky to record thorough site measurements.

The site surveys allowed us to record topographical variations as well as tree locations & Diameters.

29

30

Concept & Schematics A. Concentration of horizontality within the vertical environment of the coniferous Kielder forest.

B. The pine cone; the form of the forest , its human scaled product.

(B)

(A)

31

(A) SLEEPING CONE

(B) AWAKENED CONE

(C) VERTICAL FOREST

(D) FALLEN CONE

(E) OPEN CONE

(F) HORIZONTAL NODE

The Welcome Point sits within a Coniferous Forest, where pine cones dominate the forest floor. We want to create a gathering space nestled within this endless vertical forest. We want to use the pine cones form as a reference, its horizontal nature when “awakened� to create a horizontally composed structure. This juxtaposes the surrounding verticality of the forest, thus intending to create a space to gather, reflect and learn, and importantly to be welcomed.

32

Welcome Point (Pragmatics) T

he Welcome Point is sited within the centre of the car park between Kielder Castle and Kielder lake at the beginning of many visitor’s journeys around the Kielder area. The client requested a partially sheltered information point which was fully accessible to all visitors. The structure will act as an informal meeting point, where visitors can take ‘10 minutes’ whilst being able to access information, including directions towards the bird hide and other destinations within the area.

Seating has been integrated into the design where users can stop to rest, wait for friends and eat their

lunch. The structure wraps around one of the existing pine trees, putting Kielder forest itself at the centre of the design. The intention was for a “light touch” structure, therefore causing minimal disruption to the ground and existing trees, an aesthetic but practical objective. The structure consists of spaced horizontal timber members that are intended to visually break down the verticality of the forest.

The design also houses information about emergent and responsive hygromorphic materials technology, which are also intended to be installed within the Wildlife Hide.

33

Welcome Point

Internal Seating + Wooden Facade

Panoramic Visual

Circular Bench

Tables + Shelves

Existing Signpost

Panoramic Visual Site Plan The key concept driver for this proposal evolved around the idea of wrapping, with one of the existing pine trees acting as the main focal point for the design. A series of wooden slats are vertically stacked upon one another to eventually create a sheltered canopy overhead that provides adequate cover for informal gatherings. These wooden slats also offer integrated benches and tables allowing for the use of a cohesive single material throughout. The external faรงade of the screening has an alternating warped geometric faรงade that is inspired from the scales of the pine cones that are present on site.

Internal Visual

Design Concept

34

Design Presentation On the 14th March 2016 we attended a design meeting at the Northumbrian Water head quarters in Horsley, Northumberland. In our three separately themed groups we presented our Wildlife Hide, Welcome Point and View point designs to a mixed panel of clients.

Images Show - Second Design team Meeting where we presented three design options to the Living Wild Steering Group to select from.

35

RIBA STAGE

36

03

Chapter 04

DEVELOPED DESIGN: “During this

stage, the Concept Design is further developed and, crucially, the design work of the core designers is progressed until the spatial coordination exercises have been completed. This process may require a number of iterations of the design and different tools may be used, including design workshops.�

Section Overview

P

roposals were coordinated and updated with a number of drawing revisions issued to both client and consultants.

For confirmation of the money from the Heritage Lottery Fund bid required a substantial package including cost plan, drawings and gantt chart, to a certain level of detail that would not normally have

occurred so early on. Health and Safety documentation was started at this stage (over the summer period between stages 5 and 6) with helpful advice provided by Peter Sharpe and Scott Everett (NWL).

The planning application for the three projects was submitted 14th June 2016, validated 11th July 2016 and planning approval received on 20th September 2016.

37

DTM 4

Stage

30.09.2016

13

3

1

12

3

11

2

6

7 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

4

Meeting Agendas

Attendees Graham Farmer Kathleen Jenkins Sam Halliday Matthew Westgate Robbie Evans Laurence Ashley Sophie Cobley Katie Fisher Alex Baldwin-Cole Ulwin Beetham

Wildlife Hide Welcome Point Viewpoint Project Timetable Health & Safety Executive/Construction Design & Management Disability Discrimination Act Groundworks Planning Miscellaneous/Administration Interpretative Design Estates Costing/Supplies/Procurement Technologies/Hygromorphs Kielder Experience/Relationship/Authenticity Ecology Heritage Lottery Fund

Lynn Turner Katy Cook Jane Anderson

Dan Chapman Kelly Hollings Joanna Dailey

Stuart Pudney Scott Everett Peter Pattinson Andrew Rogers Jack Sayers

Peter Sharpe Nick Mason Yvonne Conchie Ian Robinson

Mapping time spent on WP at Meetings

Due to the tight nature of the project, we had to concentrate on design development, as well as starting a conversation with Northumbrian Water Ltd regarding the commencement of tendering for groundworks. This was confirmed to be split into two parts, pre-construction and

pathways. The second groundworks tender process would be scheduled on the project timetable for January 2017. This put a real “Live Build� pressure upon us, to develop the concept for client and planning purposes whilst also scheduling a plan and time frame for ground work contractors.

38

Design Development During the design development process (Pre-Planning) we continued to arrange meetings with the client body to present and reflect on the developments taking place across the entire drawing package.

Internal Visual

The key concept driver for this propos as the main focal point for the design. A a sheltered canopy overhead that provid benches and tables allowing for the us has an alternating warped geometric fa

Panoramic Visual Panoramic Visual NOTES -Do not scale from this -Check all dimensions o -Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspecti -Site boundary lines are

Circles indicate position of trees

Dashed line indicated estimated tree canopy

Stone filled gabion baskets with timber seat covering

Entr

ance from Car

park

ce from

Car

park

Entran

Metal bracket and tension rods fixed around tree trunk to partially support roof

Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

client

Vertical tension rods fixed into concrete pad foundations to support horizontal timber slats

KIEL FOR DEV project

KIEL KIEL BAK

title

PRO POI Entrance from Pathway leading to Bird Hide

drawing status

Internal Seating + Wooden Facade

scale

PLA

1:100 @ A

drawn by

MW

drawing number

N C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESE

Welcome Point 39

40

41

From Concept to Design

T

he last two spreads attempt to illustrate the iterative concept development processes that took place, using extracts from our own sketches and diagrams.

If you compare the final image on the previous spread (visual) to the final image on this spread (visual), you can start to see how we began to develop this cone like form. The rendered image on the previous page was initially much more literal with its reference to the forest cone and as we started to work up the design on site we wanted to crucially still maintain that conceptual essence but by being more clever and subtle in its reference and form.

42

Planning Submission P

D

ue to the location of each of the proposed structures being in Bakethin Nature Reserve the planning departments ecological consultant requested an Ecological Report be produced in support of the application. The report detailed the local habitats and species around the site and how to manage this when construction began

∆

lanning approval is arguably the most important step of the ‘live build’ process.

Without approval from the local Planning Authority, in this case Northumberland County Council, the project ceases to exist. Due to the size of the project there is a statutory approval period of eight to thirteen weeks, in which the project can either be accepted or rejected. The planning application was submitted to include all three planned structures (Wildlife Hide, Welcome Point, and Viewpoint) located around the Bakethin Reservoir, rather than three separate applications

Image on Right - Drawings put together for the planning application of the Welcome Point.

43

NOTES -Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning purposes.

-Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

Sh=

200

mm

Sh=

mm 300

Sh=

230

mm

Site Boundary

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

mm

Sh=

mm 250

Rev

Description

Sh=

190

Revision Schedule client

90m

m

Sh=

160

mm

KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUST

Sh=

project

KIELDER BIRDHIDE KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESERVOIR title

Sh=

330

mm

WELCOME POINT SITE PLAN drawing status

PLANNING scale

date

1:100 @ A2

drawn by

18/04/2016

checked by

RE

-

drawing number

revision

A103

-

Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

N

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK

C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

T: +44 (0) 191 208 5831 F: +44 (0) 191 208 6115 E: APL@ncl.ac.uk

“The design is organic, looks very appropriate to place and forms a definite point of welcome... The proposal creates a interesting spot for people to perch, congregate and learn about the forest. ” - Comments from Living Wild Steering Group

NOTES -Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning purposes.

-Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

A A

Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

Description

Revision Schedule client

KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUST project

KIELDER BIRDHIDE KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESERVOIR

title

PROPOSED WELCOME POINT SITE PLAN drawing status scale

PLANNING date

1:100 @ A2

drawn by drawing number

checked by

MW A107

25/04/2016 revision

-

A A

Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

N C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK

T: +44 (0) 191 208 5831 F: +44 (0) 191 208 6115 E: APL@ncl.ac.uk

44

NOTES -Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning purposes.

-Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

Description

Revision Schedule client

KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUST project

KIELDER BIRDHIDE KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESERVOIR

title

PROPOSED WELCOME POINT ELEVATION drawing status Metal bracket and tension rods fixed around tree trunk to partially support roof

Information Panels attached onto / within timber slats

Vertical tension rods fixed into concrete pad foundations to support horizontal timber slats

scale

PLANNING date

1:50 @ A2

drawn by

25/04/2016

checked by

MW

drawing number

revision

-

3224 3002

A204

Newcastle University Stone filled gabion baskets with timber seat covering

520

School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK

C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

10896

T: +44 (0) 191 208 5831 F: +44 (0) 191 208 6115

Elevation A-A

E: APL@ncl.ac.uk

“I think its shape being influenced by a cone (something you see everywhere here) is strong, having it wrapped around a central tree, creating a central focus makes it powerfully symbolic” - Comments from Living Wild Steering Group

NOTES -Do not scale from this drawing, except for planning purposes.

-Check all dimensions on site.

-Subject to survey.

-Subject to site inspection.

-Site boundary lines are indicative only.

Rev

xx.xx.xx Date

xx By

Description

Revision Schedule client

KIELDER WATER & FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUST

project

KIELDER BIRDHIDE KIELDER FOREST BAKETHIN RESERVOIR title

PROPOSED WELCOME POINT SECTION Information Panels attached onto / within timber slats

Timber slats to form integrated table

Timber slats to form integrated seating

drawing status

Vertical tension rods fixed into concrete pad foundations to support horizontal timber slats

PLANNING scale

date

1:50 @ A2

drawn by

checked by

MW

drawing number

2480

3224 3002

25/04/2016 revision

A304

-

Newcastle University

Stone filled gabion baskets with timber seat covering

520

558

1130

School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape C:\Users\Robbie\Documents\UNI YEAR 5\DESIGN\LINKED RESEARCH\Newcastle-University logo.jpg

10723

Section A-A

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK

T: +44 (0) 191 208 5831 F: +44 (0) 191 208 6115 E: APL@ncl.ac.uk

45

Mr Robbie Evans Newcastle University 11 Benacre Road Ipswich IP3 9LE Suffolk

Our Ref: 16/02035/FUL Your Ref: Contact: Miss Rachael Watts Direct Line: 01670 623879 E-Mail: rachael.watts@northumberland.gov.uk Date: 20th September 2016

Dear Sir/Madam, Application to Northumberland County Council – Development Management I refer to your application to the above unit and enclose your approval certificate. This is an important legal document that may need to be produced, for example, if you decide to sell your property. It should therefore be safely stored.

Most approvals are subject to conditions and these are listed on the second page of the certificate.

These form part of your permission and must be adhered to. Non-compliance could result in the Council taking Enforcement Action. Some conditions may require additional information to be submitted to this unit prior to the starting of any works, whilst others are ongoing, either just during the construction period and others for the life of the development. If you are uncertain about any of the conditions attached to your permission, please contact the Planning Case Officer whose details appear at the top of this page. Under the Fees for Applications Regulations 2012, there is a standard fee of £97 per request to have conditions discharged. This is reduced to £28 for Householder applications.

If you consider that you are unable to comply with any of the conditions, you do have a right to apply to the Council to have a condition removed or varied. This has to be in the form of a variation application. Alternatively you do have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (see information on reverse of certificate). In either of these circumstances, you are advised to contact the Planning Case Officer first.

Most building work will require Building Regulations approval. If you have not already applied for this, you should contact your area Building Control office at either Alnwick, Hexham or Morpeth (telephone 01670 623838, 01670 623820 or 01670 623728/724 or e mail buildingcontrol@northumberland.gov.uk.

Finally, it would be helpful for record keeping purposes, if you could inform the planning unit prior to starting the building or other works, contact information is detailed at the top of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

∆

Image Above - Planning Permission Letter for 3 proposed structures, Kielder, Northumberland County , England, UK.

RIBA STAGE

46

04

Chapter 05

TECHNICAL DESIGN : “ The

architectural, building services and structural engineering designs are now further refined to provide technical definition of the project and the design work of specialist subcontractors is developed and concluded.�

Section Overview The technical design process started in late August 2016; the general arrangement drawings were set out, with grids and dimensions. All layers of construction were provisionally set out, This is where discrepancies and design issues in detail could be worked out. A strategy for the construction was detailed further, including a sequence of works with more accurate timings and lead times. Health and

safety documents (PreConstruction Phase Plan, Construction Phase Plan, Heath & Safety File, and Risk Assessments/Method Statements) were completed, proofed, revised and resubmitted to the Health & Safety Executive. With approval of the documents, we received a permit to work from NWL Leaplish Headquarters. The technical design process overlapped in the (05) construction phase.

47

DTM 5

Stage

11.11.2016

13

4

12

1

2

4

11

5

7

10 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

9

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

8

Meeting Agendas

Attendees Graham Farmer Kathleen Jenkins Sam Halliday Matthew Westgate Robbie Evans Laurence Ashley Sophie Cobley Katie Fisher Alex Baldwin-Cole Ulwin Beetham

Wildlife Hide Welcome Point Viewpoint Project Timetable Health & Safety Executive/Construction Design & Management Disability Discrimination Act Groundworks Planning Miscellaneous/Administration Interpretative Design Estates Costing/Supplies/Procurement Technologies/Hygromorphs Kielder Experience/Relationship/Authenticity Ecology Heritage Lottery Fund

Lynn Turner Katy Cook Jane Anderson

Dan Chapman Kelly Hollings Joanna Dailey

Stuart Pudney Scott Everett Peter Pattinson Andrew Rogers Jack Sayers

Peter Sharpe Nick Mason Yvonne Conchie Ian Robinson

Mapping time spent on WP at Meetings

It was agreed that an availability form would be produced for Dan Chapman (estates manager) to identify when volunteers would be required.

He would also prepare suitable signage for the part closure of the Welcome Point car park. A list was produced by Newcastle University students

which identified suppliers to be added onto the Northumberland County Council list by Jane Anderson. Northumbrian Water Ltd would require students to obtain evidence of FSC certification from the suppliers mentioned.

48

Technical

A

The Art of Compromise.

Investigating the restraints, strategies, specifications and regulations that influenced the technical design development of a single wall section detail in the Welcome Point. This highlights the significance of research in architecture compared to the norm.

T

Introduction

he technical development of the Welcome Point challenged us to balance the vastly different priorities of the various project stakeholders. In addition to this, we also needed to ensure that the final design could be realised using the facilities available to us in the university workshop within the time frame and budget given. Some of the key issues we had to consider, as we developed the detailed design and associated specification, included adhering to DDA accessibility requirements and CDM Regulations (2015) under the Health and Safety Executive.

CDM Regulations Under this regulation we avoided singling out those with additional needs. This need for accessibility without differentiation was an integral part of the design process. It was important that the welcome point would accommodate a variety of user types visiting Kielder, including children and adults, elderly people and disabled users, after all it was always intended to be an initial gathering space for all to learn and talk before exploring the forest and its pathways.

∆ Image - WP Drawings with technical comments added on top, developing the design of structure.

49

Design:

Balancing Act

50

Developing the Detail From Sketch to Drawing Package - An Iterative & Remote Process

Following the successful planning application, myself along with another member of the Live Build team were assigned the task of producing the technical drawing information for the Welcome Point. This was a tricky period; as we had recently broken up from university for the summer, a reality that gave us a taste of remote team working.

A process which involved firstly an identification of what information needed to be produced.

∆

∆

Images - Extracts of our initial detail development following successful Planning Application.

Following that, a constant back and forth of editing and commenting on drawing information between myself and the other person took place.

This iterative process inevitably forced changes to the design, this was particularly the case with this structure due to its repeating form.

The next couple of spreads show extracts of those drawings and comments hopefully reflecting our development from concept to drawing package.

51

52

∆

∆

Images - Extracts of our developing drawing package. Identifying key details and working into those.

53

54

∆

∆

Images - Extracts showing our finalising and finessing of the developing building information package.

55

56

Prototyping Welcome Point (Key Details A & B)

Process leading up to Workshop - Practice

T

oo often my experience of detailing in practice has seen the detail and tolerance designed out by external design consultants and manufacture professionals, with our function reduced to the supplying of the structural opening.

I argue that in being comfortable in that condition we lose something in that process as an architect, we lose that sense of control over the detail process, a technical way of working. It leaves a natural worry or apprehension, when we get to RIBA 05 stage, a stage of production; specifications drawings, design details, etc. all at once. This is compounded by the nature of our project being live and a self-build, naturally inducing a sense of apprehension ad anticipation for its construction.

Detail Design - Build Realisation

W

ith regards to the Welcome Point, the early technical detailing was done without any resultant knowledge relating to the self-buildability or cost of the proposed details and the restrictions and limitations that places upon the scheme. This formed an overly extensive iterative process, combined with value engineering at the detailed design stage. One example that reflects this well, is a change and redesign from the metal flanged wall spacers originally in the specification (drawing numbers 007 & 011). This early detail disregarded our in-experience with complex construction in a self-build, live project with no professional sub-

contractor or consultant to cover the specialist detailing for us. Through experiencing this process, we recognised that skills, cost and time, are vital to map against detailing strategies, thus extensive research lead to a material change for the spacers to timber, marine ply (drawing numbers 007B & 011A).

Prototyping ‘Research by Design’

W

e were given the opportunity to work with a furniture designer Hugh Miller, a talented former pupil of Newcastle University, who now runs his own workshop in Liverpool. Before the day of the workshop we identified a location of the structure in which we could prototype at 1:1 scale. The intention was to model a moment in the structure that gave us the opportunity to explore a range of connections and test the rigour of our latest detailed design package.

We selected a seat-wall-floor junction, as it allowed us to explore the typical lap joint details that form the horizontal language of the walls. As well as offering us a chance to explore possible ways to support the bench element itself, through the wall structure.

This design methodology, of ‘researching through making’ involved problem solving responsiveness leading to subsequent changes. We went into the day with the intention to build our details from the drawings, but with an openness to research through making and potentially push on the design, resulting in crucial changes, a process that was vital to the detailing trajectory of the Welcome Point.

57

B

Critical Detail B: Integrated Roof

A

Critical Detail A: Integrated Bench

∆

Axonometric Render of Welcome Point Structure . Identifying critical junctions to Prototype and develop.

58

Prototyping Detail A - Integrated Bench

T

Immediate Change

his prototype was the first of two built for the Welcome Point, having gone through this process in Hugh Millers workshop it gave us the confidence to peruse another critical detail (The Roof ) back at our university workshop.

Having gone through the experience of building this model, we altered our design for a couple of reasons.

One was the intended depth of timber for the slats, having gone to the timber yard and playing around with how the slats are spaced out we decided to reduce the timbers depth to create a slenderer slatted design. This example here highlights how important it was to undertake this experience with someone who has the extent of experience as Hugh has.

W

Embodying in the Detail

hat we wanted to iron out and develop on this workshop day was how to exactly embody the overarching language of the design (slats & gaps). We wanted to use this critical moment to try to test that embodiment at 1:1 scale, where the bench meets wall. The photos above show our final intentions for the detail, but behind that finalisation were many iterations to get to a resolution in the images above.

∆ Images Above - Final photos of our 1-1 Scale Prototype of the Bench Detail developed within the workshop.

59

∆

Images Above - Building our 1-1 Scale Prototype of the Bench Detail within the workshop, Learning through Building.

60

Images Below - Final photos of our 1-1 Scale Prototype of the Roof Detail developed within the workshop.

Prototyping

∆

Detail B - Integrated Roof

F

On-The-Spot Learning

ollowing this productive day in Hugh’s workshop, we looked to build upon the problem-solving skills tested in the workshop, to inform the manufacturing of the roof of the structure. Again, we intended to build from our latest set of detailed designs, but we saw this as another learning exercise which could provide changes and detailing solutions through the act of designing through building.

The roof to wall junction selected, was key to test, not just the structural rigour but the consistency of architectural language across the whole structure. This experience allowed us to literally learn on the job, and suss out

pragmatics, often making on-the-spot decisions which would later affect the structures outcome.

T

Realities of the Task Ahead

he reality of recreating the construction of the lap joints in Hugh Miller’s workshop, in a smaller university space, with machinery which is over used and in a lesser condition, set against the sheer number of spacers and lap joints that needed to be machined, appeared mightily daunting.

Though undertaking both prototypes was invaluable, importantly building in two contrasting circumstances and environments, it did expose the realities, and ominous task that stood in front of us with the build of the Welcome Point.

61

Images Below - Building our 1-1 Scale Prototype of the Roof Detail within the workshop, Learning through Building.

∆

62

63

Prototyping - Key Details Plan View 1:1 Scale Roof & Bench Models Embodying the Concept within the Detail

64

Workshop Diary Entry A Day Out Working in a Professional Workshop (Liverpool)

6.00 AM Meet at university to drive to Liverpool.

10.00

Arrive at Hugh Miller Studio. Have cup of tea around the table. Show Hugh what we want to do.

Go to local timber merchant to buy material.

Decide timber section is too big and change AM it for smaller size.

Hugh demonstrated how to use wood lathe to make makeshift timber poles to represent scaffold poles.

11.00 AM

14.30 PM

We have lunch at a local bakery.

‘The Scouse’ soup with meat and potatoes.

13.00

10.30 AM

Carried the timber to Hugh’s workshop, difficult as the only access is a narrow spiral staircase. Discussed where best to start.

We made a timber pole each whilst Hugh cut plywood spacers on the circular saw. Made a simple jig and drilled the spacers on the pillar drill.

11.30 AM

PM

Used a saw to cut the lap joints to depth and a chisel to remove the material. Planed and sanded to make sure it was accurate and flat. Time consuming and difficult to get completely accurate.

14.00 PM Carefully marked timber slats to make sure they would align properly.

16.00 PM 16.30 PM

9.30 AM

Assemble prototype using metal brackets to fix the poles in place.

Discussion with Hugh and his brother about changing the detail where the seat meets the structure. Decide on a new detail.

Decided to add a little more to the prototype to test to back rest.

17.30 PM

18.00 PM We pack up and go home.

65

Consultant Comments Write up meeting with Artem – 20th Point :1 The screw on the inside of the spacer for the secondary roof element need to be more spaced out.

This is another reason for perhaps putting the roof element on the outside of a normal sized spacer not how it is currently. (Look at Point 9)

Loaded Across Grain

Load in-line with grain

Bolted Joints

(Guide line for screw positions from Artem) Point :2 Spacer sequence of works. Artem thinks it’s a better idea to glue the spacers together and then drill through them as this will allow for a better alignment and be quicker.

Despite what Hugh told us, the Marene ply isn’t 100% waterproof we need to coat the end grain in a varnish.

∆

Point :3 Sequence of construction – This is quite complicated to explain on here will do so tomorrow during a

Extract - Section of our write-up notes chat the sequence of construction following meeting with structural consultant - (changes to design).

Point :4

A

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT: “

“First things first, we need to double Artem was worried about the loading being that the top beam is less than 10% what it should be e.g. t the same time as prototyping, we were First things span +4.1 beam depth = 1/10 of the span which = 410mm. Our beam is 38mm. also meeting external consultants, talking the depth of the timber supporting over our latest drawing package for the first, we need to double the depth of Suggestion: Being one of the middle beams through onto the outer beams and fix between the Welcome Point. At this critical stage we were in the roof beams.

I get the the timber supporting the concept, roof beams. timber beams with a spacer constant communication with the Structural thethe moment thisbut is not enough Engineer and Site Accessibility consultant, but Iatget concept, at the moment

this process developed our drawing information support for the span.support The rooffor is the this is not enough

influencing our material choices and from that our sourcing decisions and project budgeting realities. pretty much span.held Currently the roof pretty up by 40mm of is ply.”

much held up by 40mm of ply.”

66

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

Structural Consultant - Changes to Drawing Information

The images above have been chosen to show the discussions with Structural Engineer & subsequent changes to drawing information. A key change was to the roof, having made calculations the engineer decided that the roof structure in parts needed to be doubled up. Also, he suggested timber dowels to be inserted into the post detail to give rigidity.

∆

Images Above (A/B/C) - Extract of the drawing information preconsultation process with Structural Consultant, after changes.

Images Above (D/E/F) - Extract of the drawing information post consultation process with Structural Consultant, before changes.

67

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Site Accessibility Consultant - Changes to Drawing Information

The images above have been chosen to show the discussions with site accessibility consultant & subsequent changes to drawing information. We were in constant communication with the consultant, as a result the width of timber used for the walls was reduced.

The position of bench’s altered, as well as the landscaping around them to cater for all.

∆

Images Above (1/2/3) - Extract of the Drawing information preconsultation process with Site Accessibility Officer, after changes.

Images Above (4/5/6) - Drawing information post consultation process with Site Accessibility Officer, before changes.

68

Sourcing Materials Quantities, Sourcing & Storing : The Realities

Efficiency vs Mistakes

“Could scaffolding poles be used as the internal poles that slot through timber slat panels? (Cost General Comments effective, galvanised, not from MW & LA (Meeting 13/09/2016) visible so don’t need to be

aesthetically pleasing).

- Unfortunately the wood won’t be charred for WP due to cost implications.”

GROUNDWORKS 



Find out precisely what ground works costs/entails for Welcome Point in regards to Newcastle University’s budget o Do we cost for the concrete but not for the excavation works?

Currently a concrete pad foundation has been detailed, how does this work with root protections? (This would ideally be our preference as it is less intrusive on both the ground (i.e. smaller footprint) and on the overall aesthetic of the design)

Extract - Sourcing Notes

TIMBER  



What timber is being specified for the Bird Hide?

(Ensuring a coherence in materiality for both designs) Cost of simple treated timber already high on draft cost plan and takes up a considerable portion of £5,000 budget (£3,346.76 Estimate based on £26.99 per 45mm x 195mm x 4800mm timber) o Ways of reducing cost without reducing material quality? o Treating timber ourselves? o Structural grading of timber? o Can we source timber locally?

Are we taking the theme of charred timber across both designs?

Following prototyping and consultant comments, we embarked on the process of sourcing, drawing up a list of suppliers based upon a price spreadsheet.

Following a major delivery of timber, this process highlighted an unforeseen and major issue of storage.

We had ordered a large quantity of timber, though we had a very tight allowance of space for storage within university grounds, this meant our only option was to leave all purchased timber outside.

A lack of communication between supplier and specifier meant the timber was not sufficiently coated to withstand the elements. In attempt to aid the purchased timber we cut up chocks and placed them between each plank to allow them to dry. Despite our attempts to dry the timber and store in the best possible conditions this was a major issue, which resulted in areas of timber going slightly mouldy, this would later affect the final appearance of the structure.

DETAILING 

Current typical detail over engineered, considering there are approximately 582 typical joints cost plan would exceed £5,000 budget o Alternative means of creating a standardised detail that looks clean, reduces labour and is more cost effective o Less metal, connections and bolts to mitigate price of timber o We are hoping to send the WP drawings over to Hugh Miller to see if he can find an alternative solution that effectively uses less materials whist still providing solid typical joints (This is crucial as the detail is repeated 582 times throughout the design)

69 Images Below - The storage realities / the realities of weathering and damage from the elements .

∆

Welcome Point Cost Plan

Client : Kielder Water + Forest Development Trust NUMBER 1 a b c d

ELEMENT

PRODUCT LINK

QUANTITY/LENGTH

AVAILABILITY

£/ITEM TOTAL COST £/ITEM Superstructurehttp://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes‐Treated‐Kiln‐Dried‐C16‐Regularised‐45‐x‐195‐x‐4800mm‐Single/p/114302 PRODUCT LINK Treated Timberhttp://www.steeltubedirect.co.uk/product_selector.aspx?category=100002&shape=150 594450mm 4800mm 50mm Steel Tube 32 3000mm http://www.steeltubedirect.co.uk/product_selector.aspx?category=100002&shape=150 £26.99 £3,346.76 £26.99 http://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes‐Treated‐Kiln‐Dried‐C16‐Regularised‐45‐x‐195‐x‐4800mm‐Single/p/114302 £30.13 £964.16 £30.13 70mm Steel Tube 18 3800mm Slip on flange http://www.steeltubedirect.co.uk/product_selector.aspx?category=100002&shape=150 562 N/A £47.60 £856.80 £47.60 http://www.steeltubedirect.co.uk/product_selector.aspx?category=100002&shape=150 £6.30 £6.30

TOTAL

£5,167.72 TOTAL

TOTAL COST £3,346.76 £964.16 £856.80

£5,167.72

number of joints

Welcome Point Cost Plan

Client : Kielder Water + Forest Development Trust NUMBER

ELEMENT

QUANTITY/LENGTH

AVAILABILITY £/ITEM

TOTAL COST £/ITEM

TOTAL COST

1 a b

Superstructure Treated Timber 50mm Steel Tube

594450mm 32

4800mm £26.99 3000mm £30.13

£3,346.76 £26.99 £964.16 £30.13

£3,346.76 £964.16

c d

70mm Steel Tube Slip on flange

18 562

3800mm £47.60 N/A £6.30

£856.80 £47.60 £6.30

£856.80

TOTAL

£5,167.72 TOTAL

£5,167.72

600 number of 3773 1773 1625 600 3846 3773 1446 1773 2589 1625 2473 3846 2358 1446 2589 2473 2358 3646

582

18 8 10 4 14 14 4 4 4

10800 30184 17730 6500 53844 20244 10356 9892 9432 168982

6

21876

506946 87504 594450 mm

3646

joints

582

18 8 10 4 14 14 4 4 4

∆

10800 30184 17730 6500 53844 20244 10356 9892 9432

Extract of costing charts & calculations, this was done at the same time as sourcing.

168982

6

21876

506946 87504

70

Welcome Point - Timber Cut List (Example of Quantity Calculations)

71

∆

Following the sourcing of materials (majority of it timber) we then put together cut lists having worked out quantities and subsequent costs from suppliers.

72

Final Client Submission Welcome Point Drawing Package

∆

∆

The following pages show our final drawing package (post-technical design stage). This crucial stage involved thorough prototyping, conversations with external consultants (Structural & Site Accessibility). Following that we constructed our sourcing of materials strategy, this saw us put together material calculations, and lists of viable of local suppliers. All of these critical processes had a massive influence on the output of the Welcome Point from its details to its overall size and form.

Image Above - Elevation of WP General Arrangement drawing of Welcome Point Seating Level Plan

73

74

∆

∆

Right - GA drawing of Roof Plan. Above - Information Panel & Typical Spacing & Setout of Slats Drawing Information .

75

76

Images Above - Wall/Bench Elevation ∆ Detail & Post Buildup Detail (Typical)

77

∆

Images Above - Gabion Bench Detail & Typical Post/Ground Connection Detail.

78

Images Above - Roof / Wall Section Detail & Roof Assembly Axonometric.

∆

79

Spread showing roof information package.

Showcasing all that we have learnt from prototyping and our conversations with external consultants.

Larch Roof Slats (Structural) Larch Roof Slats Intermediate Larch Roof Spacers

18mm Marine Plywood Spacers

Integrated Bench (Scottish Larch)

Project Real 80

∆

Images Below - Drawing changes to Welcome Point Structure. Form and scale reduction due to time and budget constraints of all three proposed structures. We gave the client two options, highlighting the work involved in each case (joints) which take the time, due to sheer quantity of repeating details.

A B

lities:

81 Reduction in Scale & Form (Design Options)

Since the final submission to the client. Alternative (smaller) designs were considered that were more achievable considering the time frame. This design change prompted further discussions with the interpretation consultant and the planning officer.

Balancing Act

82

Visualizing Impact to Client Visuals - Exterior Views

A

s mentioned in the last spread, due to time and costing implications we decided to look at ways to reduce the workload of the Welcome Point structure. This inevitably meant reducing its scale a little, which would importantly reduce the amount of machine work, as there would be less joints to prefab. Having attemptedthese standard and repeating joints at prototyping stage, we knew how much work was involved to carry out these typical details hundreds of times in a small and often busy university workshop space, almost too much work.

W

e worked up a smaller scheme and produced visuals to reason the idea to client. There one concern was that we would lose space for information panels due to the size reduction. These visuals acted as an important tool in convincing the client that the scheme would firstly not lose any of its conviction of concept, nor would it lose any information panels. The amended design was agreed by client, and taken forward to construction.

83

Visuals - Internal Views

RIBA STAGE

84

05

Chapter 06

CONSTRUCTION: “During this stage, the

building is constructed on site in accordance with the Construction Programme. Construction includes the erection of components that have been fabricated off site.�

Section Overview

A

process of ordering materials went underway mid way through the technical design phase, this gave us a steady stream of materials. The prefabrication of the pole spacers was first up, they were manufactured off-site in the University Workshop.

The prefabrication is a continuous process for the both the Wildlife Hide and the Welcome point,

Though the WP was put on hold as we had scheduled to commence work on WH. After a period of tender for the ground work contractor, Scott Everett appointed THC Landscaping. Work on site commenced with the groundworks contractor on the 13th December 2016; the timing worked well as the contractor could undergo their work on site without us in the way.

85

DTM 6

Stage

10.01.2017

13

15

5

1

11

12

10

2

4 5

8 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Wildlife Hide Welcome Point Viewpoint Project Timetable Health & Safety Executive/Construction Design & Management Disability Discrimination Act Groundworks Planning Miscellaneous/Administration Interpretative Design Estates Costing/Supplies/Procurement Technologies/Hygromorphs Kielder Experience/Relationship/Authenticity Ecology Heritage Lottery Fund

7

Meeting Agendas

Attendees Graham Farmer Kathleen Jenkins Sam Halliday Matthew Westgate Robbie Evans Laurence Ashley Sophie Cobley Katie Fisher Alex Baldwin-Cole Ulwin Beetham

Lynn Turner Katy Cook Jane Anderson

Dan Chapman Kelly Hollings Joanna Dailey

Stuart Pudney Scott Everett Peter Pattinson Andrew Rogers Jack Sayers

Peter Sharpe Nick Mason Yvonne Conchie Ian Robinson

Mapping time spent on WP at Meetings

Following the revised Welcome Point drawings submission on 16.12.2016 Newcastle students also gave a verbal breakdown of key design amendments whilst Northumbrian Water Ltd recalculated their costings for the groundworks amendments. The drawings were approved and signed off by the client.

Yvonne Conchie required a detailed explanation of the locations, dimensions and potential fixings for the interpretation panels that she had been commissioned to produce by Northumbrian Water Ltd in both the Wildlife hide and Welcome Point.

We put together an additional package for this.

86

“Waste

Prefabrication

∆

Efficiency and Waste Management

We understand that the nature of our project will have little effect on the wider industry and will not be setting any trends. Our interest lies in the wider topic of sustainable design & resource and waste management within the context of the national & international construction industry. Since we as future architects, have direct experience and knowledge of the subject, we can work towards future solutions.

Cut list for the Sweet Chestnut used on all windows & doors BH.

P

Introduction

refabrication is the practice of assembling components of a structure in a workshop or factory, and transporting complete assemblies to the construction site. This is a swift and effective method of construction, particularly with a timber frame structure. Production in a workshop allows for a greater control in manufacturing as they are completed in clean, dry and sheltered environments.

T

he expectation of prefabrication is that of perfection. With manufacturing elements of the structure such as wall panels, windows and doors in such hospitable environments as workshops, there is an expectation that everything will coincide with what the drawings represent. While it is easy to draw a straight line on a drawing, or to give a precise dimension, the reality of construction is different. Construction is a game of tolerances and there is always an acceptable tolerance level when constructing a building.

W

hen installing the prefabricated elements on site there is an element of ‘tweaking’ in order to make things fit in the way they are designed. Especially regarding elements hidden once constructed, as they are purely structural and will be covered by a number of layers such as cladding.

87

not

Want not�

88

∆

Images Below - Starting prefabrication for the WP structure, certain details were monotonous, repetitive & labour intensive.

89

∆ Top Image - The realities of the repetition detail and drilling (Waste Material).

Bottom Image - The realities of the repetition detail & drilling (Tool Stress).

∆

Extract - Following the sourcing of materials (majority of it timber) we put together cut lists to work out quanities & obtain costs from suppliers.

The waste management in our construction process so far has worked well and efficiently. Previous mistakes affecting excess have been caused by rushing the measuring and cutting process due to fast prefabrication timescales; this can be improved by a process of quality control insuring timber lengths are double checked before cutting.

Repetitive labour Intensive Details Though the Welcome Point had only a few standard details, the way the structure was designed meant that there were hundreds of instances where we had to repeat the same processes as the images show.

Throughout the prototype stage and comments with consultants we tried to develop the detail to be as easily buildable as possible. Though due to costing and sourcing realities the drawing information altered. It became quickly apparent that we would need a considerable amount of time to machine the standard details, despite them being simple there was a lot of labour intensive repetition to be done.

90

Sequence of Works

Planning the Prefabrication

As well as the process of prefabrication within the university workshop we also put together a sequence of works. By doing this it firstly allowed us to brake the build of the WP down into stages and second it allowed us to better plan the build time in its entirety and balancing it with our responsibilities with the Wildlife Hide. We created a document (above) as well as visuals to present to the rest of the design group.

91

Structure

Wall

∆

Roof Extracts - Sequence of Works Doc. Put together for the WP - Project Planning.

92

Setting Out (Drawings vs On-site)

93

T

he drawings on the left were produced for the site contractor, these were based on a site study at the very start of the project. As previously mentioned there were many obstacles to sufficiently surveying the site, with fallen trees, bark covering the ground and winterous conditions not helping. We took it upon ourselves to survey the site again nearer the build time. This exercise showed us the difference between expectation set out in the drawings and realities found in the re-survey.

Resulting with anomalies and amendments to the drawings, which had to be hastily done in time for the site contractor. Added to that more trees had fallen since our last visit, reminding us of the realities of this ever-changing setting, these trees had been designed around and now were absent.

∆

Images Above - Photos of Site - Realities of Forest Floor and its Obstacles for Site Setting Out Accuracy.

∆

Expectation vs Reality

Images on Left - Setting out and Tree Removal Drawings - (Site Strategy Plan)

94

95

On Site Construction THE SET OUT The first day on site was the trickiest one of the four, we had to take the set-out drawing information and map that back onto site, informing the set out of the structure. Fortunately, the site contractor did a sterling job with site preparation before we started, removing all fallen trees, bark and importantly levelling the site so we could set the post foundation heights evenly across the structure. Having set out the post locations around the central tree we began to dig holes ready for each post footing.

Though obvious, one thing that was critical to this process was double checking everything, getting another opinion on measurements and set out. After all this process would set up the rest of the structure, and the tolerances we had to build to. Added to the fact that all timber had been already cut to measure based on a cutting list so tolerance was minimal and the task important.

96

97

On Site Construction THE BUILD UP Site construction had involved the completion of a variety of tasks. Most of the process was streamlined by off-site prefabrication of the main construction elements and key details.

A nine-person team which included additional assistance from the Live Build students in stage five, initiated work on site having transported all timber and prefabricated components to the temporary workshop down the road.

Starting with the ground to post detail we slowly built the structure ground up using the sequence of works as a guide. The team aimed to complete the build within 4 days, so there were long days planned on site. Of course, on site discussions and decisions which went against the original plan of action took place. A key one was the construction of the roof, it was agreed that the roof would be simplified, as the new solution gave better protection from the elements and was much easier to construct in the time frame agreed.

98

The Build

∆

∆

Images- Showingtheteamsconstant on site discussions and queries.

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

Chapter 07

Completion of Structure F

ollowing the four days on site we successfully managed to construct the WP. The next few spreads show the final structure in its surroundings. As this was eventually built after the WH and not before, we brought many lessons learnt constructing that into this build. I feel that this previous knowledge aided us immensely with this structure & delivering it on time without hiccup.

Lessons Learnt: 1. Communication – talking to each other clearly so everyone knows their role, to efficiently work as a team.

2. Technical – the logistics of construction, to build in a methodical way.

3. Tolerances – the room for error and modification of building parts. Not everything will be millimetre perfect and match the designed drawings.

∆

∆

Images of the completed Welcome Point Structure upon opening. Above - Horizontal Timber Slat Details. Right - Near Completion /End of Final Day

107

108

109

110

111

Interior view of the Welcome Point (Tree the Central Focus)

∆ ∆ Exterior view of the Welcome Point. (On One of the Entries)

112

113

114

115

RIBA STAGE

116

06

Chapter 08

HAND-OVER AND CLOSE OUT: “The

project team’s priorities during this stage will be facilitating the successful handover of the building in line with the Project Programme and, in the period immediately following, concluding all aspects of the Building Contract, including the inspection of defects as they are rectified or the production of certification required by the Building Contract..”

Section Overview The group partook in discussions with the client to agree upon plans regarding the future maintenance and control of the building. The Welcome Point as well as the Wildlife Hide are unique in that sense as they are the world’s first permanent building integrated demonstration of hygromorphic technologies.

For this reason the university has agreed to monitor this aspect of the building not only to aid research into this technology but also to ensure that broken panels are replaced.

∆ Image Above - Photo taken at the front of the main structure (Wildlife Hide). Ceremony with wider project delivery team as well as guests.

117

Post Hand Over Intentions

Hygro Panel

Info Panel

Visual Interpretation of a Future Hygromorphic Panel set within Welcome Point.

Testing Ground for Hygromorphics

∆ Artem Holstov - Responsive Material Research

(PHD) + Render of potential future locations for testing, within Welcome Point Structure.

T

he post hand over is very important for this structure. We have created designated spaces within the design for hygromorphics, exploring the “potential functional and aesthetic benefits of wood-based hygromorphs in adaptive architecture.” Our structure will house the first permanent building application of hygromorphic wood composites, creating a place of learning.

118

Project Programme (Realities of Time) Site Programme created at the Initial Stages of Project

Image Below - Site Programme - Planning of time for all three structures across the year, factoring other academic responsibilities and other schedules.

∆

May-16 No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Task HLF Bid Submission Planning Resubmission Planning Approval Period CDM Regulations Detail Design of VP Detail Design of WP Detail Design WH APPROVAL/COMMENT PERIOD Order Materials for WP Prefab of Hygromorphics Groundworks for WP Prefab of WP Construction of WP Notification of HLF Bid Removal of Existing Hide Groundworks for New WH Order Materials for BH Prefabrication of BH Construction of BH

Dur. 1d 1w 12w 3w 8w 15w 17w / 2w 6w 2w 3w 5w 1d 1w 3w 3w 10w 13w

Start Date 03.05.16 06.06.16 07.07.16 25.07.16 18.07.16 18.07.16 18.07.16 / 26.09.16 19.09.16 19.09.16 03.10.16 03.10.16 31.10.16 31.10.16 31.10.16 31.10.16 31.10.16 14.11.16

Finish Date 03.05.16 12.06.16 30.09.16 07.07.16 19.09.16 21.10.16 18.11.16 / 07.10.16 28.10.16 31.09.16 21.10.16 11.11.16 31.10.16 06.11.16 18.11.16 18.11.16 27.01.17 01.03.17

2

9

16 23 30

Jun-16 6

13 20 27

Jul-16 4

11 18 25

Aug-16 1

8

15 2

WP Welcome Point VP View Point WH Wildlife Hide 29TH AUGUST:

Key (Lighter colour: ONSITE) Planning Newcastle Uni WP/VP Newcastle Uni BH Newcastle Uni Hygrmorphics Client/HLF NWL Contractor/Wildlife Trust Current Week

INITIAL DETAILED DRAWING PACKAGE FOR WP & WH 19th SEPTEMBER: REVISED DETAILED DRAWING PACKAGE FOR WP 17TH OCTOBER:

REVISED DETAILED DRA - POTENTIAL TO BE BR

Start Time of Building WP (Planned): “Commence Construction of Welcome Point.”

22 29

119

Realities of Time - All Change!

B

H

elow is the project programme the team put together at the start of the project. I have highlighted on the programme where we initially scheduled to build the Welcome Point, at the start of our final academic year (Sept 2016). I also highlighted when we actually managed to build the structure (April 2017). There are many reasons for the difference between the planned and actual date of build. The timing of the build was heavily dependent on the successful build of the main structure (Wildlife Hide), which took longer than expected. This had a knock-on effect with the timing of the Welcome Point, as well as the rest of our academic responsibilities back at university.

Sep-16 5

12 19 26

Oct-16 3

Nov-16

10 17 24 31

7

14 21 28

aving gone through this process of Live Build, we obtained a hands-on experience and lesson on project timetables/ responsibilities and management. We had a tight planned window to build the WP at the start of the academic year however due to earlier sourcing issues with suppliers this window of opportunity to build the structure was missed and so we had to relinquish all effort on the WP for a time. This experience has taught us valuable lessons and has helped us think about how even small sometimes disconnected issues at an earlier project stage can disrupt the programme and from that cause continued disruption due to outside responsibilities and pressures.

Dec-16 5

12 19 26

Jan-17 2

2 weeks min for production

Max. Delay for use.

CHRISTMAS BREAK (WORKS LIKELY TO CONTINUE INTO THESE WEEKS - TBC)

9

16 23 30

Feb-17 6

13 20 27

Mar-17 6

13 20 27

3

Potential spill over period for construction of the Welcome Point

Path Works: Start of Nov

AWING PACKAGE FOR WH ROUGHT FORWARDS IF POSSIBLE

BIRD HIDE COMPLETED OR IN USABLE CONDITION WEEK COMMENCING 06.03.17 AT LATEST

Start Time of Building WP (Reality): “Commence Construction of Welcome Point.�

120

A Critical Reflection Live Build: An Alternative Approach to Architectural Research

Cognition: “The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through experience, thought, and senses (perceptions).”

T

his live project research document reflects the cognition we have gained under the guidance of Professor Graham Farmer.

We have had the opportunity to undertake a ‘real life’ project, taking pride in the process of creating products constructed for an actual purpose; rather than the paper architecture of design studios.

These opportunities have also provided the time to establish and develop our own professional persona.

T

he purpose of a live build project tends to cycle around the importance of mutual benefit and value. Although the process continues, significant value has been gained.

Quantifying ‘value’ or ‘knowledge’ gained from the project is difficult; the project is experienced as a group, naturally some people have taken on the lead roles, certain roles can only be achieved by an individual (inevitably causing disparity between experiences). Therefore everyone has encountered a different journey. The live build project provides the ‘value’ of the ‘real world’ experience, with multiple variables: the brief, the concept, client meetings, planning authorities, budgeting, suppliers, lead times, health and safety, design for access, consultants, detailing, tender, construction and hand over.

I

t is hugely beneficial to experience multiple aspects of the non-linear process of design and construction. These practical skills can be later applied when returning to practice in the future.

There are many theories surrounding the idea of the ‘value’ of this experience to the student via tangible skill sets and knowledge in new fields. However, live projects are dependent on the individuals’ involvement, how much effort they put in, and want to gain from the experience, how they have responded to the different situations: with clients, contractors, group members, regulations, and within the general project. ’Value’ can also be analysed on a group level, in regard to teamwork, collegiality, role/ responsibility distribution, perseverance, appropriate practice and ethics.

T

he idea that the cognition of architects are seen by some to be different from the traditional research methods, is true; architectural research methodologies challenge the academic environment through other means of expression, documentation, working between the (objective) validity and (subjective) interpretation.

‘The tactic cognition must be expressed so that it can be communicated, discussed, queried and made useful to others. The work must include an accessible contemplation of the experience and cognition achieved, that result from the work with the subject matter.’

This shows how architecture is more that than just simply “a structured investigation of which the goal is communicable knowledge” but layered with a silent

121

We have had the opportunity to undertake a ‘real life’ project, taking pride in the process of creating products constructed for an actual purpose; rather than the paper architecture of design studios. These opportunities have also provided the time to establish and develop our own professional persona.

language of interpretation and representation, speaking more precisely than words. Research in architecture is about the experience and values gained through methodology.

J

eremy Till uses ‘grave terms to summarise the ‘slow death’ of the ‘lifeless pedagogy’ within the UK architectural education.’ We believe that the process of researching within a live project can revitalise the architectural education system and explore new cognitive methodologies of research in architecture. In the context of this project, the term ‘Live Build’ is not only associated with a change in architectural pedagogy, but is also relating to a specific kind of research. This methodology of “research by design” has allowed a relative freedom within our architectural education system, providing a platform in which we can investigate, research and learn.

A

Research by Design

lan Chandler argues that live projects require both material resolution of a situation and critical reflection of the outcome, so future professional advantage can be gained, establishing a real context for material invention. However, through our work and research by design, we have found that this way of working has meant that this is not the end of the outcomes or the end of the research, as research by design suggests. The process

of research by design continues in a cyclical manner, uncovering new questions from the process, which then inform and lead to further research and live processes. For example analysis of the outcomes of the MIMA exhibition has led into further research by design in one of the students thesis work. Another example of further research is within the Wildlife Hide scheme. The implementation of hygromorphs and opportunities within the scheme for further interventions (bug hotel, new hygromorphs in the trellis to create shelter during wet weather) allow the project to continue to grow and respond to the surrounding environment. As students we have all developed a variety of personal qualities: organisation through early preparations and planning ahead, to become flexible and adapt when problems arise in order to make the most of a situation, collaborate and improve team work, learning to work with different people and manage different personalities and skill sets. These qualities have allowed us as individuals grow in self-confidence, which has allowed the group to work with the several triumphs and loses along the way. We have learnt rather than to expect everything to run smoothly, to work seamlessly to take on challenges that might arise, considering and solving problems in a professional manner. This process has given us experience from each of the Professional Part 3 Criteria sections. This in turn will give us a professional advantage in the future.

W

Research by Material

orking on a live build project has allowed us to work incredibly closely with the materials to construct a product. This has involved a series of prototyping and research by material to allow us to produce a final product that has been developed and has been well researched.

For instance the prototyping of the stools for the MIMA, brought about the need to take the sharpness off the corners of the edges. The prototyping of the sash windows for the Wildlife Hide allowed the development of which mortice and tenon joint to use. The prototyping of the bench for the welcome point reduced the amount of timber needed within the structure preventing clunky detailing. The use and research of hygromorphs within the design was a particularly unique aspect of the project. With the location in an expansive pine forest, it seemed highly appropriate to use this technology. It is important too that this is the first implementation of hygromorphs in a permanent structure in the world.

122

Our work has included research with new methodologies, practices and products. This research through design has allowed for further research questions to arise from the design and construction processes undertaken.

I

n line with Hauberg’s ideas, this document proposes a relation between architectural practice and research process; this has consisted of our work in the Hauberg’s fundamental elements within our process: Basic perceptions: We have placed our research within the context of wider architectural academic work and the norms and values which surround it, acting critically of where the work is sited not only within academic work but also government regulations and industry standards. It has been important that we read recent articles of research, in particular the latest findings in hygromorphic technology, in order to understand and build on our existing theoretical and practical work. Through this work we have encouraged further discussions and provoked further research, in thesis work, hygromorphic technology and ideas surrounding the changing pedagogy of architecture.

Investigation: Our live build process has become a testing ground for our investigation and critical analysis of design, construction, materials and the local environment.

It continues to be a space where this investigation and analysis can continue. This research by design methodology used, probes for new questions at the end of the process and raises further investigative topics for future research, which have been outlined.

Programme: We have worked in nearly all stages of the RIBA Plan of Work (2013), and the document produced quantifies the knowledge and values gained from the process. Although the process of strategic research continues, we feel we have solved the initial briefs and can continue to research in this manner.

Subsequent rationalisation: Through research by design, research by material and testing in practice, we have deduced a series of arguments, research topics and theoretical explanations within the essays in the document pertaining to the process work. An example of further research questions seek to investigate the importance of efficient waste management in the construction industry, following the success of our prefabrication cutlist.

Communication: The material presented in this research document accompanied by an extensive appendix, shows our wide-ranging processes. This documentation shows the relation of our process to our research methodology in a consistent, reasoned and evidential manner. The communication of ideas has been important within this process. Checking work and ensuring clarity of ideas has been a key contributing factor to the success of the planning application, use of materials of choice & prevention of mistakes on site.

123

T

o conclude our work has included research with new methodologies, practices and products. This research through design has allowed for further research questions to arise from the design and construction processes undertaken.

The design proposals not only answer their initial briefs but act as a springboard to include further ideas and implement new research questions, some which we have explored in this document. We have created two structures that can facilitate further hygromorphic research and implementation; with the idea that these responsive structures become educational research structures in their own right.

Furthermore this encourages future collaboration between Newcastle University and the client. The social tensions and identities initially explored in the MIMA project has led to further research questioning whether similar collaborations between community arts industries and architecture students can attempt to help the area. Thirdly with the methodologies utilised from the design and construction process in mind, we seek a different architectural pedagogy in the educational system through this introduction and integration of live projects. Further research surrounding this question would investigate the unconscious assumptions made during the design process and how this affects accessible design. We believe these projects interrogate and research the gap between education and practice, and challenge the current academic perceptions of research.

Final Welcome Point Thoughts

O

n conclusion there has been alot to learn from the Welcome Point process. I have been heavily involved in this particular structure, taking a joint lead in its development, it has allowed me to directly experience, learn and importantly reflect upon the process. A couple of major issues that arose were, the large delay in the build of the structure, and two the miss-communication which lead to us using timber in often inadequate condition. Both inevitably were defining factors in the outcome and fortunes of the project, altering the final form and look of the structure. Key to this project was that it was always the understudy to the Wildlife Hide, the WP success was based on the success of the Wildlife Hide hitting project milestones. Any hiccups would mean a knock-on to our Welcome Point ambitions. Inevitably delays in the WH programme caused a long delay to the start time of the WP build. Along with other outside university responsibilities this circumstance heaped pressure on the scheme and affected the outcome.

Despite these set backs, the process of “Live Build� has been a very positive one, that’s allowed us a holistic experience of taking something from concept to built structure. The process has certainly developed our time management, project programming and communication skills immensely.

124

Contributors Kathleen Jenkins

Sam Halliday

Matthew Westgate

Laurence Ashley

Katie Fisher

Sophie Cobley

Alex Baldwin-Cole

Ulwin Beetham

Robbie Evans

Acknowledgements Kielder Water and Forest Park Development Trust

For their continued engagement in projects with Newcastle University

Middlesborough Institute of Modern Art For the opportunity to collaborate and the trust and enthusiasm shown throughout the project

Newcastle School of Architecture Workshop Department Sean Mallan Nathan Hudson Richard Chippington Bill Softley

For their advice, knowledge and accommodation of our projects over the course of 2 years

Student Volunteers & Tom Cowman For kindly volunteering to assist on site.

With special thanks to:

Peter Sharpe

Without whom, none of this would be made possible

Professor Graham Farmer

For his continued advice and guidance

Hugh Miller

For his patience and tutelage

Artem Holstov

For his research and engineering contributions

The End.........

126

127