Architecture & Community Engagement: Design for Childcare within Inner North Neighbourhoods
Con— tents
Acknowledgements pg 01 Forward pg 01
SECTION 01 INTRODUCTION pg 02
SECTION 02 Rationale for the project pg 03
SECTION 03 PROJECT BRIEFING pg 04 — Briefing Event 01 pg 05 — Briefing Event 02 pg 06 — Outcomes from Scenario planning and ‘Ideas Wall’ pg 07—08
SECTION 04 RESEARCH & SITE APPRAISAL pg 09 — Site Appraisal, sites A, B, & D pg 10 — Legislation, community need & neighbourhood regeneration in Belfast pg11
SECTION 05 INTERIM FEEDBACK pg 12
SECTION 06 OUTCOMES — Phase II Feasibility Design pg 13 — Design Strategy pg 14 — Design Drawings pg 15—20 Appendices pg 21—25
Architecture & Community Engagement: Design for Childcare within Inner North Neighbourhoods
The University of Ulster is pleased to support the ‘live’ project work of the M Arch students, and their consultation with community groups in Belfast. We believe this type of engagement helps develop the students’ professional skills, particularly for urban re— generation and design projects, and preparing our students for professional life is the central aim of the University of Ulster.
Acknow— ledge— ments The pedagogic value of this ‘live’ briefing & design project to the University of Ulster student cohort could not have been realized without the time and commitment of a number of key people; Paul Roberts, Christine McKeown and Fionnuala Black from Ashton Community Trust, Billy Hutchinson from Mt. Vernon Community Development Forum, and Colin McCrossan from Strategic Invest— ment Board who helped set the wider urban regeneration objectives for the project. The study could not have moved to Phase II Feasibility design and publication of the study report without the backing of the University of Ulster, and in particular the Provost for the Belfast campus Prof. Alastair Adair; the Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Design & Built Environment Prof. Ian Montgomery, and Prof. Peter Walker, Head of School of Architecture & Design. Thanks must also be extended to my col— leagues at UU, Paul Clarke and Ciaran Mackel. It is hoped that the study has been beneficial to the community groups around whom it was first conceived. Lindesay Dawe, School of Architecture & Design, June 2013.
To the university the pedagogic benefits have been clear, with excellent participation amongst the students when working with community group clients in this way. We hope there have been important benefits to the community groups involved; to our neighbours within Inner North Belfast, and also in East Belfast, and that we can develop further significant projects with Strategic Investment Board, Dept. of Social Develop— ment and others. Prof. Alastair Adair, Provost, University of Ulster
FOR— WARD
01
This project was initially conceived in 2010 with the ambition of involving University of Ulster Architecture students in a ‘live’ urban or architectural design briefing pro— ject within Belfast or its environs. Discussions with David Gavaghan, Chief Executive of Strategic Investment Board and Scott Wilson of SIB identified regeneration challenges facing a number of important urban sites in Belfast’s inner north neigh— bourhoods (including the North Foreshore site), and with which UU students could work.
Inner North Neighbourhoods, Belfast
In June 2010 Lindesay Dawe of the University of Ulster met with Billy Hutchinson of Mount Vernon Community Development Forum and Paul Roberts of Ashton Community Trust to discuss a possible scope for a project. From this meeting it was agreed to develop an urban site approximately equidistant from Mount Vernon and New Lodge areas of north Belfast. It was agreed that the project would be situated within what is known by Belfast Regeneration Office as ‘Inner North Neighbourhoods’. In December 2011 Colin McCrossan, senior project manager at SIB became the point of liaison with the investment body, and following further meetings with UU, Mount Vernon CDF and Ashton CT the scope of the project was refined with the aim developing an outline architectural design brief for a childcare/community facility.
02
INTRO— DUCTION
Westlink at Inner North Neighbourhoods, Belfast
02
rationale for the project It is important to bear in mind that for the University of Ulster this project was ‘student led’, with post-graduate M Arch (Part II) students within the School of Architecture & Design completing the majority of the briefing work as part of their ARC 722 Professional Context module. As part of the two years of study for their M Arch students are enrolled in this module in ‘year 5’, with the majority of students having completed 12 months in office based practice just prior to this. During their year in practice some will have been involved in client briefing projects and have some knowledge of the process behind setting a design brief.
To develop practical and meaningful ob— jectives for the collaborative project students are tasked with engaging with ‘users’ of the built environment in a structured, meth— odological approach, and from this to prepare an outline Development or Design Brief in response to an identified development or design need. With the Inner North Neigh— bourhoods project the identified users were Mount Vernon CDF and Ashton CT, and with input at various stages of the project from Belfast Regeneration Office at Department for Social Development, and the Strategic Investment Board.
03
In setting out the curriculum for Professional Context studies at post— graduate level the School of Architecture & Design at the University of Ulster recognizes that the role of the architect in building design and procurement is in a state of flux, To tie in with the 2011-12 teaching timetable the with old certainties disappearing fast and new opp— students are tasked with majority of the research, consultation and feedback ortunities emerging. Notwithstanding the key stages of the project ran in the university twelve engaging with ‘users’ of curriculum criteria set by the professional and reg— the built environment in week semester timetable from February to May 2012. ulatory bodies for the education of Architects the aim a structured, methodo— logical approach... of study in ARC 722 is to develop an understanding Those involved in an ongoing capacity in the project of how the demand for new spaces and buildings during the period February to May were: Paul can be complex and often contradictory—not least Roberts, Ashton Community Trust, Billy Hutchinson, in considering issues of sustainable design — and Mount Vernon Community Development Forum; how architects can mediate between Christine McKeown, Ashton Community Trust; Colin McCrossan, Strategic different parties utilizing their unique Investment Board; Michael McAvoy, Belfast Regeneration Office; Lindesay design skills. The overarching aims for Dawe, University of Ulster. UU Students: Edel Burns, Stewart Cairns, this study module are: Julian Calede, Lucy Dawson, Shaun Doherty, Matthew Fair, Duane Fitzsimmons, Adam Foster, Louise Johnson, Jayne Martelli, Kezia McCrea, • to set the context for how change Shane McGinley, Laurence McGowan, Lorraine McMorrow, Mark Mearns, through time is endemic in our Francis O’Kane, Christopher Quinn, Ignacio Ribera, Pauline Sixt, Natalie built environment Smith, Sherie Smyth, Todor Todorov. • to emphasise the link between user A list of participants in the Briefing workshops is set out in Appendix A. requirements, project briefing and design of space and form • to give architecture students the intellectual and design tools to respond to this.
Architecture End of Year Show, UU
M Arch Urban Design Project Review
03
‘Managing the Brief for Better Design’, A. Blyth & J. Worthington; Spon Press 2001
Historically Briefing was seen as a process Briefing is central to the success of any design project — and in architectural of discrete steps and where design could terms briefing is the problem to which the building is the answer — but often not begin until the briefing process was it is just seen as a schedule of already made decisions delivered by the Client complete. In a period from the 1970s to to the Architect and the design team, all neatly contained in a set of ‘signed early 1980s Architects off’ documents. However, if those already made faced with designing decisions have not been tested early enough the a large building had result can be a design solution that is at best flawed In short, Briefing to manage complex and at worst inappropriate. Given the complexity in should be seen as a technical requirements and activity data sheets were the contemporary world of building design and pro— collective problem a methodology for capturing data and measuring solving exercise... curement (what Jeremy Till eloquently terms design performance(1). The problem with this ‘contingency’ in the professional life of the Architect) mechanistic approach is that it simply identifies briefing needs to be a process where a deep under— design needs as a snapshot in time, with little or standing of the Client needs emerges through no consideration as to what future needs might discussion with the design team, and a testing of be needed by the users and how the building might adapt through time. decisions. In short, Briefing should be seen as a collective problem Today, the process of compiling the Brief is seen as much more of an solving exercise. iterative or ‘emerging’ process, one where design and building aspirations are articulated by the Client and where detail is developed as an under— standing of user requirements, future organizational needs and intelligent use of space through time.
PROJECT BRIEFING
Unfortunately, this ‘fluid’ and iterative approach to developing a design brief can be difficult for others in construction and the ‘supply side’ of building procurement to grasp; understanding that the briefing process is more important than the product that is the Design brief. The construction industry abhors uncertainty and project and construction managers are always happier if prompt decisions are made in a sequential process, even if these decisions are premature or the thinking behind them flawed! Architects through their embedded knowledge and their ability to evaluate and reconcile seemingly contradictory and complex issues are best placed to develop an expertise in managing the ‘fuzzy’ situation that is Briefing. This, coupled with their design imagination and an ethical approach to the built environment, will lead to better buildings.
04
1.
Interactive Briefing Process— Briefing Event 02.
To begin the process of defining the project brief and setting out a methodology for the student group to work with, the University of Ulster hosted the first project briefing event at the Belfast campus on 22nd February 2012, to which representatives from Mount Vernon CDF, Ashton CT, Belfast Regeneration Office and Strategic Investment Board were invited (a full list of attendees is included as Appendix A). The purpose of this event was to discuss initial thoughts on the parameters of the project and set out an agreed ‘Statement of Need’ for the project. An agenda for the meeting was circulated prior to the event (see Appendix B), and with the aim of keeping it a fairly informal forum for discussion. The important issues around which discussion was structured were: purpose of the project, background to the Client organisations, the management context, physical context, time constraints on the project, planning for growth and change, and the requirement for sustain— able development. The main outcome of this meeting was a clear consensus amongst the parties as to what the Statement of Need should define, in summary:
05
Statement of Need • Purpose is the development of a ‘shared space’ • Provision of social enterprise childcare • Project should be a contributor to the local economy • To meet the childcare deficit in part of N. Belfast • To help develop educational skills • Possible arts & educational learning links • Further development of existing employment outreach in N. Belfast • Childcare as a proven business case • Look to similar provision for planning & design guidelines • Best practice in approach to ‘green’ design and sustainability
Also at this briefing event a shortlist of possible sites was drawn up, in discussion with community groups and BRO, and these were: Skeogoneill Avenue (Site A), 564 Shore Road (Site B), 704 Shore Road (Site C). Sub— sequent to the meeting a council owned site at the old Grove Leisure Centre, York Road was added (Site D).
Briefing Event 01 22.02.12
Briefing Event 02 07.03.12 ‘Building Futures Game — Developing Shared Visions for Neighbourhoods’
The Building Futures Game developed by Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and Centre for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE) is a toolbox for exploring different possible futures for an area — of whatever size — with an aim to “open up conversation between different groups at the the idea at this stage is start of a local planning, regeneration or development to make the process as inclusive as possible & process”(2). Importantly, issues and aspirations that come to the fore through the Game can be used to direct participation towards some definite as the basis for further consultation and discussion.
outcomes...
On this occasion (Briefing Event 02) UU structured the Building Futures Game so that the scenario planning was enacted by both Mount Vernon and Ashton CT/New Lodge. The objective here was to understand shared concerns and aspirations from both neighbourhoods and to add a level of briefing detail to the ‘Statement of Need’ prepared from Briefing Event 01. Participants were set into two groups and through guidance from the UU team these groups were asked to consider ‘Likely Futures’ (for their neigh— bourhood), ‘Hoped for Futures’ and the ‘Present’. It is at this stage in the Game that participants then enter into scenario planning whereby they imagine different possible future events and future stories for their neighbourhood. The process for doing this is set out in the guidance for the Game and can be found in Appendix D. Another interactive exercise run as part of Briefing Event 02 was the ‘Ideas Wall’(3) a short (45 mins) exercise where participants were asked to record key issues associated with the project. For this exercise par— ticipants were asked to consider: location & site, building facilities, business case and legal issues associated with a new childcare/daycare facility. Ideas and thoughts from participants are recorded on paper ‘bricks’ and located within the wall. Participants are then asked to rate the importance of these from ‘critical’ to ‘nice to have’.
2. ‘Buildng Futures Game— Developing Shared Visions for Neighbourhoods’ — Building Futures, (RIBA, CABE) 3. Developed by Neighbourhoods Initiative Foundation Building Futures Game
06
As part of the project briefing process UU were keen to engage community participants in interactive planning and design exercises, exercises that would allow representatives from Mount Vernon and Ashton CT/New Lodge to explore and test some issues concerning regeneration in their neighbourhoods, and the development of a shared childcare & community facility. The idea at this stage is to make the process as inclusive as possible and to direct participation towards some definite outcomes, even if these are only ‘outline’ or interim ideas. The event was scheduled for 7th March 2012 and held in the McSweeney Centre, Henry Place, Belfast.
Proposal cards, scenario planning, Building Futures Game
Outcomes from scenario planning game and ‘Ideas Wall’
07
From the two community groups taking part in the ‘Building Futures’ scenario planning game (each with four to five participants) a number of shared issues or ‘themes’ emerged around both ‘Likely Futures’ and ‘Hoped For Futures’ for their community (in this stage of the game participants are asked to choose or identify eight statements that they believe will happen to their area over the next ten years). Discussion amongst the groups, where re— presentatives brought differing community and professional views, produced a summary of issues they felt were relevant for the future of their neighbourhood, these are: Likely Futures • Recognition that govt. funding will be reduced • Community taking more control over some services & facilities • Work opportunities will be away from local areas Hoped for Futures • Local business opportunities and inward investment will improve • More training & education for local people • Community control over local activities • Higher spending on social housing • Changes to existing housing stock The next stage of the game asked participants to consider the ‘Present’ situation within their neighbourhood, and to record developments or trends already happening and which might help in achieving community ‘Aspirations’, or conversely be issues that would give cause for ‘Concerns’. Both participant groups were able to record a range of local and community projects reflecting work completed, underway or projected in areas such as infrastructure, neighbourhood renewal and community projects. Examples of these are:
• Neighbourhood renewal/regeneration projects • Community dev— elopment projects • NIHE housing strategy • Employers forum Shared issues that were raised as ‘Concerns’ were: change in government policy, change in government funding and not enough local employment. To try and pin down some idea of a shared understanding of what is important for the development of this part of East Belfast participant groups were asked to discuss and consider different possible future events. To kick-start the process the groups could draw upon 56 Proposal Cards from the game, with each card illustrating a possible regeneration project. Each illustrative project also has a set of four distinct ‘values’ which are scored out of ten, and represent each project’s relative economic, environmental, social and ‘iconic’ (or ‘wow’) impact. A summary of the two group’s scoring is: Group A— Mt Vernon Cost to deliver:
54
Group B— New Lodge/Ashton CT Cost to deliver: 41
Local economy:
54
Local economy:
52
Wow factor:
54
Wow factor:
36
Ecological footprint: 52 Social capital:
61
Ecological footprint: 63 Social capital:
64
‘Ideas Wall’ — Neighbourhood Initiatives foundation
With both participant groups ‘social capital’ scored highest (61 for Group A, 64 for Group B), which reflects clear a understanding within community/neighbourhood rep— resentatives that regeneration projects must be built upon an objective of widest social participation and community benefit for inner North Belfast. An interesting interpretation of the relatively high score within Group A for ‘Wow factor’ is the recog— nition within the community that important new build projects can act as a wider catalyst for regeneration within an area. This was seen as particularly relevant for Mt. Vernon.
Scenario Planning — Building Futures Game
08
During the ‘Ideas Wall’ exercise participants were asked to consider issues for a proposed childcare building under the headings of ‘Building Facilities’, ‘Business Case’, ‘Location & Site’ and ‘Legal Issues (Childcare)’. Ideas were recorded from ‘Critical’ through to ‘Nice to have’. A summary of recorded issues in order of importance is: Building facilities • Designated outside play area
Business case • Feasibility study for funding
• Light airy space for play
• Grants for ‘Green’ specification
• Separate room for babies & toddlers
• Provision for Rentable space
• Appropriate toilet provision
• Allow for age progression
• Office space & staff room
• After schools/learning for older children
• Non-slip flooring
• Employment & training for local people
• Roof garden, green space adjacent
•
• Adequate storage space • Low level windows
Legal issues (childcare) • Space provision (m2) per child • No room more than 26 children • Disability access throughout • Secure rooms throughout • High quality safety spec (finishes, fittings) • 50% of staff to be fully qualified
Social economy considered in running - Fee structure – Govt. contracts - Recycling business integrated - Facilities for a ‘Learning centre’ - Criteria to give local children priority
Location & Site • Demand for childcare facility on the Shore Rd. • Close to motorway links • Childcare centre on one level
04
RESEARCH Groups At this relatively early juncture in the project the student group were set into four research groups in order prepare both background material to present to the ‘client’ body as part of the interactive briefing process, and also to investigate various methodological app— roaches to that briefing process. These groups were: Group A Best practice This group was tasked with researching examples of best practice in community consultation and urban regeneration from the UK or Ireland. Importantly, these should be small and medium sized examples of neighbourhoods within inner cities or inner suburbs. Key things to consider were:
09
• Demographic within the area • Mix of use/activity in the area (residential, retail, community facilties, business/industry, etc.), is it possible to measure this? Mapping socio–economic conditions — Inner North and adjacent Wards
• Streetscape, open areas, derelict areas prior to regeneration • Urban and landscape proposals for regeneration • What are the ‘continuities’ in the area? What has changed over its history? Group B Analysis of identified sites Four alternative sites have been identified in North Belfast for the de— velopment project and this group was required to investigate these through the following:
Group C Legislation, community need and neighbourhood regeneration in Belfast It is the nature of projects such as this that a number of community, city policy and funding interests have to be considered and reconciled in order to get the project realised. Influences upon the project will include: current government policy, legislation, best practice (from similar projects) and funding opportunities. In conjunction with community representatives, service providers, Belfast Regeneration Office and Strategic Investment Board this group were to investigate these important influences and set out how the Architect might negotiate his/her way through them. Group D Methods/tools to use in the community/development Briefing Process This group was asked to research consultation or ‘briefing’ tools that may be appropriate in this study. The group was asked to note that often the most appropriate tools are ‘interactive’ and are designed to include communities and to use methods that the layperson would feel familiar with. Often these take the form of a ‘game’. This re— search group was reminded that no briefing tool is ‘neutral’ and every consultation pro— cess is loaded with meaning, dependent upon how tools are presented and used. Part of the research work and findings of group is contained in Appendix E, but the key issues as they impact on the overall project are set out below.
• Source digital OS maps • Confirm site boundaries • Zoning requirements under BMAP • Visual survey of existing buildings on site • Visual quality of the surroundings • Local traffic and public transport provision • Demographic of surrounding Wards (this information can be sourced through N. Ireland Statistics and Research Agency NISRA) Analysis of identified sites
SITE APPRAISAL From discussion amongst all parties (Ashton CT, Mount Vernon CDF, Belfast Regeneration Office) the four shortlisted sites identified for appraisal were: Skegoneill Avenue (Site A), 564 Shore Road (Site B), 704 Shore Road (Site C) and York Road (Site D). Each of the four sites was evaluated against the following physical criteria:
Site B 564 Shore Road SITE AREA: 0.42 acres
• Site area
ADVANTAGES: Access to a public park and playing/sports fields
• Site condition (existing buildings, brownfield site, pollution risk)
Proximity to established transport links (bus routes)
• Infrastructure/transport connections
Existing buildings offer immediate premises (subject to renovation work)
• Access to public parks, playing fields & other open space amenities
DISADVANTAGES Limited on site parking
• Adjacency to residential areas & proximity to existing schools Site C (704 Shore Rd.) was removed from the appraisal when the site was sold to a private developer during the study.
Site B
Dilapidated nature of buildings Unclear ownership of properties
SITE AREA: 0.96 acres ADVANTAGES: The closest site to Belfast city centre and well connected to the motorway (M2 & M3)
Site A
10
Public right of way runs adjacent to the site Site A Skegoneill Avenue
Site D York Road SITE AREA: 0.62 hectares ADVANTAGES: Large site area
The largest site, parking and green spaces could be integrated
Ease of access for vehicular traffic
Clear vehicular access to the site via Skegoneill Ave (two locations)
Adjacent to established residential area
Access to a public park and playing/ sports fields Proximity to established transport links (bus routes) but far enough removed to avoid noise issues Close to nearby primary schools (Seaview and Currie), and leisure/ sports facilities Site located within an established residential area.
Close proximity to city centre and established transport links Lies within future development area/area identified by City Council DISADVANTAGES Noise pollution (surrounded by busy road network)
Site D
Road barrier to adjacent green/open space Existing building unsuitable, demolition costs Site owned by Council, therefore possible extended time period for sale.
DISADVANTAGES Site pollution issues to be considered
0.62 Ha
An important part of the work of Group C was to investigate and map the existing provision of childcare facilities across Inner North neighbourhoods and adjacent city Wards. Much of this was done with refer— ence to recommendations within NI Ex— ecutive’s Article 20 review of Childcare provision in N. Ireland, and the group identified the following categories of childcare provision: • Day nurseries • Pre-school Playgroups • Crèches • Parent & Toddler groups Socio–economic data for Castleview Wards
• Childminders The type of service provided, the hours of operation and the age groups catered for vary across these categories, with Social Services registration not extending to Parent & Toddler Groups (which are seen more as an informal social provision set up within communities, often by parents themselves) or informal Childminders (although Social Services will always encourage parents to use only registered Childminders, who are inspected). The research group mapped the variation in provision across the Wards and this is illustrated in Appendix E.
11
In association with this research the group looked to map other economic and social data for the Inner North Wards, information drawn from NI census data. This information categorises deprivation across employment, health, education and child poverty and the Multiple Deprivation Measure for Ward areas breaks down as follows* (where 1 is worst and 584 best):
Legislation, community need and neighbourhood regeneration in Belfast
Castleview Multiple Deprivation Measure: 195 Percentage of population as pre-school: 4.8% Duncairn Multiple Deprivation Measure: 12 Percentage of population as pre-school: 5.8% New Lodge Multiple Deprivation Measure: 8 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.7% Adjacent Areas: Shankill Multiple Deprivation Measure: 1 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.9% Waterworks Multiple Deprivation Measure: 16 Percentage of population as pre-school: 7.9% Fortwilliam Multiple Deprivation Measure: 233 Percentage of population as pre-school: 5.5% Chichester Park Multiple Deprivation Measure: 117 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.4% *Northern Ireland Statistical Research Agency As expressed during Briefing Events 01 and 02, a repeated statement from community participants is the hindrance to a return to employment for parents from lack of provision of suitable (convenient and affordable) childcare in parts of Inner North Belfast. The lack of suitable childcare provision in the geographical area between New Lodge and Mount Vernon (Castleview 1 ward) is evident in the Childcare provision mapping, Appendix E. From this mapping, socio-economic research and the recognition of the wide ranging social need for improved childcare provision – as expressed by community representatives - a strong case can be made that enhanced childcare facilities are vitally important for communities placed in the geographical area between New Lodge and Mount Vernon and along the Shore Road.
Socio–economic data for New Lodge Wards
On 5th April 2012 University of Ulster convened a meeting to present feedback on the work that student groups had been engaged in, this event had representatives from both Ashton Community Trust and Mount Vernon Community Development Forum, as well as representation from SIB. The feedback included student research and appraisal of the shortlisted sites, a summary of outcomes from the two Briefing events and early calculations on predicted space requirement for a new childcare facility. An important part of this feedback process – and its timing - is to ‘validate’ the briefing team’s interpretation of qualitative data gathered, as well as feedback quantative data that might inform design decisions. The key issues gathered from the two briefing events are described above (see pages 7 & 8) but the aim for this feedback event was to share views around the critical objectives for the project, and agree project values emerging from the briefing work. In any project progressing to design stage this is a key moment, the point where user require— ments and collective aspirations have to be formalized and tested. A number of important points came out of this feedback session, including the need for the project team to more accurately categorise and map existing childcare facilities across inner North Belfast, and to prepare a design briefing document or questionnaire which would help the Client team consider and prioritise space planning and design requirements, and possible ‘green’ technology issues. It was agreed that these design issues would include building security, provision of outdoor space, space planning and materials & finishes. Subsequently the briefing team prepared a short Design Brief Questionnaire which was issued to the Client team. At the feedback meeting the Client team discussed the preferred site for the proposed facility, and it was agreed that Site A at Skegoneill Ave would be taken forward for site planning and feasibility design.
INTERIM FEEDBACK
design issues for review by the community groups would include: building security, provision of out— door space, space planning and materials & finishes.
12
05
06
With the preferred site selected and indicative design parameters set out from the feedback meeting, a Design Brief was compiled by the School of Architecture & Design setting out the key site planning and building design objectives (for full design brief see Appendix F). As part of the Design research the Briefing team looked at other purpose built childcare facilities that might be considered as exemplar buildings. Space Requirement (indicative) Childcare facilities: Business units:
527 m2 148 m2
Net usable area: Fit factor @ 5% Total NUA: Circulation @ 15%
675 m2 34 m2 709 m2 106 m2
13
Total Net Lettable Area: 815 m2 Plant room/core @ 17% 138 m2 Gross Internal Area: Add external walls @ 2.5%
953 m2 24 m2
GROSS EXTERNAL AREA (Building):
977 m2
LANDSCAPE & ACCESS:
425 m2
TOTAL SITE AREA:
1,402 m2
Outcomes Phase II — Feasibility Design
DESIGN STRATEGY
Important internal environmental objectives for playrooms are to provide abundant daylight through window walls and top lighting, and for the scale of fitments and fittings within the room adjusted to suit the size and anthropometric requirements of children of varying ages. Materials and finishes are robust, and selected to have zero volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.
internal Materials & finishes
In terms of the environmental strategy* for the building, key design ideas include:
The main part of the site (total area: 0.38 hectares) are robust, & selected to • Use of brownfield site is level but with a significant gradient at its southern have zero volatile organic • Passive ventilation where appropriate and eastern boundaries, where it drops towards compound (VOC) emissions... Shore Road. Groundworks to deal with this gradient • Insulation standards higher than are already in place and it is not anticipated that statutory requirements additional work would be needed. The site is clearly • Renewable energy (proven technologies) visible from Shore Rd. and has a public path running along southern • Low energy & resource use technology throughout boundary, which leads to adjacent public green space and children’s (proven technologies) play area. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site has been from Skegoneill Avenue, and the proposal is to continue with this. • Low embedded energy materials in construction (sustainably sourced where appropriate) Key design issues for the site and proposed building are: • Low or zero VOCs in internal materials • On-site parking for staff and visitors • Separate access (pedestrian & vehicular) to childcare facility and community business units • Controlled access to childcare facility • Provision of external play & learning space for childcare facility • Flexible playrooms for childcare facility • Secure community space for ‘out of hours’ community events • Design and construction specification that promotes energy saving and other ‘green’ design & technology. Orientation of the building on the site centred around creating a secure and inspiring environment for children and staff, with views and access to outdoor green space, some of which would be land— scaped. In recognition of the important developmental benefits of children learning through interaction with nature, the planning of play rooms (4 no.) includes an adjacent outdoor learning space, which is itself also secure.
Environmental and sustainable technologies within the building design would be developed within a clear and proven operations strategy for the building, developed with project funders and community representatives. The student design team for Phase II consisted of: Stephanie Magilton, Chris Campbell, and Chris Weir, M Arch Yr. 5 students. * the environmental or ‘green’ strategy for the building would be developed against life cycle cost analysis, as well as construction cost plan.
Indicative Construction Costs*:
Gross Floor Area (GFA) Measurement: 1,155m2 Childcare facilities, incl community hall: 820m2 Community business units: 335m2 @ £971 per sq.m**: £1.12 million
* Does not allow for ground works to site. ** Includes 5% premium for ‘green’ technologies (renewable energy source, resource recycling, zero VOC emissions, etc)
14
The preferred site at Skegoneill Ave (Site A) is an urban brownfield site, where previously the Skegoneill Health Centre was located. At this stage there is no anticipation that the site has ground pollution requiring remedial works, and an assumption is made that basic services infrastructure is in place for the site (sewerage, drainage power, water).
Security and controlled access for the building separates the childcare facility from community business units, and where provision has been made to secure the former during out of hours. The community hall space adjacent to the business units has its own access as it is an— ticipated this space will support a range of community requirements including afterschool provision, or ‘homework club’ after 3 pm, and other evening functions.
Childcare Facility & Community Business Units — Site/Ground Floor Plan
Ske gon eill
Ave nue
3
15
9
1 2
8
4
6
KEY
1. Entrance 2. Parent Pick Up 3. Reception/Office 4. Playroom 5. Learning Garden 6. Landscaped Play/Garden 7. Community Space 8. Community Buisness Units 9. Car Parking
5
4
5
4
7 5
9
Childcare Facility & Community Business Units — Plan Level 1 & 2
Ave nue
16
Ske gon eill
8
south Elevation
17 North Elevation
section through chilcare facility (Playroom)
18
Playrooms on South elevation and land— scaped external area
Learning garden Learning garden space to each playroom
19
20
Playroom Childcare facility — Playroom
APPEND— ices
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Briefing Event 01 Participant List — 22nd February 2012 Amanda Ashe Jeanette Beattie Fionnuala Black Billy Hutchinson Christine McCosh Christine McKeown Wenda McNeill Katrina Newell Alex Noble Paul O’Neill Alan Quail Sharon Rooney Michael McAvoy
Briefing Event 01 22nd February 2012
Briefing Event 02 Participant List — 3rd March 2012 Jeanette Beattie Fionnuala Black Christine McKeown Wenda McNeill Christine McCosh Billy Hutchinson Alex Noble Alan Quail Sharon Rooney
STATEMENT OF NEED On a small project such as this setting out the Statement of Need should be a simple and informal affair. It is the first attempt on the Client/community side to define what is required, and from this initial stage it may well evolve as the needs/opportunities/limitations become clearer through further discussion and review.
Aim of the event: i) to introduce UU students to the 'Client' (representatives from Inner North Neighbourhoods) and local community and business groups, ii) to draft out a Statement of Need with the Client/community groups (the Client/community groups’ first attempt to define what is required). The meeting will be chaired by University of Ulster, School of Architecture & Design.
Key checklist items to be discussed at the meeting (called Briefing event 01): 1. Purpose of the project 21
• What is the overall aim of this project?
• What are the most important two or three issues relating to the project (identified demand, 'buy-in' from community/business groups, funding source, etc.)?
2. Management context
• Is there community support for such a project?
• Is there local expertise that could become involved in the project?
• Is there a business case behind the project?
3. Time
• Are there time constraints on implementing such a project (related to funding, neighbourhood renewal projects)?
4. Planning for growth & change
• What are the potential issues that might make for growth and change with the proposed site and use (arts/music/performance space)?
5. Sustainable development
• To what extent are the client/funding bodies committed to implementing measures for environmental sustainability?
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Briefing Event 02 7th March, 2012
BUILDING FUTURES GAME 1. Likely Futures— 20 mins In your groups, consider the pack of Statement Cards. Between you, choose the 8 statements that you think are most likely to happen to your area over the next 10 years. NB, this does not mean that you want them to happen, simply that they are likely to. Don’t feel obliged to pick one from each colour. If you feel that a statement is missing, use a blank card to write your own.
PROPOSED EVENT STRUCTURE 1. Introduction — aims for the event (10 mins) 2. Building Futures game— scenario planning (1hr 15 mins)
BREAK (15 mins) for tea/coffee
Mark these choices on the Baseline Sheet using blue stickers. Copy any cards you have written onto the blank spaces in row 8 or 9, e.g. If the card is HOUSING 4: place a sticker in the red HOUSING column, in row 4. Then…..
Total Workshop Duration: 2.5 hours
In 'scenario planning' by imagining different possible future events, businesses/ organisations/community groups can play out a range of different future stories for their business or area. Building Futures uses elements of this approach to explore possible future stories for a local area. These stories are developed from a set of 21 Proposal Cards.
Pick up to 4 of your 8 chosen Statement Cards to place in the Concerns area of your Building Futures Scenario Sheet. These should be 1, 2, 3 or 4 'likely futures' that you see as problematic in some way. Perhaps you don’t want them to happen, or are worried about how they will happen. If you are not worried about any of these futures, leave the Concerns area empty.
3. Ideas Wall (40 mins) 4. Summing up (10 mins)
Introduction— Read this introduction then turn to stage 5.
BUILDING FUTURES GAME 2. Hoped for Futures — 20 mins In your group, re-consider the Statement Cards. Between you, choose the 8 statements that you would most wish to happen to your area over the next 10 years. If you feel a statement is missing, use a blank card to write your own. Mark your choices on the Baseline Sheet, this time using red stickers. Then…. Select 4 of the 8 statements and place them in the Aspirations area of your Scenario Sheet. These should be the 4 'hoped for futures' that you would most like to see happen to your area.
BUILDING FUTURES GAME 3. The Present— 15 mins Now, consider and complete the 2 questions in the top right hand box of the Scenario Sheet.
1. What projects, developments or trends are already happening in your area that may help with achieving your Aspirations?
2. What projects, developments or trends are already happening in your area that are causing you Concerns about the future?
On the city map of Belfast, you may want to mark on the locations or relevant projects, developments or trends in your area. Together with your identified Concerns and Aspirations your answers form the 'baseline' on which you will set out a possible story for the future of your area.
Each Proposal Card illustrates a possible regeneration project and indicates its score out of 10 for 4 distinct Values. These help you consider and discuss – perhaps you don’t agree with us – each project’s relative economic, environmental and social impact, as well as its level of 'wow'. NB. The 4 Value Cards in the Proposal Card pack explain the ideas behind the scoring system.
BUILDING FUTURES GAME 5. FUTURE STORIES — 15 mins Future scenario— You will now create one possible scenario for your area’s future. In considering this future story keep in mind your identified Aspirations and Concerns. This scenario will explore how your area might change over the next 10 years, and how you would like it to change. As a group, select an initial set of approximately 10 Proposal cards that you would like to see happen over the next 10 years. You may find the Case Study booklet useful here. NB. If there is something that you would like to see happen that can’t be expressed with the existing cards, then use a blank Proposal card to create your own.
22
INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP/SCENARIO PLANNING EVENT The proposal for this second briefing event is to build upon the work of Briefing Event 01 (22.02.12) and the Statement of Need prepared from that. The structure of the event is an interactive workshop where groups will use games and tools to develop some detail on: i) future ambitions & trends for their community areas (scenario planning with ‘Building Futures Game’), and ii) ambitions/opportunities/constraints for proposed new facility/space/building using an 'Ideas Wall'.
BUILDING FUTURES GAME 4. Considering The Future— 5 mins
APPENDIX E Mapping existing childcare provision in Inner North Wards.
23
24
Mapping existing childcare provision in Inner North and adjacent Wards.
APPENDIX f UU, SIB, Inner North Neighbourhoods Collaborative Project, Phase 2 — Design Brief CHILDCARE/COMMUNITY FACILITY – Skegoneill Avenue, Belfast From the project work carried out and completed as part of ARC 722 IN 2011-12 (participants were UU, Strategic Investment Board, Ashton Community Trust/ New Lodge, and Mount Vernon Community Development Forum) the University of Ulster, through the office of the Provost, has commissioned the M Arch (Architecture) programme to develop a site development and building design proposal for the identified site A at Skegoneill Ave. Belfast BT15. This project will serve as a feasibility study for a childcare/community facility on the site, and as developed from the client and community consultation process carried out by University of Ulster between February and May 2012.
25
THE BRIEF The site proposal and building design should make clear reference to the previous consultation and research work carried out by M Arch students in early 2012 (information available on USB stick). In summary, two briefing events held with local community representatives from Ashton Community Trust/New Lodge and Mount Vernon identified a need for a childcare/community facility, with a preference for adjoining or adjacent business start up units to support local entrepeneurship and skills training. A summary of the expressed community need from the consultation process:
-
Purpose is the development of a ‘shared space’ Provision of social enterprise childcare Project should be a contributor to the local economy To meet the childcare deficit in part of N. Belfast To help develop educational skills To develop and nurture local business enterprise.
The planning of the site and design of the building(s) should be hierarchical and logical and representative of the functions to be accommodated (see schedule of spaces below). The primary function of the facility, and the raison d’etre of the project, is the childcare facility. As such the site planning and architecture should be configured to clearly support the social and develop— mental needs of the child, as well as the aesthetic and social needs of staff and visitors. The childcare facility should provide a safe and nurturing environment with key consideration given to: planning, configuration and scale of childcare rooms, access to natural light, access to secure outdoor play area with landscape provision, and separate and secure entrance from other public and community facilities. The design team should research elements of current best practice in early years learning, and the key child development approach of learning through play, and use this to set out the building space(s) in an appropriate child-centred arrangement. The business start up units should consider: separate vehicular access, direct proximity to public roads, opportunity for shared common facilities (entrance/ reception point, meeting room, etc.), clear physical separation from childcare facility (they may be adjacent but separated by party wall). The building(s) should reflect best practice in sustainable environmental
design and ‘green’ technology. Strategies for this should be suitable for the building function, proven and cost effective. The planning and design of the site should consider both hard and soft land— scaping, and look to use this – along with intelligent site planning - to give a sense of an integrated or ‘whole’ building, even where the architectural approach might be for building/spatial clusters. Materials used for the building fabric should be practical, robust but humane, and with some particularly tactile qualities within the childcare facility. The design team should give careful consideration to colour, graphics and materials as learning media and play tools. THE SITE The site at Skegoneill Ave. (designated as Site A within the study) is a brownfield site of 0.38 hectares, on what was previously a 1960s primary school (it sits just behind the Grove Wellbeing Centre). The site has good vehicular access (from Skegoneill Ave) and possibly two points of access. The site is in close proximity to housing along Skegoneill Ave, and consideration should be given to vehicular access/traffic management onto the site. A pedestrian path runs along the southern part of the site, and consideration will need to be given to site security. Previous research work carried out in 2012 identified key elements of the surrounding urban context (physical and social), in terms of adjacent housing & building scale, public transport routes, etc. and the advantages and dis— advantages of the site, and the design team should refer to this work. OUTPUTS REQUIRED— 1 x KEY SITE SECTION @ 1:200 (min) FLOORPLAN LAYOUTS (keyed) per floor @ 1:100 1 x KEY BUILDING SECTION @ 1:100 4 no. PERSPECTIVE VISUALS (CAD/PhotoShop rendered) of key spaces TIMESCALE— Introduction to project Brief: Monday, 18th February, 4.00 PM Completion of outputs: 22nd March Completion of project report: Week Commencing 25th March
SCHEDULE OF AREAS*— Space standrd m2 No. CHILDCARE— External Play Area 175 1 Play room 0-2 yrs 43 1 Play room 2-3 yrs 43 1 Play room 3-5 yrs 52 1 Toilets + Nappy room 9.6 2 Toilets 7 2 After School room 45 1 Hall/Reception 37 1 Sleep room 9.5 1 Dining room 22 1 Store 6 3 Office 9.5 2 Staff room 18 1 Staff toilets 12 1 Sub total (Childcare) BUSINESS UNITS— Secure business unit 30 4 Meeting room 8 1 Kitchen 6 1 Toilets 14 1 Sub-total (Business units) Net Usable Area Fit factor @ 5% Total Net Usable Area Add circulation @ 15% Total Net Lettable Plant room/core @ 17% Gross Internal Area Add External walls @ 2.5% Gross External Area (Building Footprint) LANDSCAPE & ACCESS— Car parking (18.8m2 per car) 18.8 8 Cycle parking 9.7 1 Access road/drop-off 265 1 Sub-total (L’scape & Access) TOTAL SITE AREA
Total 175 43 43 52 19.2 14 45 37 9.5 22 18 19 18 12 526.7 120 8 6 14 148 674.7 34 708.7 106 814.7 138 952.7 24 976.7 150.4 9.7 265 425.1 1401.8
*The planning and design requirements for the areas scheduled should be checked with relevant data sections of the New Metric Handbook
PUBLICATION Design by Karla Burns