Skip to main content

CA19

Page 1

Number 19 February 1992

ARCHITECTURE

A review of current Architectural and Environmental Issues and events in the Cambridge area produced by theCambridge Association of Architects. The views in this newsletter are those of the individual contributors and not of the Association. Newsletter co-edited by David Raven and Colen Lumley. ’Cambridge Architecture Trumpington Mews, Trumpington, Cambridge. CB2 2LS

Community Lessons ‘A Case Study’ Richard Brimblecombe Parkside Community College isa 600 place secondary school in the centre of Cambridge. The main site is bounded by Parkside and Melbourne Place. The Mud Lane site isa couple of minutes walk along Parkside to the east. The main building has been thehome offour schools during this century. When in1974 Cambridge shire went comprehensivea decision to create Parkside Community College was made at the eleventh hour and asa result no money was set aside to improve thebuildings. Againsta background of projected growth in secondary pupil numbers inCambridge City through the 1990s theCounty Council in their 1991 report acknowledged theshortcomings of of the accommodation at Parkside. The M porary buildings of Mud Lane site were recommended forreplacement within the next five years. The provision of hard open space around theschool is below current minimum standards and doubles as car parking. There are no playing fields and the school has to rely on nearby sports facilities and open spaces. The county identified two possible courses of action: either to improve Parkside's accommodation on theexisting site; or to relocate on an alternative site. Various schemes of improvement on thepresent site were considered ranging from replacement of the buildings on Mud Lane with minor improvements on themain site to complete replacement of buildings on both. Studies indicated that major improvements totheschools present accommodation could be achieved whilst retaining substantial elements of the existing buildings on the main site. Areas of open space remained seriously substandard. Surprisingly budget costs for this option were higher than for a green field site (assuming the sale of the Parkside site is offset against new build costs). For relocation of the school 12 acres would be required compared with the 2.76 acres at present. After looking at possible sites the County favoured one in its ownership at River Farm on

Trumpington Road. This is currently used for agricultural purposes. It was considered for the Cambridge Regional College but was ruled out on planning grounds. It is part of the Cambridge Green Belt and its change toeducational use would undoubtedly pose serious difficulties. Notwithstanding this the local Education Authority favoured this option due to reservations about the adequacy of an improved Parkside and concern over disruption to the schools activities during the building programme. The larger site was also felt to provide greater longer term flexibility in the management ofeducational facilities throughout the City. The Governors of Parkside had long been active in lobbying forfunds forthe improvement of the present buildings. The Education Authority's conclusions were resisted bya highly motivated and articulate body ofopinion from both Governors teachers and parents strongly in favour of the College remaining in its present location. The school is well located to serve the central residential areas of the City and the ease and quality of the journeys to and from theschool are valued. High educational standards have been achieved anda sense of ‘community’ has been established which therelocation of the school would undermine. The Governors and parents advocatea more integrated appraisal of facilities available to the community at large. The school shares its facilities with the rest of the local population and vice versa. The time scale and uncertainties associated with a new build school in green belt land may suggest that ‘a bird in the hand’ in the form ofa renovated Parkside is preferable. As a result of local community pressure the Education Committee hasnow agreed to pursue

theoption of improvements on Parkside's two existing sites. Some will view this asa triumph of local people over unsympathetic policy decisions. Others might argue that recommendations on coordinated city wide educational facilities have been thwarted by local vested interests. Only asproposals emerge fortheimprovements toParkside will it be possible to assess the prudence of decisions taken. The work ofHampshire County Council Architects Department over the past decade has demonstrated that inventive, well researched and well executed architectural solutions can provide the sort of stimulating environment we all want forourchildren as well as giving eloquent expression to the aspirations of the local community. What opportunities could Parkside offer? The removal of unsympathetic and inadequate temporary and less temporary, buildings from both sites. Replacements to complement and enhance thecharacter and quality of the original Edwardian buildings and make up fortheir deficiencies. Proposals to investigatea permanent connection between the two sites by the acquisition of additional property. The necessary range and flexibility of accommodation forboth school and community usewill require the site to be intensively built over. In the Hampshire Schools programme consideration of both organisational planning and passive energy performance has lead for example toperimeter cellular accommodation; around central multipurpose spaces. These are often enclosed, with extensive glazing to blur the distinctions between inside and outside and between school and community functions. Are there perhaps lessons for Parkside where buildings are surrounded by playground producing such cramped conditions?

Crestwood, Eastleigh, Hampshire from Schools of Thought HCC. 1991


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
CA19 by Cambridge Association of Architects - Issuu