Cambridge Architecture Gazette CA59

www.architecture.com/cambridgegazette

CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURE

Autumn/Winter 2009

59

Campus city Education, research and the shape of Cambridge featuring Time to think 20 years ahead West Cambridge and East Road Innovative student accommodation Mill Lane as a distinctive city quarter

THE EDITORS

NEWS

LOOK AHEAD

HOUSING CHARRETTE FOLLOWS ...

‘Univercities’ are all the rage in Europe. Generally based on middlesized municipalities, they represent the unification of town and gown as exemplified by a closely collaborating mayor and vicechancellor. Recognising the interdependence of economy, education and research, they work together to make a better, more dynamic and prosperous place.

You might think that Cambridge was a prime candidate for such treatment. A beautiful setting, a dynamic local economy and an ancient university currently ranked second only to Harvard – what more could you want? But look around for the evidence of synergy between town and gown and what do you find? Not much.

Anything approaching the ‘univercity’ or univercity-region idea is totally absent from publication, plan or debate. The built consequences are massive missed opportunities. To ‘outsiders’ (p. 5), the sight before them is incomprehensible. Those of us who have lived here long have become desensitised to the sheer awfulness of our predicament.

The comparison – at every level – with well-run foreign equivalents is deeply embarrassing.

Can Cambridge continue to assume that providence will ensure its prosperity in a highly uncertain future? Surely not – now is the time to look ahead and, in so doing, to identify our priorities and put the city-region’s considerable expertise to good use .

The next charrette will engage the mass housebuilders in the crucial issues of housing design quality and sustainability. Planned for February 2010, the CAA and City Council are arranging the event with help from Savills.

Teams will be made from arranged weddings of housebuilders and local architectural practices, with the CIty acting as matchmakers. As at the last charrette, all teams will have access to a pool of surveyor, engineer and planning advice.

In order to sidestep the constraints on thinking imposed by the current political and economic climate, teams will adopt the premise that it is 2019, that the economy is afloat and stable and that the Code for Sustainable Homes has been introduced in full with a base requirement for all housing to meet Code 6.

A site or sites large enough to accommodate a viable mass housing scheme have yet to be agreed.

IN THIS ISSUE A feature on the city region’s predicament (p. 3) is followed by reviews of two contrasting sites – the University of Cambridge’s West Road and ARU’s East Road (p.6) – and a proposal for the Universityowned Mill Lane area (p.8).

Reports on two very different local institutions – the Regional College (p.10) and the Open University (p. 11) – are followed by a review of an innovative new student hostel (p. 12). Finally, there’s a summary of recent work and new buildings to see in Cambridge (p. 14).

EDITORIAL BOARD The gazette’s Editorial Board now consists of the Cambridge Association of Architects’ current and immediate past Presidents and the Editors. We bid a grateful farewell to John Preston, a long serving Board member, and to David Raven and Jeremy Lander, who, with Colen Lumley, directed and edited this publication over many years.

2

... ACTION ON LAST CHARRETTE Half the twelve run-down public realm sites studied at last February’s Cambridge Charrette are now the subject of Joint Urban Design Team initiatives.

JUDT head Glen Richardson reports that a draft SPD is in preparation for the area between the Coldhamʼs Lane junction on Newmarket Road and East Roadʼs Crown Courts – incorporating three of the charrette sites. The originators of the Mitchamʼs Corner proposal, AC Architects, have been asked to involve the local community – to which they belong – in consultations. In the north of the city, the Huntingdon Road Texaco site is currently the subject of preapplication negotiations with developers while the Arbury Court area has been identified for a sustainable neighbourhood review in the second stage of local centre improvement studies, following current work on Wulfstan Way. Reacting to the news, CAA chair Adam Peavoy said, ʻArchitects are highly skilled at demonstrating possibilities – but need society action to implement them. We are delighted that the City is starting to build on our initiative and that, following the theme of our joint charrette, the JUDT has recently completed Project Cambridge – a proposal for seven public realm enhancements, valued at a total of £25 million, to improve the quality of the journey from the city centre to the rail station. I hope that the city will continue to seek architectsʼ ideas on the city beyond the next charrette.ʼ

Councillor Alan Baker observed that the British Standard for ʻtallʼ is 14 or 15 storeys; though Cambridge doesnʼt rise to that, the Combined Planning Committees which he chairs are frequently hampered by lack of hard guidance on building heights. Although Hugh Cassonʼs recommendations for Oxford became policy, Holfordʼs and Sharpʼs for Cambridge did not. Peterhouseʼs William Stone building and the New Museums Site are the unofficial ceiling for development. When a contentious tall proposal comes in, the Planning Committee, the officers and the Design and Conservation Panel tend to find agreement, pro and con, and public objection wears down over time; but this isnʼt a clever arrangement and a Supplementary Planning Document on height is sorely overdue.

Three CAA contributions followed. David Emond (RH Partnership) showed two consented towers, the Belvedere and Living Screens, extended to double height – and won applause. An inner ring road video by Meredith Bowles (Mole Architects) subverted the commonsense of skyline and place, while Kieran Perkins (5th Studio) threw high-rise screens around the cityʼs green inlets and marked both gateways and meeting places with twenty-storey towers – ʻBig Buildings for Big Placesʼ.

The Cityʼs Director of Planning, Simon Payne, balanced the incapacity of the reactive consent process to deliver an agreed vision for Cambridge against the positive desire to select landmarks to enrich the skyline.

John Preston and Catriona Campbell insisted that our characteristic outside-in views are over a Plimsoll-line of trees. And so, perhaps, the mighty horse-chestnut next to Kingʼs Chapel, and not Modulor Man, remains the measure of all things in Cambridge. Jack Warshaw struck a chord with his two pleas, that symbolic content robed in beauty be the prerequisite for anything pretending to height, and that S106 agreements be extended to cover demolition of a building no longer valued.

GREEN LIGHT FOR EXTRA HEIGHT?

The Belvedere before and after stretching

Developers are pressing for taller buildings in Cambridge. So, in late September, as a first step to developing a policy, the Joint Urban Design Team organised a colloquium – ‘Is tall beautiful?’ More a showcase of options and provocations than a debate, it was chaired by Peter Studdert, Director of Joint Planning for the Cambridge Growth Areas and Northstowe, supported by the Cambridge Association of Architects and sponsored by Cambridge Horizons.

Threats to the cityʼs skyline first arose in the years of post-war recovery. Studdert reminded the eager audience that, in their Cambridge Planning Proposals (1950), William Holford and Myles Wright sought to cap new central development at 17m, while Thomas Sharp in Dreaming Spires and Teeming Towers (1963) advocated limiting utilitarian structures to three storeys. Yet, at the same time, the University was aligning itself with the White Heat of Technology, and Denys Lasdunʼs proposal – consented on appeal – for Beneʼt Place, of a trio of science faculty towers, would have changed for ever the terms of reference under which planners presently operate.

Of the external participants, Ted Cullinan – as expected – broke a lance for Germaine Greer and her updating of Lasdunʼs towers as soaring Arcadian beehives of academic life, but soberly stressed the inviolability of Cambridgeʼs cellular core spaces. Richard Murphy showed how the mediaeval city had signalled itself with a corona of towers – and there on the screen was the one in Lucca with the topknot of trees – but Peter Stewart sectored the city into three concentric zones, with most new high-rise in the outer one. Richard MacCormac, having earlier submitted his current work on low-rise, green, walkable suburbs to the preceding conference, now urged us to find an agreed vision of what Cambridge should look like – one that harnessed policies and embraced our community concerns. It was time, he urged, for the planning system to get three-dimensional.

A mixed message, then, for the Joint Urban Design Team – but, in winding up, Peter Studdert was able to reveal that the JUD and conservation teams are preparing the first-ever hard strategic document on tall building in Cambridge. Jon Harris

Institutions (universities, CRC, major schools) Research parks

University colleges

City boundary Railway Motorways Rivers Guided bus route Urban extensions

Existing built-up areas

BOBBY OPEN

Green space

The education and research estate – and thereʼs yet more of it in the city-region

TIME TO WISE UP The ever-expanding education and research sector underpins the Cambridge economy.

But its lack of integration into the city fabric is symptomatic of the city-region’s lack of direction. Has the time has come to take a hard look at the future? Peter Carolin reports.

The City: tourism Cambridge has an identity crisis. To those arriving by car, the Cityʼs name-boards suggest tourism as the primary activity. Meanwhile, the two shopping bags at the centre of the County Structure Planʼs ever-so crude map of Cambridge suggest retail as the cityʼs primary activity. South Cambridgeshireʼs website banner features autumn leaves while that of Cambridgeshire Horizons is all about creating sustainable new communities. Education and research, the knowledgebased economy and the Cambridge Phenomenon that underpin our prosperity and quality of life are invisible.

One way of checking the significance of the local education and research sector is to look at employment statistics. But the figures are highly imprecise because the geographical basis is unclear – a result of the fact that the Cambridge city-region is not a unitary authority.

But, at a rough estimate – and treating full-time students as workers in the education sector – there must be over 48,000 involved. Add in those in high-tech enterprises and the knowledge-based sector is substantially larger than any other.

Another way of checking is to look at a map of Cambridge. The proportion of land occupied by higher and further education institutions and research and technology parks is huge. Far larger, surely, than in any other comparably sized UK city. Moreover, to this should be added the seventeen science parks lying to

the side of the transportation ʻspokesʼ radiating out from the city. Whether at Harston, Hinxton or Huntingdon, they, together with the five Cambridge parks, are part of the local knowledge-based economy – making a significant contribution to the national GDP.1 Building on the edge In the 1850s, the railway was routed as far away as possible from the University and Colleges. Today, the huge and expanding Addenbrookes bio-medical campus is the first thing the rail traveller from London sees. By car, from the M11, there is a glimpse of Schlumbergerʼs West Cambridge tent and, in a few yearsʼ time, the view should be dominated by the Universityʼs huge North West Cambridge site. Driving east along the A14, the Regional College, Science and Innovation Park campuses are passed in quick succession. These developments are re-shaping the city – just as the urban (housing) extensions are enlarging it.

Thereʼs no over-riding theory underpinning the location of these mainly monofunctional areas on the periphery. Just as the out-of-town science parks have sprung up wherever land and planning consent could be obtained, so have these areas on the periphery been developed. Thatʼs the way things happen – it may be messy but itʼs the reality. The challenge is how to make the best of it.

The County: shopping

The driver: knowledge economy 3

C17

C21

Travellers’ viewpoints (see right)

Seventeenth and twenty-first century travellers’ first views of Cambridge.

Regional College…

… Science Park …

The isolated peripheral location of these developments is reminiscent of early twentieth century city zoning – in which polluting industry was placed well away from residential areas and social facilities. In todayʼs world that means that each development (and sometimes each building within it) has to have its own catering facilities, large car parks and recreational area. This lack of any idea – or interest – as to how our education and research enclaves might contribute to the city can also be seen within Cambridge itself.

The entire University-owned Mill Lane area has recently come up for review. The glint in the eyes of the University estate managers seems to be more about making a mint out of commerce and tourism than about creating a city quarter appropriate to its location near the central science sites (pp. 8 and 9).

Addenbrookes biomedical campus (lower pic)

say. This new quarter could make a significant contribution to the city. No enclave, it looks beyond its boundaries – to West Cambridge and the huge NIAB site to the east. But itʼs easy to evolve a fine plan with one man in charge and no heads of departments, college governing bodies and commercial research organisations making demands. What will happen if the project gets mothballed and is then resurrected, two vice-chancellors and another economic crisis later?

The University of Cambridge is usually good at building iconic pieces of architecture. What is difficult is city-making. Which is why developments at the cityʼs two smaller, infinitely poorer institutions – Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and Cambridge Regional College (CRC) – are so interesting. ARU, having expanded hugely and built chaotically over the years, is now re-ordering its campus, making the very best of its claustrophobic site (p. 7). Might this exercise in ʻurban healingʼ be replicated, in a different way, on the agoraphobic wastes of West Cambridge? CRCʼs new site by the Science Park is already full but, by reinventing itself as a truly regional institution, developing an exemplary transport strategy and making the most of its day-time population, it is almost making sense of its peripheral location (p. 10).

Crossing the road, Science Park staff can enjoy hautecuisine and silver service lunches at bargain prices.

City making is difficult The Universityʼs peripheral science site, West Cambridge, is widely regarded as a disaster (see box).

But, back in the mid 90s, its masterplanners were faced with an already compromised site and severe limitations on density and, anyway, the site is currently far from complete (p. 6). The problem lies in those original constraints, the Universityʼs requirement for stand-alone departmental buildings with adjacent car parking and the location of the as yet unbuilt colonnade on the southern boundary, facing the fields.

In contrast, all looks rosy at North West Cambridge – which contains a far greater mix of uses then West Cambridge, as well as a lot of housing. ʻWe have learnt the lessons of West Cambridgeʼ, its planners

A failure to convince With the hopeful exception of NW Cambridge, the new education and knowledge-based economy enclaves on

W Cambridge (foreground) with NW Camrbidge site (middle left)

4

ACEOM

PATRICK SQUIRE

… and Innovation Centre. Isolated and uncelebrated neighbours along the A14

NW Cambridge. Local centre (purple) and housing (orange)

ʻThereʼs very little planning for the 20 year frame – as there is in places like Singapore,ʼ claims de Meyer. ʻWhat is our ambition? What do we have to do now to achieve it? I canʼt see anything happening.

Thereʼs no interaction between the players. Apart from the Cambridge Network, they donʼt get together. The CN does discuss what has to be done to evolve the cluster over the next 20 years – but itʼs isolated. EEDAʼs remit is the East of England – and thatʼs too big and irrelevant for Cambridge. ʻI donʼt advocate Stalinist planning – but here there is no planning – just a hostility. Itʼs exemplified by the historic town/gown divide. You see it in small details: students tell me that they go into the centre on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and the city young go in on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Say it often enough and people start believing in it. Currently, the city and gown planning objectives seem very different. Traffic is one example. The literature that I get at home from local political parties is all about not growing the city. ʻIn the University, if you ask about growth targets, theyʼll say 2% a year. Why? Because thatʼs been the average growth over the last 200 years.

There is an interest in expanding graduate education – but that is not what the City wants to do. Despite which, Addenbrookes seems to be expanding on the lines the Region expects it to. ʻItʼs great to have two complementary universities in Cambridge – one concentrating on

research and the other on educating/training people who do things, accountants and so on. But, at the railway station, ʻCambridge home of Anglia Ruskin Universityʼ gives the wrong impression – itʼs emphasising the local at the expense of the truly important, the international. The Cityʼs road entry signs simply emphasize the tourism aspect. ʻCampus development in Cambridge is isolated.

In Singapore I had to set up a business school. The first option was to go to a research park where it was thought a business school would fit nicely.

But thereʼs no life in such places – Sidgwick and West Cambridge are perfect examples of this. So we moved to One North where people mixed life and entertainment (which is eating and shopping in Singapore) and lived – which was a much healthier environment. ʻLife on West Cambridge is impossible – there is no life there and no business. The density is not nearly high enough – there are no streets (just roads) where one can meet people. Each building is like an architectural icon in which the occupants are cocooned. When I walk down Kingʼs Parade from the Judge Institute to the Old Schools Iʼm always bumping into people – thereʼs an element of communality in which people come together – and itʼs totally lacking on West Cambridge, where I go quite often to the Cape building and the Institute of Manufacturing. ʻUniversity decentralisation allows things to grow and, if they donʼt flourish, to die off. It gives the institution an ability to renew itself that is quite remarkable. But it does not enable success to be leveraged. It creates a climate of ʻsatisfactory underperformanceʼ instead of allowing more to happen. ʻWe have everything going for us in Cambridge – but we donʼt seem to be able to pull it together.

Thereʼs no consensus as to whether Cambridge is a dormitory town for London, a tourist attraction or a place of dynamic growth.ʼ

the periphery are like ʻgated communitiesʼ. Planned differently, they could have been integrated into the adjacent city – to the immense benefit of employees and residents. Like the urban extensions, the enclaves are seen not as a symbol of a vibrant economy, but as alien intrusions. The local authoritiesʼ worthily wordy statements on ʻsustainabilityʼ, ʻexcellenceʼ and ʻworld classʼ fall on deaf ears. The Greater Cambridge Partnershipʼs ʻvisionʼ is silent on the city-regionʼs built form and public realm.

Ten years ago, the town-gown Cambridge Futures project revealed widespread support for growth – and a worrying degree of incipient nimbyism. That nimbyism has grown because of the failure to develop and promote a convincing case for growth and to provide a demonstration of what is planned.

Discussion at a recent meeting, at which parliamentary candidates faced the Cambridge Federation of Residents Associations, suggested that the vast majority of city residents are unconvinced about expansion. The 177 page policy-driven Local Plan (to 2016) neither illuminates nor inspires.

Ten years ago, when work was in hand on the County Structure Plan, climate change and peak oil had nothing like the urgency that they have today.

Speaking at that same residents federation event, Tony Juniper, the Green Party candidate, stressed the long view – observing that we had no collective aim for the kind of place the city-region should be in 10, 20 or 30 years time. His concerns about climate change and resource depletion cut no ice with residents associations obsessed by contemporary traffic issues.

Inspiration from the past Seventy years ago, in the last great economic crisis, two remarkable projects were initiated in Cambridge.

The first was Henry Morrisʼ development of the village colleges – a response to the industrialisation of agriculture and the rapid decline of rural communities.

Morris helped to save the villages and improve the villagersʼ quality of life even though, in the 60s, the advent of widespread car ownership changed the colleges as Morris had originally envisaged them. The second pioneering development was the former Cambridge Preservation Trustʼs work initiating the green belt idea and saving other villages from ribbon development. Today, green belts are morphing into green fingers.

We face other, arguably far greater challenges than our predecessors in the 1930s. Is it not time that we combined as a community to consider the context in which we shall be living in two or three decades, decide how we should address this and what we should start doing now in order to achieve those objectives? This task could be undertaken in the same nonconfrontational, inclusive manner as Cambridge Futures – in the form of a research project steered by members of the academic, business and local government communities augmented, this time, by the residents associations.

Central to any study would be firmly establishing the identity of the city-region. There can be little doubt that education and research are the keys to this – and to our future. Will the city-regionʼs motorway boundaries one day be marked by boards announcing ʻCambridge – Centre of the Knowledge Economyʼ?

NO LIFE, NO DEBATE, NO CONSENSUS: A VIEW FROM THE JUDGE INSTITUTE Professor Arnaud de Meyer is Director of the Judge Business School. His research is on clusters – identifying the right technical infrastructure (ranging from traffic to broadband and educational systems) and role models. He has been in Cambridge for 3 years.

Arnaud de Meyer: see box at left

Kings Parade and …

… West Cambridge. and the lack of it.

Communality

Note 1. See The Impact of the University of Cambridge on the UK Economy and Society. This can be found at http://insighteast.org.uk/viewResourc e.aspx?id=14290.

Acknowledgement This paper was written following discussions with many people. The views it contains are not always their own – indeed, they may be the very opposite. I am most grateful for the time they gave me and for the varying perspectives they offered.

Peter Carolin chaired Cambridge Futures 1996-2001

5

*

*

West Cambridge location, left, ARU, right

Richard Owers

Café for computants only

Cars, not people, rule

West Cambridge, November 2009.

Madingley Road, right, and JJ Thompson Avenue, centre. Below, as planned …

West Cambridge is the largest construction project so far undertaken by the older University. Lying close to the M11, between Madingley Road and the Coton footpath, the 66 hectare site 1 was designated as a science expansion site in the mid 1990s. At that stage, the vet school and its paddocks dominated the site centre and road frontage while the new Cavendish sat awkwardly in a far corner. Other buildings scattered around included an offshoot of the engineering department, the headquarters of the British Antarctic Survey and Schlumberger Researchʼs great tent.

Besides the problems created by thirty years of ad hoc University development, the appointed masterplanners 2 , MJP Architects, faced another.

Unenthusiastic about University expansion, the City had adopted a Local Plan specifying a low, suburban, density for the area. MJP, however, succeeded in negotiating an increase in density for the phased development – over an anticipated 25 year period – of this new piece of city.

MJPʼs proposal recalls The Backs. Three bands of buildings stretch from north to south, edging the paddocks and another large green space. The majority of new buildings – including a sports centre and two mixed-use social forums – run along the southern boundary, forming the third edge to the green spaces.

This group was intended to be linked by a lofty colonnade3, facing the fields and alongside the Coton Footpath – the umbilical cord back to the city centre.

Unconvincing execution Ten years on from the outline planning approval, nine new buildings 4 occupy the eastern half of the site.

West Cambridge is now 35% complete and operating as an isolated campus. For those arriving by car, turning off Madingley Road into JJ Thompson Avenue, the ʻout of townʼ sensation is reinforced by the hopefully temporary Happy Eater-style canteen, sitting

A B C nbbj

The University of Cambridge’s West Cambridge campus and Anglia Ruskin University’s East Road site are worlds apart in scale, density and approach. But could the reordering of East Road offer a lesson for West Cambridge?

PATRICK SQUIRE

EAST WEST URBAN TEST

… buildings A, B and C could be linked

behind a suburban hedge to the right.

This suburban malaise is all-pervading – while the hyper-scale of the main avenue evokes a business park in which each building strives to be strikingly different. The totally unnecessary routing of a car park access road through the siteʼs only small-scale public space reveals an astonishing disdain for the public realm (and for the masterplan).

The moment has surely come to reflect on the masterplan 5 and to (re)focus the vision. The task, which could be to create a piece of the city confident enough to poke its head over the suburban parapet, would require the planners to be persuaded of the merits of densification, and possibly higher buildings.

However, a more urbane culture will not be generated through architecture alone – a richer mix of activities and functions will need to be brought on site, with the architecture modified to deal with the resulting complexities.

Some of the new activities are emerging at the Hauser Centre and East Forum. In addition, the new orbital road linking the Madingley park and ride to North West Cambridge 6 and thence around the

Building relationships.

Your kind of law 6

appearance of the existing buildings is also problematic.

A number of alternative schemes were prepared.

The favoured scheme, known as The Wrap – and now under construction – involved the least amount of demolition and was chosen, amongst other reasons, for its ease of delivery, simple phasing and relatively modest impact on the wider context. The first phase is a courtyard development – a continuous four-storey wrap of accommodation, of varying width, neatly inserted into the heart of the site. Starting as an extension to the Helmore building on east Road, the lower floors step forward to create a two-storey frontage along Broad Street in place of the Rackham building. A narrow band of accommodation continues along the east side of the courtyard as a foil to the side of the Mumford theatre, culminating in a sculptural fan-shaped lecture theatre to the south.

Flexible teaching spaces are planned for the narrower upper floors and deep plan spaces are provided at ground and first floor along the north side.

The fourth side of the courtyard is completed at ground floor by a linear foyer serving the new lecture theatre, linking to the Helmore buildingʼs internal ʻstreetʼ. At ground and first floor the courtyard is animated by a serious of ubiquitous curvaceous ʻpodsʼ, positioned to avoid the root protection required to maintain the majority of the protected trees.

BDP

Wrapping up the East Road campus To accommodate anticipated growth and deal with a need for flexibility Anglia Ruskin University has had to look at ways of updating its buildings and intensifying activities on its densely developed East Road campus.

Commissioned in 2007, BDP identified the need for flexibility, adaptability and sustainability as crucial to the success of the masterplan. They observed that the university is a campus ʻin name but not in spiritʼ with ʻanonymousʼ spaces and buildings and no ʻconsistent sense of placeʼ. The tortuous and uneventful movement sequence through the campus, and the ʻclosed-boxʼ

BDP

northern edge of the city to the proposed Chesterton Parkway station will align directly with West Cambridgeʼs High Cross Avenue and West Forum.

This connection will provide West Cambridge users with access to a small supermarket, hotel and other social facilities.

The danger is that nothing will change at West Cambridge because synergetic development at the Universityʼs North West Cambridge will somehow ʻrescueʼ it. Such an assumption would be a continuation of the laissez-faire approach that has bedevilled the siteʼs development and thus its attractiveness to potential colonisers. A look at the proposals by BDP for Anglia Ruskin would do no harm.

Court with main external pedestrian link to left

The Wrap will enclose ARU’s main courtyard

A lesson in urban healing BDPʼs scheme should provide a welcome ʻheartʼ to the campus. It is a good example of ʻurban healingʼ – visibly and physically stitching together a number of disconnected buildings. It proves that you do not need big budgets and lots of space to produce meaningful urban design. BDPʼs approach will no doubt demonstrate, without fuss, the benefits of continuity of delivery from masterplan to detailed design. Whilst overcoming the tight site constraints has generated necessarily slightly profligate forms, the balance between judicious demolition and appropriately scaled intensification of building mass appears well considered.

The ARU strategy offers clues for ʻrescuingʼ West Cambridge. The close proximity of the Institute of Maufacturing and the proposed Chemical Engineering and Materials Science & Metallurgy buildings to each other and to the proposed West Forum suggests that they could be linked by a continuous route giving access to their individual entrance halls, meeting rooms and cafés. Although this would not heal the glaring disjunctions of the existing campus, it would at least not replicate them.

BDP

ARU’s East Road site as existing

Notes: 1. The site is 1.2 km long – equivalent to the distance from the Grafton Centre to King’s College.

2. MJP were selected from a shortlist of Edward Cullinan Architects, Foster Associates, MJP and Koetter Kim. Uniquely, MJP’s proposal commended itself for its attempt to relate to a Cambridge – rather than a business park – model.

3. So far unbuilt, despite Marks Barfield’s competition winning scheme. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is a well-planted avenue of trees. Even so, its location on the southern edge of the site will do little to provide the site with an effective east-west link.

4. New buildings at West Cambridge include: Centre for Nanoscience (BDP, 2003); Computer Laboratory (RMJM, 2001); Microsoft Research (RMJM, 2001); post-graduate student flats (MJP, 2004); Centre for Advanced Photonics and Electronics (TP Bennett, 2006); Physics of Medicine (BDP 2009); Institute of Manufacturing (Arup Associates 2009); and the Hauser Centre (Wilkinson Eyre 2010). Materials Science and Metallurgy is currently under design by nbbj.

5. A warning on the vulnerability of the plan was made at the time of its publication. See Owers, D. ‘West Cambridge masterplan requires concerted action’ in The Architects’ Journal, 12 November 1997. Sadly, the warning went unheeded.

6. North West Cambridge – an even larger site – is currently being planned for the University Farm area lying to the north of Madingley Road. It will contain housing, university and commercial research facilities, a possible new college and social and retail facilities, including a small supermarket and a hotel.

Richard Owers is a director of NRAP and worked as an urban designer on Gravesend (with Penoyre and Prasad (1997-2002) and in Berlin (1992-97).

First we get to know you, and then we meet your legal needs in commercial and residential property and development; planning; construction; and professional services advice.

Cambridge | Milton Keynes | Northampton

www.hewitsons.com

Your kind of law 7

Lion Lane. A new pedestrian and cycle street links through from Silver Street to Mill Lane, connecting to

*

Queens Lane beyond, its name referring to the Black Lion Inn that once occupied this site. The eastern edge of Lion Lane is formed by a new three-and-a-half storey block with UHWDLO DQG VPDOO RIÀFH XQLWV DW VWUHHW level, and student accommodation DQG RIÀFH VSDFH DERYH 7KH ZHVWHUQ

Mill Lane location

edge is established by a new three storey block with small business start up and science park incubation units.

Bobby Open

Silver Street. Existing Silver Street

MILL LANE MIX There are only two places where the city centre’s public realm meets the river. One is Mill Lane and the other is Quayside, at the other end of the Backs. These are highly significant sites and, earlier this year, a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (prepared in partnership with the University of Cambridge) was presented for public consultation by Cambridge City Council for the redevelopment of the Old Press/Mill Lane area.

In its own words, the SPD can be summed up as follows: ʻThe Old Press/Mill Lane site will maintain its distinctive character by combining high quality buildings, streets and spaces, and respond well to its context. It will contain a mix of uses that add vitality and vibrancy to the Cityʼs historic core and its riverside location. Development will support the creation of a more attractive, accessible, safe and sustainable environment.ʼ Whilst no one would disagree with this statement, some 2 years on from the start of the process we have a loose ambition based on Vitruvian ideals, and just under 800 pages of reports from interested parties on how this might be achieved. What is lacking is any notion that these complex, detailed, lengthy and wordy documents might engender a coherent vision.

But what if we start with the vision? In this case, the enlightened landowner is the University of

Service courts. These secondary spaces are key to the success of the primary public streets and squares.

Planted Roofs. Flat roofs are treated as green and brown roofs encouraging the formation of a rooftop ecosystem.

buildings retained, with artisan gallery and workshop units opening up to a public sculpture garden, linking the existing archway entrance off Silver Street to Laundress Lane. The Oast House remains as a sculptural object housing an exhibition space.

Millside. Stairs link from the Silver Street bridge down to a new public space at the level of the river. An extension to the Anchor pub forms a new frontage to the space, and LQFOXGHV D SXQWLQJ WLFNHW RIÀFH DQG storage facility.

Reuse. Buildings are reused where possible with, in the case of the existing University Social Club, a rooftop addition.

Thus a new rooftop restaurant overlooks the Mill Pond, tying in with the new adjacent building.

Mill Lane. A shared surface with pavements and road at the same level, with visually attractive materials. New and reused buildings offer retail spaces at the key street corners, and HQWUDQFHV WR UHVHDUFK DQG RIÀFH VSDFH DERYH

The Huck Partnership Ltd Chartered Landscape Architects.

19 The Row, Sutton, Ely, Cambs. CB6 2PD Tel 01353 778959 Fax 01353775358 Email: thp@thehucks.co.uk 8

The Huck Partnership Ltd

Pitt Place. The existing space is cleared of car parking, creating a pleasant square surrounding by University buildings.

Stuart Square. The frontage of Stuart House is relandscaped to create a formal garden for public use.

Housing. New KRXVLQJ LQÀOO DW the end of Little St. Mary’s Lane.

Granta Place. With the fencing removed, Granta Place can

Cambridge, and thus the potential surely exists to imagine a consistently executed lively city quarter bringing together many disparate elements of city life. It already houses various university administrative and department functions, as well as the Mill Lane Lecture Rooms that give a public face to this institution. Instead of isolating new ʻinnovation centreʼ and R&D start-up units on science parks, could we not provide space for them close to the central science sites? Reintroduce some of the craft workshops that gave Silver Street its name, and intersperse these with small-scale creative businesses that currently struggle to find floor space in the centre? Along with cafes, bars, restaurants and student accommodation, the new public spaces would be places to exchange ideas, of chance encounters and conversations between people that would not ordinarily meet in a zonal city.

Actually, you will find some of this in the SPD and its supporting documents, but the point is that the SPD is an untested document aimed at policing proposals and must therefore remain vague in its terminology. By testing ideas early on, designers can quickly reveal what may or may not be possible, and this can in turn inform a more robust aspirational framework for development. Quayside offers an excellent lesson in how to achieve high quality public space: it is a case of establishing public and private, front and back, served and service spaces, and transferring this into a robust three-dimensional arrangement of streets, squares, courtyards, and built arrangements of determinate scale and material.

Temple Bar in Dublin also comes to mind as a successful example of how such a vision can then be made a reality by using a number of coordinated designs by good (local) architects.

These pages offer one such idea of how the Old Press/Mill Lane urban block might be conceived.

Urban plan

become a real place, extending from the University Centre to the river edge, allowing spill-out space from the Mill pub and 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWUH EDU $ QHZ SXQWLQJ RIÀFH DQG VWRUDJH EXLOGLQJ characterise the space and enables views through to the river from Little St. Mary’s Lane.

N Bobby Open practices architecture and urban design in Cambridge

The Property People

carterjonas.co.uk 6-8 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1NH T: 01223 368771 9

*

Regional College location

David Crowther

INNOVATING ON THE EDGE Consolidating on a single site and developing a unique range of courses, the regional college performs a key function in local skills training.

Its apparent detachment from the city belies an impressive optimisation of its peripheral location to connect with both city and region.

Internal mall Notes 1. www.camre.ac.uk 2. www.talktothehive.org

David Crowther is an architecturally educated builder-developer turned researcher

10

Cambridge Regional College lies between the A14 and the guided busway on King’s Hedges Road. Science Park at right

Cambridge Regional College (CRC)1 concentrates on training and vocational skills and plugs a vital gap in post-16 education, complementing (and collaborating with) both school and university sectors. In doing so it contributes significantly to the local economy, both directly (£21 million net to the County Council) and indirectly by raising the earnings and productivity of the workforce. Britain has habitually been criticised, in comparison with continental Europe, for the low priority given to this area, so it is heartening to report a success story: the College is popular with both students and employers, winning contracts and awards.

Community and critical mass CRC has just completed a 16-year construction programme – all of its huge range of courses is now accommodated in purpose-designed buildings on a single site, next to the Science Park Campus, between Kings Hedges Road and the A14. The College is surprisingly large: 4,000 full-time students (mainly 16+), 11,000 part-time (mainly 19+) and 800 staff (560 fulland 250 part-time). At least 4,000 people are on site at any one time, numbers that provide a critical mass in terms of sharing facilities (including an exceptionally advanced computer and IT network), staff and students.

Among the new buildings is the UK SmartLIFE Centre, full of the latest green technology and one of three European centres providing training in modern methods of construction and sustainability. CRC is well aware that regional growth is likely to result in skill shortages and, with technology constantly changing, is adapting its courses and teaching to meet the challenge. For example, students will be able to steer their training towards specialisms, such as the prefabricated techniques of the big volume builders or the traditional craft techniques required for existing and historic buildings. The equivalent of Continuing Professional Development for the building industry is under discussion.

Benefits and drawbacks Leaving the city centre has resulted in benefits for CRC – quite apart from room to expand. Access to the

motorway system could not be easier, while the guided bus stops right outside, connecting it better to the railway station than ever before, and ensuring a link to the proposed Chesterton Parkway. Making a virtue of necessity, the College subsidises dedicated services to ferry students to and from its regional catchment area.

In this way it ensures both that more students from outlying villages enroll than would otherwise be the case and that more than 50% travel by bus.

The new site has some disadvantages, however. It is in an unattractive part of the city, with looming electricity pylons and the constant rumble and hiss of the raised A14. The guided bus route, for all its benefits, cuts CRC off from everything south of Kingʼs Hedges Road. Perhaps deliberately turning inwards in response to these surroundings, the new campus is hardly noticeable from the outside but, once on site, one is drawn into another world. Individual buildings are of good quality and the pedestrian routes, including a central mall, work well, with cafeterias and small courts to one side, helping to strengthen the campus feel.

And there’s more to come Despite the enlightened transportation policy and extensive car parks all along the A14 boundary, cars dominate the large central court to the north of the reception and administration building. Comparable in size to Trinity Great Court, and edged on three sides by workshops and training facilities, this is a world away from the introverted grassed courts of the University of Cambridge. An even greater contrast is promised for a triangular site on the far side of Kingʼs Hedges Road.

There, in partnership with the County, the Building Research Establishment and Citylife, CRC is involved in a project – The Hive2 – that is seen as complementary to the St Johnʼs Innovation Centre. Described as an enterprise and education park for the future, its focus will be on business beneficial for society and the environment, supporting companies, teaching skills and providing workspaces related to a low carbon economy.

On completion, it should give the College the outward looking presence that it currently lacks – but so clearly deserves.

x

‘What is the reason for drawing a line in the city so that everything within the boundary is university, and everything outside is nonuniversity?... ...There will always be many systems of activity where university life and city life overlap: pubcrawling, coffee-drinking, the movies, walking from place to place.

In some cases where departments may be actively involved in the life of the city’s inhabitants (the hospital-cum-medical school is an example). In Cambridge, a natural city where university and city have grown together gradually, the physical units overlap because they are the physical residues of city systems which overlap.’

From A City is Not a Tree by Christopher Alexander, 1965 In Christopher Alexander’s semi-lattice diagram the ‘University’ and ‘City’ share the same spatial resources

In addition to its two heavyweights, Cambridge has a third university – the Open University (OU). But then, everywhere else has the OU as well. A virtual university seems like a very up-to-the-minute, digital concept, but it was founded 40 years ago, in 1969.

Right from the start the OU relied on state-of-theart technology to reach its dispersed student body. In the early days that meant radio and TV broadcasts late at night or early in the morning. Live broadcasts were replaced with audio- and video-tapes, then CDs and DVDs, and now internet communications dominate.

The OU has seen whole cycles of telecomms technology emerge, become widely adopted, and disappear – without disrupting its operational model.

Not all the OU's activities are virtual. In most courses students meet for tutorial sessions every six weeks or so. In the Eastern Region, there are 20,000 students and up to 200 tutorial groups can take place every week. They are organised by the OU's Regional Centre in Cintra House on Hills Road but take place all round the region. Cambridge has the largest concentration of events.

Cambridge as an OU resource Six locations are used in Cambridge: the Sixth Form College in Hills Road, Anglia Ruskin University, Homerton College, Cambridgeshire Regional College, The Møller Centre at Churchill College, and the Trinity Centre in the Science Park. These are purposedesigned buildings, fully equipped for educational use, disabled access, etc. The OU uses them on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Hills Road Sixth Form College, for example, might host 50 OU tutorial groups on a Saturday. The OU also rents space for examinations – Wolfson College is a particular favourite – and for residential schools.

There are long-term contracts with most spaceproviders, who are pleased to get income from resources that would otherwise be left idle. And the OU gets to use a wide variety of purpose-designed buildings, without having to worry about building management or capital and maintenance budgets. It sounds almost too good to be true. The principle is reminiscent of Christopher

Alexander's proposition that 'a city is not a tree (but a semi-lattice)1, where he pointed out that activities in cities do not have to be segregated into distinct zones. He quoted the example of Trinity Street between Trinity College's Great Gate and Whewell's Court, asking whether this is part of a commercial street or part of a college? – the answer, of course, is that it is both.

Alexander was thinking about the intersection of two spatial systems, but in the OU's case the intersection is in time. Thus, elsewhere in Cambridge, the same Hills Road buildings are both the Sixth Form College and the Open University, but not simultaneously.

OU students come together regularly for tutorials, but at other times they work in whatever spaces at whatever times they individually find most congenial.

Ad hoc gatherings of students are encouraged by the OU but are self-organised. These too use available space – pubs, cafes, homes, and so on. If you have read visionary articles about the new workstyles and lifestyles of the emerging digital economy, this will sound rather familiar. With the advent of distributed computing the idea that a firm's employees all have to troop into a corporate workspace, where they work all day and then disperse, is obsolete. In today's offices it is normal to see fewer than 50% of the workplaces occupied, as employees work flexible hours, telecommute or spend time in meetings.

A flexible and efficient model The current notion is that individual work will become increasingly self-organised, with employees optimising their work-life balance, relying on virtual communication; and travelling to central locations only for interaction and meetings. Since the OU has been using this model for 40 years it's clearly not as novel as some people think; but on the other hand it's not exactly a leap in the dark – so there's no reason why it should not be widely adopted. It's admirably flexible and resource-efficient.

This makes it even harder to understand why, for example, so many Cambridge colleges think they each need to build a lecture theatre of their own for a few hours' use per year – after all, the OU proves that a university is not a tree.

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

*

x x x

x

The OU is ubiquitous

William Fawcett

FUTURE EXEMPLAR There’s one university in Cambridge which uses the entire city as its campus.

Reflecting contemporary work patterns, the Open University suggests how academic space might be shared in an age of austerity.

OU’s Cintra House Note 1. A city with a tree diagram would have distinct spaces for each system, with no shared use – so the diagram would look like a tree with no cross-over links between its branches. ‘A City is Not a Tree’ was first published in Architectural Forum, April and May 1965 and, later, in Design, February 1966.

Alexander was a student at Cambridge in the mid 1950s. The reference to the ‘medical school’ in the diagram is to the old Addenbrookes Hospital (now the Judge Institute of Management Studies) which Alexander would have passed on his way from Trinity to the School of Architecture (as it was then called) at Scroope Terrace.

William Fawcett is Chadwick Fellow in Architecture at Pembroke College and is developing the Activity-Space Research initiative at the Martin Centre, investigating the impact of digital technologies on the ways that people use buildings.

11

*

Russell Street hostel location

Philip Cooper

BIG WOOD IN THE GARDEN A radically different form of construction lies behind 5th Studio’s new court for St Catharine’s College.

Externally, Garden Court’s well insulated timber panel structure is concealed by brick and open board larch cladding

Five layer CLT stair balustrade

Architects’ account When St Catharine’s College approached us, we saw an opportunity to transform the rather awkward relationship that their highly pragmatic, early 1990s brick building had with its urban backland plot.

Our scheme re-focuses the site around a green garden court. All of the new study rooms have a view across the courtyard, and generous corridors feel like cloisters, bringing a slice of Cambridge college life to this modern, city-fringe site.

Early in the design process we decided to use a cross-laminated timber panel superstructure because of the combined technical benefits of high thermal, acoustic and fire performance offered by this environmentally sustainable product.

Site constraints dictated it was necessary to build up to an irregular

12

ʻLock up your carbon with Cross Laminated Timberʼ, says Michael Hadi, consulting engineer for St Catharineʼs College new Garden Court in Russell Street, Cambridge. In this four storey residential court designed by architects 5th Studio, the superstructure is made wholly from solid, cross laminated timber panels imported from Switzerland. Above an in-situ concrete podium, all of the walls, floors, roof and even the staircases were delivered flat-packed, just like pieces of furniture from IKEA. Assembly is simple, so the building shot up in just a few days. The solid timber is handsome and robust, so the structure required very little finishing. This is Michael Hadi Associatesʼ (MHA) ninth ʻbig woodʼ building, so clearly this approach is not just a one off – it really competes with traditional methods of construction, so letʼs see why.

A remarkable product Cross laminated timber (CLT) is factory-made of solid softwood from sustainably managed forests. Its usual form is a flat panel made from small planks glued together in three to seven layers each usually perpendicular to the one beneath. The result is a strong, stable board which can be machined to any shape, ready to assemble as the structural walls and floors of a building.

Manufactured in Austria, Switzerland and Scandinavia, the panels can be virtually any size.

Transport is the only limitation. Planks are graded and finger-jointed, so the best timber is reserved for the facing layer, leaving the poorer grade wood hidden within the panel core. Grading means no waste – every part of the tree is used, and structural performance may be optimized by using the stronger wood in the outermost veneers where stresses are greatest. Fire resistance is good because of the low charring rate of thick section solid timber, and coatings

can be applied to control surface spread of flame. Airtightness is inherent and, by using a floating floor or a rubber crumb screed, acoustic performance easily exceeds modern regulations.

By virtue of the cross lamination these panels overcome one of the age-old shortcomings of wide plank timber – cross grain shrinkage. CLT is a remarkable product made of real wood which outperforms the natural timber from which it is made. It is not only stable because it does not cup or curl like natural wood, but also the criss-cross planks give panels of roughly equal strength in both directions. A floor panel has two-way spanning capacity because the grain runs in both directions. Wall panels can carry weight from above and work as loadbearing walls or columns – the vertical laminae carry the direct compression. At the same time these wall panels can also work as beams – the horizontal laminae provide bending strength.

Storey-height panels behave as deep beams which can span or cantilever quite long distances. In one of MHAʼs schools, pieces cut out of the walls were used – like giant pieces of a childʼs jigsaw puzzle – to make table tops. These are some of the real advantages of cross laminated timber which have been exploited in the design of elegant timber structures.

Garden Court At Russell Street the cellular plan was ideal for cross laminated timber floors. Short spans meant that the solid timber floors were only 135mm deep, saving height and making an efficient use of wood. Though longer spans are possible, structural depth does increase on account of the greater self weight, thus making spans over 6m less economic.

While this method of construction imposes quite fierce restrictions on the architects in terms of definitive

coordination of services, structure and fittings at an early stage, and close scrutiny of the 3D computer model from which the suppliers generated their cutting patterns, it can be good to get this thinking done earlier rather than during the site-phase of work as is more common.

The structure was designed in detail, supplied and erected by Eurban. To save time on site, all of the structural joints were prepared in the factory and erection on site was very fast because the panels fitted together without any site sawing. Simple half-lap joints made with a single loose board screwed into position provided a firm means of joining the panels together.

This technique works with normal tolerances typical on a building site, not the precision of a car assembly plant.

Such tolerance and room for adjustment at junctions has allowed the timber panels to sit comfortably on a normal, imperfect concrete slab. So the benefits of these factory made timber panels did not impose unrealistic precision on other trades. Cross laminated timber was site-friendly at Russell Street.

Huge potential Michael and his team love to work with timber, so quite naturally he has begun to explore how else he can use cross laminated timber. With such excellent

sustainability credentials this form of construction is becoming more popular. For a sports hall with tall walls he has built panels one on top of another laid stretcher bond like giant bricks. The wood gives a very smooth flat surface for ball rebound – a surface that can easily be repaired if damaged. For a chapel in Blackpool, the tall walls are post-tensioned horizontally, and this allows the room to cantilever an impressive distance which will make this building a new icon on the waterfront. There should be no problem with creep, or loss of post-tensioning force, due to the cross lamination.

Of course there is scope for development. Michael is now asking the manufacturers to leave out some laminae in the core of a panel, thus creating a hollow core floor plate, not unlike the ubiquitous precast concrete floor plank. It is ideas like this which allow us to move forward, and make more sustainable buildings in the future.

Two-way spanning, hollow core, lightweight, dimensionally stable, and precision made – who would think that we are talking about timber? The age of engineered timber has really arrived. And with this thought, Michael clicked his Apple Mac onto yet another timber building – a geodesic structure – but thatʻs another story

boundary on three sides, and the precision manufacturing process of the CLT panels meant that we were able to specify every dimension exactly. The relatively slender structural profiles of the floor, roof and wall panels (no downstand beams or ribbed structures) also meant that we were able to maximise the useable volume.

For the College, the success of the project hinged around a very tight programme. All rooms had to be occupied by the start of this academic year, so the speed of site assembly offered by the Lenotec CLT system was a key factor in the choice of this construction method. Also, the twostage tender process gave us an opportunity to discuss details with the timber subcontractor, and to begin the lengthy drawing approvals process, before work started on site. Having experienced the design and site process from start to finish, we are now exploring ways to increase the efficiency and performance of the system.

Oliver Smith: 5th Studio Credits Architects: 5th Studio www.5thstudio.co.uk Structure: MHA www.mha-consult.co.uk Quantity Surveyors: Davis Langdon www.davislangdon.com Services consultant: Max Fordham LLP www.maxfordham.com Main contractor: SDC www.sdc.co.uk CLT contractor: Eurban Lenotec www.eurban.co.uk

Section across court

Ground floor plan of new building and part existing

External wall section and parapet detail

Consrtuction photograph: CLT panels serve as walls and floors

CLT panels can be fully exposed

Philip Cooper is a structural engineer with a particular interest in sustainable construction.

He is based at Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd. (www.carl.co.uk)

Larch clad stair and corridor wall

13

NEW

CAMBRIDGE DESIGNED

WORTH A LOOK

PROJECTS AND BUILDINGS

Recently completed Cambridge buildings: an editorial selection

A selection of current projects and recently completed buildings submitted by Cambridgebased practices.

Centre for the Physics of Medicine West Cambridge site Madingley Road Building Design Partnership, architects Willmott Dixon, contractors Hauser Forum West Cambridge site Madingley Road Wilkinson Eyre, architects Willmott Dixon, contractors Institute of Manufacturing West Cambridge site Madingley Road Arup Associates, architects Marriott Constructon, contractors Anne Court Selwyn College Grange Road Porphyrios Associates, architects Morgan Ashurst, contractors Library Fitzwilliam College Storey’s Way Cullinan Architects Kier Regional (Marriott) , contractors

Listed farmhouse extension This South Norfolk farmhouse has been adapted and altered many times over the past 500 years. The modern treatment of joinery, surfaces and structure in this latest addition clearly differentiates between new and existing elements and provides more open, light and airy spaces than would previously have been possible. Externally, a new porch and garden room were added whilst, internally, the kitchen and family room were extensively re-modeled. The design by Patrick Ward of Haysom Ward Miller grew out of a positive dialogue with the conservation officer. www.haysomwardmiller.co.uk www.willowbuilders.moonfruit.com

Private house 18 Cavendish Avenue Mole Architects, Prickwillow Cambridge Building Company, contractors

Cathedral ceiling Work on this wooden, fan-vaulted ceiling in the Millennium Tower of Suffolkʼs cathedral church, St Edmundsbury in Bury St Edmunds began in June 2009 – with completion expected in early 2010. The gilded and painted oak ceiling structure weighs 8 tonnes and will be hoisted in segments to a position 45m above the crossing floor. The decorative scheme displays the 42 heraldic coats of arms of the Dioceses of the Church of England. The architect, Henry Freeland of Freeland Rees Roberts, is architect to two other cathedrals – Guildford and Norwich. The contractors are Taylor Made Joinery, Hare & Humphreys and FA Valiant & Son. www.frrarchitects.co.uk www.tmjinteriors.com www.hare-humphreys.co.uk www.favaliant.co.uk

Private house 48 Pretoria Road Freeland Rees Roberts, architects, Cambridge York Construction, contractors Private house 30 Sedley Taylor Road NRAP, architects, Cambridge Adams and Newman, contractor – and you may be intrigued to see the fourteen new bronze ‘book bollards’ installed in front of the University Library (between West Road and Burrell’s Walk). The individual books on the four central bollards can be rotated to reveal the title of the artwork.

They were created by local sculptor Harry Gay and cast at the FSE Foundry in Braintree.

14

Suburban eco-house Replacing a 1960s bungalow in Magnolia Close, off Blinco Grove, this house is carefully designed to respect its neighbours, provide privacy and rely on renewable forms of energy. It will feature triple glazing, photo voltaic panels, whole house ventilation with heat recovery and a wood-burning stove. Construction (by Britaniabuild) will start in January 2010 and utilize a panelised timber frame structure with an external timber and rendered finish. Architects are Gavin Langford Architects. www.gavinlangfordarchitects.com www.britaniabuild.com

Comberton Village College extension Built around a two-storey high multi-use atrium, the Mouchel-designed new extension contains new classrooms, a drama space, three art studios and new laboratories. High thermal mass, passive ventilation linked to CO2 sensors using stack-effect within the building, solar shading and a ground-source heat pump contribute to sustainability. Landscape integrates the new with the existing. Kier Eastern commenced construction in July 2008 and completed in August 2009. www.mouchel.com www.kier.co.uk

Founding partner of RH Partnership Architects whose teamwork skills were recognised in his appointment – as a private practitioner – as Project Officer for the University of Cambridge West Cambridge development.

Architecture is seldom, if ever, the work of an individual, rather it is the product of effective teamwork and motivational leadership. Jack Lewry, who has died aged 63, understood this from early in his career and applied his natural skills in these areas, not only within the office but also with fellow consultants, clients and contractors, creating the right environment for design teams to develop and succeed. It was in this way that he made a most significant contribution to the delivery of many fine buildings.

Born in Shoreham, Jack was the son of a bricklayer who fostered his sonʼs enthusiasm for building. In 1964 he joined the School of Architecture and Interior Design of Brighton Polytechnic. The architecture schoolʼs ethos encouraged strong links between architects, engineers and a wide range of fellow artists and craftsmen. This was to inspire his later approach.

It was during his mid-course ʻyear outʼ in Leicester that Jack met his wife Phyl. The couple married during the following year and were to remain together for forty years of deep friendship, family building and joint love of the arts.

He was awarded a distinction for his final year thesis project of 1970, a residential school for handicapped children which showed an exceptionally sensitive awareness of the way children used and experienced buildings. He later, all too modestly, denied having such design skills.

Jackʼs first job, following graduation in 1970, was in the London office of Roman Halter, architect and stained glass artist. Jack was an associate and had been with the practice for four years, when the principal closed the offices and left to pursue other activities.

Jack and a colleague thereupon started R H

TIM SOAR

JACK LEWRY

Partnership with offices in London and Cambridge where Jack was living. Fifteen months later, Jeremy Buckingham joined Jack in Cambridge and the core of the practice was formed. By the time of his retirement in 2002, Jack and his partners had developed the practice from a small start-up to an Architectsʼ Journal Top 100 company employing over 40 staff with offices in Cambridge and Brighton.

Early projects developed under Jackʼs guidance included new office headquarters for Cambridge Interactive Systems at Harston Mill, healthcare facilities for Barking Hospital, projects for the RAF Henlow and RAF Wittering and the St Johnʼs Innovation Centre – a competition-winning landmark scheme for the practice.

In the early 1980ʼs, Jack faced a difficult period following the diagnosis of a tumour which resulted in the removal of an eye. It is impossible to say, but this brave decision, based as it was on conflicting consultant advice, may have considerably delayed the spread of the disease. What is certain is that he responded with typical strength of character and outlook.

Jackʼs enthusiasm, professionalism and practicality were appreciated by colleagues, fellow consultants and clients in equal measure. His abilities were recognised by the University of Cambridge – in particular by his appointment as project officer for the West Cambridge development, its largest expansion in 800 years. Jack worked with the University Estates department and the masterplanning team over a period of four years, to take this project through a difficult planning process.

He promoted sustainability long before it became mainstream – encouraging the practice to explore ideas and take risks in developing many low energy buildings.

The practice won energy and conservation awards for a range of buildings throughout the 1980ʼs and 1990ʼs including Harston Mill and the pioneering Ionica building.

He was a well known and much respected figure on the Cambridge construction scene – involved in the Cambridge Association of Architects, Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry, Cambridge Pro Help and other organisations. He also spent many years working towards the understanding of, and provision of care for, young people with Aspergerʼs syndrome. He was working tenaciously after his retirement to set up a form of sheltered housing for a group of eight young people with Aspergerʼs, including one of his daughters. His work in this area is incomplete and needs the support and efforts of others in the community to bring it to fruition. * Jack was an optimist. Along with his great sense of humour, this often resulted in his wonderfully distinctive laugh signalling his presence, creating an appropriately informal atmosphere in the office. Even in the last few months he remained positive and interested in everyone around him and was planning a balloon trip over the Grand Canyon and another skiing holiday. Sadly, these were not to be. Suffering from an incurable form of cancer, he died on 22nd September.

R H Partnership benefited from Jackʼs vision, skills and his well considered and generous stewardship. He was particularly keen to ensure the structure of the practice should encourage and recognise individual development and achievement, critically enabling the smooth transition of management required for the companyʼs long term continuity. Ultimately this legacy is far stronger than any passing design trend or fashion.

Stephen Adutt, Jeremy Buckingham, Ray Chudleigh and David Emond

Harston Mill ...

TIM SOAR

OBITUARY

... Ionica HQ ...

... and the St John’s Innovation Centre – all buildings with which Jack Lewry was involved

*For information on this project please contact CASH ( Cambridge Aspergerʼs Support Housing) tel 01223 709827

15

IRONMONGERY HANDLED Save time with our no-obligation specification service.

High specification architectural hardware showroom. (pictured) Qualified, experienced and friendly advice from our trained team.

Cover: design by Bobby Open based on Christopher Alexanderʼs diagram (p. 11), Patrick Squireʼs photograph (p. 6) and Openʼs drawing (pp. 8 and 9). The location plans throughout this issue were also drawn by Open.

Unbeatable range of high quality designer fittings.

Private meeting room for you and your clients to utilise.

AC LEIGH, EAST ANGLIA’S LEADING ARCHITECTURAL IRONMONGER NEW BRANCH UNIT C, 20 MERCERS ROW, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 8HY

Tel: 01223 345910 Fax: 01223 345919 E: cambridge@acleigh.co.uk W: www.acleigh.co.uk

Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry events For details and tickets contact: www.cfci.org.uk secretary@cfci.org.uk CA gazette current sponsors Andrew Firebrace Partnership Archial Architects Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry Davis Langdon Gleeds Hannah Reed The Landscape Partnership Mouchel Wrenbridge

RIBA Cambridge Architecture gazette is a review produced by the Cambridge Association of Architects, the local chapter of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

The views in this gazette are those of the individual contributors (named and unnamed) and not of the Association.

The Editors welcome the opportunity to consider readersʼ contributions for publication and reserve the right to edit.

Back issues from no. 51 (Winter/Spring 2005) may be found at

Natural N atturall Materials.

Maaterials. t The Natural T he h N atu tural Choice..

www.architecture.com/cambridgegazette ISSN 1361-3375 This issue edited by: Peter Carolin Bobby Open with Alasdair Travers

Stonemasonry expertise Stonemasonry expertise at Ivett Iveett & Reed Reed is second to none – whether it is restoring, restoring, replacing replacing or creating creating new new stonework stoneworrk for windo windows, ws steps, ws, steps copings or o sills. sills

Fundraising by: Marie-Luise Critchley-Waring

Wee hold stocks of P W Portland, ortland, Bath, Bath, Y York oork and Ancaster H Hard ard White stones or w wee can wor workk to your your individual specification. specification n.

Wee hav W havee an extensive extensivve stoney stoneyard, yard, workshops workshops equipped with state-of-the-artt machinery, state-of-the-ar machinery, a designated memorial showroom showroom m and spacious and stylish areas areaas featuring our fireplaces, fireplaces, fires, fires, stoves, sto ves, wor worktops ktops and tiles.

CAg mailing list admin RIBA East and Oliver Caroe Editorial Board Meredith Bowles Peter Carolin Bobby Open Adam Peavoy

Call us on 01223 213500 for foor a quote or visit our stoneyar stoneyard d and sh showroom howroom M Monday onday – Saturday Saturday

Cambridge Architecture gazette c/o Orchard End 15E Grange Road Cambridge CB3 9AS Tel 01223 352723 pc207@cam.ac.uk mail@bobbyopen.com www. w w w. ive i v e t t a ndreed.co.uk ndreed.co.uk

615 NEWMARKET ROAD, CAMBRIDGE CB5 8PA

Printed by Bulldog Publishing Ltd, Whittlesford