Central Gateshead: Uncertainty and Desire

Central Gateshead: Uncertainty and Desire Central Gateshead: Uncertainty and Desire Charrettes 2010 apl Newcastle University

Charrettes 2010 apl Newcastle University

Central Gateshead: Uncertainty and Desire

Charrettes 2010 apl Newcastle University

Acknowledgements

Central Gateshead: Uncertainty and Desire is the culmination of a Charrette undertaken by postgraduate students in Architecture (Stage 5 and 6) from Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape. The Charrette addressed a strangulated urban space in central Gateshead located in and around three housing blocks and adjacent to the flyover that by passes the Town Centre. It incorporated three distinctive projects designed to draw from the rich experience held by the respective project leaders, the involvement and commitment of whom made this Charrette possible.

We would therefore like to thank warmly Manuel Tardits (Mikan) and Dermot Foley (Dermot Foley Landscape Architects) whose enthusiasm and insight facilitated projects that were both provoking and delightful.

We are grateful for the keen contribution of Lowri Bond (Northern Architecture), and from Newcastle University, Professor Mark Dorrian, Joanna Hinchcliffe and Graham Farmer.

Thank you to Gateshead Council for their interest in the work — we hope it prompts further discussion, in particular thank you for the

support of Geoff Underwood (Senior Planner), Gateshead Council, Peter Udall (Head Of Design), Gateshead Council and from The Gateshead Housing Company Brett Routledge and Richard Finlow.

We owe special thanks to the people living and working in and for the three housing blocks (Priory, Park and Peareth) who generously gave their time in discussions with students; their warmth and willing participation was appreciated and their observations and experiences inspired all of us.

Finally, thank you to the students whose energy and collective dedication made this a true ‘Charrette’!

We are indebted to Michael Tawa for initiating the charettes: this one week intensive projects led by practicing professionals from the furthest imaginable horizons has become a tradition which students look forward to.

Daniel Mallo Armelle Tardiveau

Introduction

Charrette:

1

The term “Charrette” is thought to have originated from the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris during the nineteenth century. Student Architects worked frantically to complete their drawings whilst proctors circulated a cart, or “charrette”, to collect their final illustrations.

Our Charrette reflects this tradition of an intense collective work effort to generate design ideas and solutions.

References: Definition of Charrette, http://www. charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html.

Site Plan

Dermot Foley and Manuel Tardits

Area of Intervention: The Charrette explores the outdoor spaces in between and adjacent to three council flat blocks known as the 3P’s — Priory, Park and Peareth — in Central Gateshead, including the area occupied by the flyover.

‘Where Will the Flyover Go’: led by Dermot Foley, Dermot Foley Landscape Architects, Dublin/London (www.dermotfoley.com) with Graham Farmer (Newcastle University)

Participants: 60 post-graduate students in Architecture from Newcastle University and residents and users of the space outside the three council flat blocks Projects: The Charrette includes three distinct projects that revolve around the urban and social context of three housing blocks in Gateshead. These projects start with the existing condition, acknowledge its value and demonstrate that constraints can be assets.

‘Gateshead Soup’: led by Manuel Tardits, Mikan, Yokohama (www.mikan. co.jp) ‘Action!’: led by Daniel Mallo and Armelle Tardiveau (Newcastle University) with Lowri Bond (Northern Architecture), Professor Mark Dorrian and Joanna Hinchcliffe (Newcastle University).

B

r

i

e

f

s

Where will the Flyover go?

Challenge: There are two assumptions, that the flyover will be taken away and that the place will be better. The first part of this project is to challenge the first assumption.

The second part is to make proposals to fulfil the second assumption.

Phase 1 Translocation of Material and Translocation of Site: A site (or sites) in Gateshead will be selected that would be suitable receiving environments for the dismantled flyover.

Spatial scenarios will be developed that use the dismantled flyover in a way that links back philosophically, materially and socially to the original site of the flyover, these will be done for the original flyover site and other sites around Gateshead.

Gateshead Soup Challenge: Problems and ingredients will be determined in order to create a Gateshead Soup. By “soup” we mean an urban space somewhere between the chaotic contemporary city and former organised towns. A soup is still a rather amorphous phenomenon, but it is also composed by clear, logical and social recipes that make it tasty.

Phase 1 Finding the Ingredients: Central Gateshead seems to be a contemporary rupture of organised urban structures. The first step of the project is to document the various problems that destroy urbanity before identifying positive ingredients within the chaos. This will be done through observations of the site and encounters with residents. The second step will be to create a set of recipes, through the “100 ideas process” using the ingredients.

Action!

Challenge: To map the controversies of the site and use these discoveries to develop an ‘Action’ that makes a temporary statement yet that contributes to a legacy that will have a positive impact on the space.

References: Doina Petrescu, “Losing Control, Keeping Desire” in Blundell Jones, Petrescu, Till (2005), Architecture and Participation, Spon Press, Oxon

Phase 1 Cartographies of Controversies: The nature of the useable and unused areas around the site will be explored through field work; both by observing the place and engaging with the

pp 4-33 Phase 2 Making the Place Better: For the actual flyover site and selected new sites various possibilities and constraints will be considered. These will be site specific but the intention is to explore the city as a whole, an interconnected experience.

pp 35-74 Phase 2 Making the Soup: The recipes will be classified in order to prepare a kind of practical catalogue for making a new urban soup for Gateshead or the Gateshead Soup.

pp 76-92 residents. The findings will be presented through maps that will become the foundation for the ‘Action’.

Phase 2 Collective Action: The history of urban action goes back to the 1970s when activist groups started to ‘establish links between the street and the academy, the neighbourhood and the political scene’ (Petrescu, 2005).

Action-based practices have re-emerged in the contemporary scene, exploiting the

temporary nature of the action as tool for immediacy and empowerment. Phase 2 is to determine , install and enforce a temporary ‘Action’ which will leave a legacy that can galvanise future actions.

Phase 3 Legacy Action: By reflecting on the Action a proposal will be designed for the space in between and/ or adjacent to the 3Ps that will improve the spatial qualities, enabling a positive feeling and enhancing social cohesion.

2

3

Where will the Flyover go?

There are two assumptions, that the flyover will be taken away and that the place will be better.

We challenge the first assumption and make proposals to fulfill the second.

4

U r b a n Archipelagos

5

The urban archipelagos are a response to the network of non-places created in Gateshead.

These interstitial spaces are usually formed from the increasing road network, which continues to strangle Gateshead’s city centre.

A series of follies with different functions are places on a grid system informed from the historic terrace past.

6

These follies incorporate local ideas and encourage a movement into the digital era. Urban rhythms have informed the contraction and expansion of activities available, usually based around the car dominance at certain hours of the day.

7

A Haynes manual is developed to enable simple use of the proposed cultural hub. A number of follies are located within the archipelagos amongst the Gateshead road junctions. The interventions each maintain a distinct identity and aim to enhance a currently confusing area by giving it logic and rhythm with the potential to move through and over these spaces.

8

Vo t e your

with Feet

9

Our charrette proposal looked at the idea of Post-Urban Succession.

A gigantic structure driven through the heart of a small, shrinking town is both a burden and an asset. The proposal was conceived retrospectively, studying how artists, skaters, cultural groups and small businesses colonised the freely available space - living in and living off (cannibalising) the structure.

Maps identifying existing open spaces, left over soft landscaping, wasteland, hard landscaping and the area of post urban succession.

10

This process continues with the help of the local authority - until a ribbon of park, space, buildings and shelter have been created.

The activities of the users themselves resulted in the translocation of pieces of the flyover, activating neighbouring spaces and drawing out the emerging uses of the linear park.

11

12

Inside

Out

The flyover becomes “dislocated” to reinforce pedestrian and existing cycle connections.

13

Inside out identifies a new site for the flyover that not only creates a new gateway to gateshead, but extends out into the surrounding context and connects the pockets of local neighbourhoods, revives the nearby Staithes landmark and bolsters the local and regional cycle routes. Inside out thinks about the wider implications of the site while letting nature and the users take control of the site’s more intricate details.

14

15

16

S h r i n k i n g C i t i e s | G r o w i n g Communities

17

Gateshead is shrinking.

Its population is now close to levels of 100 years ago. This has a direct relationship with the built environment as the density and coherence of the urban fabric has decreased significantly leaving much void space and a fragmented urban form.

Redistribution Phase 1

Redistribution Phase 2

Redistribution Phase 3

Access| Feeds

Access| Nodes

Access| Paths

18

19

Our proposal considers what would occur if this shrinkage were to continue.

Using precedents from the ‘Shrinking Cities’ project we proposed working with what would normally be considered a negative, urban shrinkage, and instead turning it into a positive.

The considerable infrastructural boundaries of Gateshead centre would be built upon and the edge densified while structured removal of the centre would take place in stages beginning with derelict properties.

The final outcome would be an active and dense boundary that frames the urban space of a patchwork of public green spaces of various scales and uses.

Perhaps Gateshead will return to what it was historically – a collection of separate communities.

20

U r b a n R e s e r v o i r

21

We propose a removal of function across the flyover and provide an intervention using the dismantled elements of the car, thus maintaining the monumental quality of the infrastructure. To establish a different function for the flyover, the existing structure was to remain and act as an Urban reservoir with evolving parkland.

22

This creates an active green corridor through the core of Gateshead.

Collected water filters down the natural slope of the infrastructure and irrigates surrounding green areas.

Staged filtration throughout a series of water pools provides different aquatic conditions to support a variety of ecologies.

23

Dependent on levels of water and plant growth different routes would become available along the flyover. This provides an ever changing urban environment that provokes a sense of memory enabling new lines of desire.

24

U r b a n D i f f u s i o n

25

The Tyne Deck acts as a response to the apparent segregation and separation between Gateshead Quays and Gateshead Town Centre. The recent culture-led regeneration of the Quayside area has enhanced the social disparity between the two entities, already largely disconnected due to the topography and infrastructure.

26

The Tyne Deck seeks to remove elements of the redundant flyover currently bisecting Gateshead Town Centre, and to introduce a sustainable green link that physically connects to the Quayside. This route is based upon a series of recreational park spaces imagined upon the structure of the flyover, allowing further connectivity across the once prevalent boundary.

27

Reclaimed material from the flyover will in turn be used to form the proposed urban realm stretching down to the Quayside, further associating the town and historic urban fabric with the area.

28

Perception/ M o t i o n / Engagement

29

Krystallia Kamvasinou identifies Transitional Landscapes as “Landscapes of the urban periphery that are normally experienced under the condition of speed”. We view the flyover as a transitional landscape that, “represents a new type of public place with a valid need for user engagement and awareness.”

Once the catalyst site has been realised, interventions based on the same process can occur at strategic areas of the flyover that enable stronger connections within Gateshead. This network of spaces ultimately forges a new route towards the Quayside and ultimately across the Tyne to Newcastle.

30

31

Through encouraging fast moving traffic to use the flyover and by creating a shared surface at ground level, our intervention enables the pedestrian to gain a new experience and perspective of the flyover.

A relatively small area of the flyover becomes a catalyst for connection within Gateshead, with the view that a united Gateshead can better relate to Newcastle over time.

A process of subtraction, addition and re-use is employed at the catalyst site which aims to manipulate the existing hierarchies of traffic and pedestrian, forming new horizontal and vertical connections that transform existing ideas of perception, motion and engagement with the flyover.

32

| Where will the Flyover go?

The Charrette Experience

33

The flyover stream of the charrette was intended to be an exploration of context and site on a large scale so that the students might approach future projects with a greater appreciation of the overall field within which they would be designing. Some students understood the project as a landscape architecture project (perhaps because it was set by a landscape architect) and designed almost exclusively in terms of landscape, parks and nature, whilst others attempted to understand what the flyover contributes at the overall scale of the city, using connections, links, redistribution of materials and other devices to generate more potential for design and altered perception.

Two important questions still remain for students, citizens and policy makers – firstly, have we really moved on from the zoning policies that gave us the dysfunctional

landscapes of Gateshead, or is the replacement of the flyover with a boulevard just another chapter in the same book and secondly, can small changes be more potent than the wholesale demolition of fabric (symbolically dramatic though the removal of the flyover might be)? Finally, I hope that the experience alone of walking large sites in Gateshead provided a new perspective for the students. The overall charrette was extremely well organised and focused on critical issues in architecture. The students certainly seemed to enjoy it and produced a tremendous amount of work during the week.

Dermot Foley

Urban Archipelagos: James Dowen Alistair Wilkinson Lloyd Harrison

Vote with your feet: Nick Simpson Jon Gabe Jen Charlton Inside Outside: Dominic Lamb Jeremy Trotter Raichel Warren Erik Sommerlatte Shrinking Cities|Growing Communities: Nick Scannell Rob Newsham Jennie Webb Urban Reservoir: Daniel Shevill Alex Blaylock Ross Russell Urban Diffusion: James Harrington Paul Maguire Nicholas Kemp Perception/Motion/ Engagement: Mark Brown Louise Daly George Musson

34

B A

NO ENTRY

S OU P

35

NO ENTRY

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

p r e f a c e

One has to be modest, has to be ambitious. One has to dream, one has to be practical.

NO ENTRY B A

The aim: making the Gateshead Soup involved searching for, fabricating and organising the ingredients in a coherent though diverse manner.

A delicious potion would hopefully result from this process.

The search: we went to the site, had a first review as a group, without meeting the residents and guided by our own criteria. Then we had a second session during which we interviewed the residents, getting a deeper understanding of the kind of problems experienced by the people living in the 3 P’s.

The fabrication: following this brief analysis, arguably too brief, each of us had to present at least 5 proposals or ideas to address clearly identified problems. Once compiled and carefully assessed, they formed the base, the ingredients, for making the soup.

The organization: good ingredients, of course, do not make a soup unless formulated, by way of an intellectual exercise, to give rise to a coherent recipe.

We tried to be clear and seriously playful in order to be easily understood.

A common format, a graphical expression and a set of icons relevant to the task were generated to formulate the recipe.

The soup: We just intended to react positively, within our capacity as architects, to a place facing deep-rooted social problems. We are well aware of the variety of ingredients and that some of them could be very attractive, others less.

Together, however, they give a special blend to this potion. Eventually we all sincerely hope that you will appreciate the taste of our soup.

36

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

i

c

o

n

s

| concept icons | location icons | resident or student icon | action icons |

NO ENTRY

NO ENTRY

37

anti-social behaviour

paranoia

internal

add

barriers

leisure

skin

subtract

built form

surveillance

roof

open

maintenance

external control

landscape

close

management

isolation

hopper street

combine

noise

user control

flyover

change

community

threshold

gateshead

mobilise

B disconnection

landscape

a problem that has arisen from speaking to the residents

passive

wildlife

a problem that students have observed

B A

A

energy

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

p r o b l e m s

NO ENTRY B A

| 001 cinema | 002 recycling | 003 windows | 004 windows | 005 flooding | 006 public toilets | 007 gardens | 008 threshold | 009 threshold | 010 residents society | 011 pride | 012 unemployment | 013 amenities | 014 addicts | 015 homelessness | 016 users | 017 wildlife | 018 play | 019 relaxation | 020 roof access | 021 awkward additions | 022 unused space | 023 chimney | 024 natural light | 025 routes | 026 no routes | 027 main entrance | 028 energy | 029 security | 030 heating | 031 rules | 032 transient residents | 033 demographic | 034 town access | 035 fences | 036 utility access | 037 layout | 038 privacy | 039 Hopper Street | 040 parking | 041 kitchen | 042 sunlight | 043 taxi | 044 refurbishment | 045 deliveries | 046 flyover | 047 bins | 048 walls | 049 parking | 050 isolation |

38

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

007 | gardens There is no private external space for residents. All external space is very public and unusable.

NO ENTRY

39 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

009 | threshold Upper flats have little access to fresh air. The windows do not fully open and residents lack connection with the weather.

NO ENTRY B A

40

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

011

|

pride

There is a lack of pride for the flats as people have little responsibility over their properties.

There is little allowance for personal changes and adaptations.

NO ENTRY

41 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

016

|

users

The residents’ values can clash, some complain about loud music from their neighbours because of inadequate sound insulation between the floors.

NO ENTRY B A

42

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

018

|

play

‘It is approximately 20 minutes to Saltwell Park where kids can kick a football around’.

- Resident There are ‘no ball games’ signs around the public area of the three P’s.

NO ENTRY

43 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

019 | relaxtion ‘There is nowhere to have picnics, there are too many trees which means too many ‘WASPS!’ - Resident

NO ENTRY B A

44

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

025

|

routes

There are narrow walkways to unclear entrances.

NO ENTRY

45 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

031

|

There are rules and

NO ENTRY B A

rules too many restrictions.

46

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

041 | kitchen Kitchens have no ventilation.

Windows face internal corridors, and cannot be opened. Extractor fans are not allowed.

NO ENTRY

47 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

050 | isolation The blocks are isolated from each other hindering community development.

NO ENTRY B A

48

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

proposals

NO ENTRY

49 B A

001 stomp stop | 002 noise box | 003 light up your life | 004 let there be light | 005 open plan, easy life | 006 home sweet home | 007 landing living | 008 stop and stair | 009 protective armour | 010 all spaced out | 011 mix it up | 012 one of a kind | 013 winds of change | 014 breath of fresh air | 015 my beautiful laundry | 016 one for all | 017 safe house | 018 meet and greet | 019 glaze glaze glaze | 020 out to dry | 021 flippin’ balconies | 022 plug-in balconies | 023 garden walk | 024 hot box | 025 green fingers | 026 chasing the sun | 027 green connection | 028 recycling chutes | 029 slime power | 030 solar tower | 031 grafiti art | 032 slip and slide | 033 inbetweeners | 034 raise me up | 035 nice to see you | 036 glaze me up | 037 pet paths | 038 piping hot | 039 double up | 040 buffer balcony | 041 shading puzzle | 042 fine vines | 043 your ad here | 044 so you didn’t like the car park? | 045 disco wall | 046 green filter | 047 subtractive gardens | 048 gardens in the sky | 049 three peaks | 050 party pod | 051 bat

maison | 052 honey pot | 053 petting zoo | 054 high flying drying | 055 goatshead | 056 grow together | 057 high and dry | 058 playing the roof | 059 costa del gateshead | 060 roof rink | 061 hit the roof | 062 child’s play | 063 hot fingers | 064 blown away | 065 g.i.y. grow it yourself | 066 walk on the wild side | 067 bridging the gap | 068 the great wall of gateshead | 069 pavilion in the park | 070 stack-‘em | 071 hug in a mug | 072 castle moat | 073 hello hello | 074 a bad nights sleep | 075 pulling up the ladder | 076 a clear perspective | 077 trolley tipping | 078 chimney planters | 079 open sesame | 080 park and play | 081 on your bike son | 082 car jenga | 083 capillary paths | 084 light houses | 085 green chimney | 086 film facade | 087 beam me up | 088 strollercoaster | 089 under where? | 090 shared space | 091 meet me at the market | 092 work pods | 093 take the high road | 094 wonderwall | 095 green screen | 096 over the top | 097 arty barrier | 098 pee pod | 099 big brother | 100

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

002 | noise box Built-in units with acoustic panels will be provided for extra storage space and to absorb excess noise.

NO ENTRY B A

50

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

006 | sweet

home home

Combine the ground and first floor flats into duplex units aimed at families.

The duplex flat simulates a traditional home and provides private external access to a garden.

NO ENTRY

51 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

014 | a breath of freash air Ventilation ducts from the kitchens and bathrooms will use the natural stack effect of the stairwells as a driving force.

NO ENTRY B A

52

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

015 | my beautiful laundry The existing coal store houses a coin operated laundrette for residents.

Residual heat from the gas boiler is used to aid drying.

NO ENTRY

53 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

016 | one for all Provide a central reception to manage all three towers.

NO ENTRY B A

54

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

022 on

| plug balconies

Offer different types of balconies to allow the users a sense of ownership.

NO ENTRY

55 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

028 | recycling chutes Recyclable waste chutes located on each floor are an incentive to recycle a higher proportion of household waste.

NO ENTRY B A

56

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

036 | glaze me up Extend and re-configure the corridors to create an open atrium and provide a more social entrance environment.

NO ENTRY

57 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

037 | pet paths New outdoor access for animals to higher levels allows more residents to keep pets.

NO ENTRY B A

58

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

041 | shading puzzle Add varied sliding shading units to enable all residents to control their own units light level.

NO ENTRY

59 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

042 | fine vines Add sections of metal meshing to allow plants to grow on the facade to enhance the aesthetic quality of the blocks.

NO ENTRY B A

60

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

057 | shipped in Provide crane containers on the roof.

Fill with temporary accommodation for key workers and transient residents.

Use as storage for the smaller accommodation units.

NO ENTRY

61 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

060 | pee pod ‘Pee Pods’ are situated along the cut-through route, which during the day are hidden under the ground. At night, the pods pop up and provide a more sanitary solution for the ‘caught short’ nonresidents.

NO ENTRY B A

62

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

065 | g.i.y. grow it yourself The three roofs of the blocks of flats provide opportunity for growing produce.

NO ENTRY

63 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

070 | stack ‘em Stack all three towers to eliminate resident rivalry and create large communal areas around the extended tower.

NO ENTRY B A

64

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

071 | hug in a mug Two new community spaces will be created where residents can meet for scheduled activities such as coffee mornings, bingo and scrabble evenings and movie nights. There will also be a soup kitchen for residents.

NO ENTRY

65 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

073 | hello hello Add a ‘say hello’ sign outside each block to encourage interaction between neighbours.

NO ENTRY B A

66

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

074 | a bad nights sleep To counteract the problem of people sleeping on the benches, provide arm rest dividers and angular surfaces to the seating.

NO ENTRY

67 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

078 ney

|

chimplanters

Dismantle the unused chimney and relocate sections around the landscape. Fill with plants to create a more interesting landscape.

NO ENTRY B A

68

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

085 | green c h i m n e y Wrap the chimney in a steel mesh tube.

Colonise the vertical surfaces with plants.

NO ENTRY

69 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

088 | stroller c o a s t e r Using a rollercoaster to add excitement to the blocks and attract people to Gateshead with a unique feature.

NO ENTRY B A

70

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

091 | meet me at the market Adding a weekly market along Hopper St to attract pedestrians onto the site.

Residents can mix with the public in the vibrant market atmosphere.

NO ENTRY

71 B A

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

094 | castle moat Flood the green space around the towers.

Used for fishing, swimming and kayaking, and also encouraging wildlife to settle in the area.

NO ENTRY B A

72

| preface | icons | problems | proposals | soup |

gateshead SOUP The amalgamation of the proposals creates a provoking soup.

NO ENTRY

73 B A

gatesheadSOUP Kennedy | Breese | Poon | Chan | Pennell | Carnell | Doherty | Ting | Chan | Phillips | Gill | Gibbons | King | Holden | Whiting | Ellis | Benihoud | Schubert | Vickery | Price | Berry | Smith | Tardits

NO ENTRY B A

The Charrette Experience The charrette is as much a challenge for the culturally foreign tutors as it is for the students themselves. For an architect it is difficult to engage with a place without knowing its history, social background and the actual meaning of its particular shaping. At the same time urban and architectural challenges in modern cities tend to share similarities.

Knowing my own limitations, I relied on the freshness of the discovery; instead of trying to define a subtle analysis, I decided to propose to the students a method whereby they would select, clarify and eventually address the problems generated in Gateshead.

What an intensive week it was! You had to focus quickly and you could not really separate the research from the result. Acting fast, mixing researching, thinking, expressing and

presenting may be risky but possibly rewarding.

Indeed, the experience was rewarding beyond my expectations. There was a delightful mixture of dubious feelings and expectations from some students at the beginning. Something between “Is he really serious with these naïve drawings and namings?” and “Well let’s try it. It’s kind of exotic and fancy. We have not done that before.”

The mixture started to make sense and the flavour started to develop on the third or forth day.

At that time I realised that it was not my canvas anymore but their own, not my ideas but theirs.

They were not concerned anymore with questions, but with action. My grip loosened, students’ started to organise themselves and ideas - though expressed through this manga like method, with catchy episodes and titles - began to make sense. I was impressed. I could not

retire in peace before the end (even though compelled by the Byker Wall, which I went to visit several times) and I started to question my English and praise theirs. Talented expressions catching problems, appealing drawings clearly focused on Gateshead, a mixture of unrealistic ideas (but are they really?), reasonable ones - a whole set of thoughts and intentions appeared pined up on the walls of our room. Articulating the ensemble was the last and efficient task. The ingredients collected in Gateshead by the students were ready to be served. Gateshead Soup was ready for the final day.

A charrette is like being on the fast track but I really hope it will help all the participating students to walk on the longer lanes of real architecture, hopefully Armelle, Daniel and all the other tutors would agree with me.

Manuel Tardits

74

75

Action!

The Garden of Urban Delights: Our aims are to offer the community an opportunity for social interaction and, through staging an event, to reveal existing and future possible spatial uses.

We are trying to raise awareness of unused space through enabling unexpected activities and demonstrating alternative uses.

76

This will hopefully be a catalyst of ideas for the future of the site.

Pr e Pl -ev an en ni t ng

| looking closer at the area

Secret garden of pleasures Territories

We began to understand the site by researching and mapping the area around and adjacent to the 3P’s, using a variety of themes as filters; Soundscapes, Proximities, Secret Garden of Pleasures, Territories, Surfaces and Visible and Invisible Objects Soundscapes

77

Day time noise High Street Flyover Taxi People Delivery lorry

Night time noise High Street Flyover Taxi People

SoundScape

Proximities

Legend: 1. Territories 2. Secret Garden of Pleasures 3. Soundscapes 4. Visible and Invisible Objects 5. Proximities Visible and Invisible Objects

78

| a collective action!

The group developed a main theme for the Action! – a Museum of Urban Curiosities.

The Museum involves several exhibits that relate to secrets, memories, curiosities and delights. The exhibits are to be engaged with and are designed to fulfil the Action! aim of revealing existing and future possible spatial uses for the area.

79

The preparation for the Action! was sub-divided between teams and as a collaborative we prepared the Action! in 22 hours.

I

ot p a s Te ient d re g n

| site plan Secrets, memories, curiosities and delights: tea area balloon cloud photo frames tree

Si of te p ev la en n t

umbrellas object exhibits activity area sound booth Area plan key: site

80

3Ps existing buildings

a re A an pl

| timetable

Co Ordinators /PR

Sourcers

Designers

Curators

10

11

12

1

PR - Collect Objects - Flyers - Single Balloon dispertion

2

3

Site Preparation

- Collect Helium - Remaining Furniture to be collected

Begin Loading

- Graffitti over Photographs - Reframe photographs

Begin Delivery to site

Lunch

Design and Manufacture Fixings for Acoustic Barrier Create Perforated Opening in Plinth

Begin Loading and travel to site

Paint any outstanding furniture

Lunch

En route to site and preparation

Recorders

Make Audio CD’s

5

6

7

8

9

Address any problems brought to attention by other parties

Lunch

Lunch

81

4

- Prepare for Public Interaction - Document feedback from residents

- Monitor Levels of Catering Equipment and Maintain.

- Document feedback from residents

Beverages (location to be confirmed)

9

Feedback of the Action and introduction to the “legacy”

8

Deconstruct Interventions, load vehicles and return to studios

GROUPS

Path Construction

Sources Action Compulsory Action Design Team Meeting Recorders Action Curators Action Designers Action Co-ordination Action Free Time (possibly)

Begin Installation

FRIDAY 8th October

Design Team Meeting

Preparing for the Action!

Media Capture

Fr 7/ ida 10 y /2 01 0

| secrets

y ller ts Ga bjec O of

Objects found on site were exhibited on plinths in various locations.

l tfu h g i l De cts site e obj en to tak

82

| memories

83

H ph istor 3P oto ica fla of l ts

Framed historical photographs of Gateshead were exhibited alongside current images, these photographs were to engage with the residents and to allow them to see their space in a new light.

ging Enga y histor

with

| curiosities We generated curiosity by constructing a sound booth, this booth emphasised the existing sounds of the fly over but also prompted discussion by playing natural sounds from different contexts.

O so ddi un tie d sa bo n ot d h

84

ft s le ent ants m Com articip p by

| delights The tea party acted as a backdrop for the Museum of Urban Curiosities by providing a familiar atmosphere as well as forming an unexpected gallery of delights.

85

ty

a

Ou

e rT

r Pa

| PR The PR team were responsible for generating interest in the Action! Their role included starting rumours and inviting residents with individual VIP flyers, putting up posters in main circulation area and placing a single teacup and balloons at social junctions within 3P’s to prompt curiosity.

On the day of the Action! a large mass of white balloons ensured the visibility of the event and the tea party element acted as a PR vehicle for the Museum of Urban Curiosities.

D in oor vi -t ta o-d ti o on or s

86

| sourcing The Sourcing team travelled at length throughout the region to source only the highest quality materials for the Action!

Getting Lost

Va

n

ut

James’ Furniture B&Q Mc Donalds’ Breakfast

87

Gas Shop

Mark’s Furniture

Wickes

Dropping Off Nick

Dropping Off James

Architecture Department

Parked Over Night

Charity Furniture Shops Van Recycler Rental Tea Urn

SITE

Ro

es

| preparing The Sourcing and Building teams worked closely with the Curators and Assembling teams to ensure the various exhibits for the event were constructed.

P Th rep su e k ara cc ey ti o es s to n

88

| assembling A. Construct the sound booth B. Paint the plinths with white paint C. Create the plinth bases

Co th nstr bo e so uct ot un ing h d

D. Prepare frames and photographs

89

Si D gne el iv d, S er ea ed le d

E. Source and collect all other materials together

| installation on site A. Place cameras on the site B. Hang frames in the trees C. Prepare tea and cake in the designated area D. Position umbrellas in the trees E. Set up plinths on their bases F. Install sound booth G. Set up the balloon cloud at the main entrance

St to eps sp se A ac t u - G p e

90

| the Collective Action!

91

Catherine Amos Nicholas Backhouse Beatrice Chan Kyle Cowper Mark Greenhalgh Simon Hargreaves Amy Linford James Longfield Cara Lund John Massey Keir McNeil Andrew Morrison James Newman Michael Simpson Eleni Spanoude Victoria Telford Lauren Wedderburn Wei Zhang

A

ct

ion

!

| Action!

The Charrette Experience

References: Petrescu, Doina, ‘How to make a community as well as the space for it’ in SPACE SHUTTLE, six projects of urban creativity and social interaction, Belfast, edited by Peter Mutschler, Ruth Morrow, Published

by PS2, Belfast, 2007. Available from: http://www.spaceshuttle.org.uk/ publications.htm

This charrette sought to answer the question of the lack of belonging and appropriation of the open space surrounding 3 Social Housing Blocks in Central Gateshead – known as Priory, Park and Peareth.

The Action! was an exploration of an alternative urban design practice based on direct action. The students who took part in this initiative experienced the risk of treading into the unknown territory of being in the front line of a temporary event with many possible uncertain situations. Learning by making is probably one of the most challenging ways of progressing (in that it requires great agility: a sharp analysis and quick re-action); however it is certainly one of the most rewarding ones. The Action!

aimed at mobilising a disenfranchised community and change their relation to an abandoned open space. Driven by sheer buzz, enthusiasm and commitment, students collectively designed, priced, built, deployed and participated in the Action! thus learning to negotiate and embrace others’ ideas while leaving aside questions of authorship.

So, did it work?

The Action! was the climax of this Charrette project. It demonstrated the power of simple spatial interventions in sparking conversations and desire, as well as, the impact of a simple cup of tea in gathering momentum, fun and excitement. The residents who joined the Tea Party realised the opportunity that this space offers and its potential activities.

And, what next?

The Action! revived the space in the residents’ collective memory: a first step towards enhancing the quality of that space. The Action! triggered desire for more Actions!, ‘generating temporary agencies and forming community networks around them’ (Petrescu , 2007).Thus, the making of the community is as important as the production of the space itself.

The Action! can be viewed on: YouTube [Gateshead Charrettes – Action] http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=rWR2Y0_at0A Daniel Mallo Armelle Tardiveau

92

School of Architecture, Planning, & Landscape Newcaslte University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU United Kingdom http://www.ncl.ac.uk/apl/gallery/ Š 2011 Newcastle University Book layout by Joanna Hinchcliffe Cover photo by Andrew Morrison