How Information needs to be fed back to architects

This section explores the type of information architects say they would like to receive. This was difficult to evaluate within this project as the NSP architects have stated that they do not want to learn from their own buildings, but are receptive to learning about buildings in general. The NSP developer discussed incorporating feedback into their future briefs. This clearly identifies ‘briefs’ as a potential source of feedback, but only currently when an architect works for the same developers.

However, the architect did not discuss briefs but rather talked about learning from what inspires them. For example “I always find it very interesting how I go to see a film and eight times out of ten

99

literature (Cohen et al. 2005), and because of this it can be assumed that any feedback that is going to inspire the architects to use it, it needs to be visual also.

7.5.4. Communication Links

When looking at feeding relevant information back to the architect, Emmitt & Gorse (2003) discuss centralised and decentralised networks (see section 4.7), they suggest that it is also important to look at the flow of information currently taking place about the building. This section outlines the communication links that are currently in place post project completion. This is done in order to see if improvements could be made to these links with a different feedback mechanism. Both formal and informal links have been highlighted, as it is believed that both have a role to play within feedback, as explored in chapter 4. For example, if it is deemed that architects in general prefer to keep an informal link with the building and its users, then it would be important for the feedback mechanism to reflect this. These links are captured in figure 7.5 and discussed below.

There is a formal link between the developer and the FM team, as the FM team is directly employed by the developer and feeds back any information they have from the building users. There is also a formal link between the developers and the users through the POE that is completed by the users for the developer’s information.

The architectural practice has had no tangible link with any of the stakeholders since the building’s completion. There is no consistent stream of communication between them and the developers, and the architects have only communicated with the developers when they wanted to come and take some promotional photos; but had no interest inside the building itself. Thus, this connection is represented as informal.

The current network between all of the different stakeholders is decentralised, with no links between the architect, and any other stakeholder. Figure 7.5 shows the types of formal and informal

100

101 The Architect

The Developer The Building

Building Users

Figure 7.5: A model showing all the different communication links between all the different stakeholders post building completion.

102 7.6.1. Adaptability (in General)

This section explores the reasons why adaptable features have been included within the design. As shown in section 7.3.3, the architect who designed the NSP felt that buildings should be able to evolve and adapt with the user.

The developers of the NSP also wanted the space to be adaptable, as the NSP PM stated: “In terms of where the most thought went in to, it was the layout. We wanted a very flexible layout with a notion of a central hub, with a series of pods going off it. We really like that you can carve the building up in any number of different ways and it does create this very flexible space.” (NSP PM). As suggested in chapter 2, the literature on designing for adaptability often suggests you need to over specify in order to maintain the flexibility and that he over specification issue has led to criticism in the past, as it can have a negative effect if the maintenance costs are too high, or the specification does not meet future demand e.g. Ellison and Sayce (2007). The type of layout design used for the NSP is an example of not over specifying the whole building, simply by conceptualising how the layout is arranged. It did not, however, negate the fact that the services within the building had to be over specified in order for the change in layout to be so easy, this is explored further in section 7.6.1.2.

This adaptability was central to the design so that the developer could accommodate different sized companies. It was envisaged that the building would need to accommodate a number of different sized spaces and offer growth opportunities. The unpredictability of what might happen with the building in the future meant that the developers essentially built a “concrete box” (NSP PM). It was felt that if they could accommodate for all sizes of companies then the building would be more successful than trying to attract companies with a preset office size.

There are also factors that act as barriers to adaptable design. The architect suggests that some of the barriers to adaptable design include the view that specificity of a building is very important.

There is a “danger with a one size fits all approach: it means that nobody looks good in it” (NSP PA)

103

features are not those who benefit from them. “Lifecycle costing: you’d probably save a lot of money if you did not have to demolish and rebuild another building, but sadly, the person who pays initially is not the person who will get the benefit eventually” (NSP PA). This view fits with what is written in literature, e.g. Manewa et al. (2009b). Adversely, the more the building is over specified the more expensive it is to start with e.g. Ellison and Sayce (2007). What is particularly interesting about this view is that the building in question had all the traits of being over specified. This is suggested by the architect when he states, “it’s like taking every possible adaptable concept and saying, my ideal” (NSP PA). There seems to be a conflict of interest in the last two quotes as the architect has stated that adaptable design does not benefit the person who pays for it, but despite this they have designed this ‘ideal’ at NSP. This shows that if the brief specifies adaptability as ideal, then it is likely to occur. This suggests that the client is crucial in the adaptability issue, they have to allow the architect to have the remit to think beyond the capital expenditure of the building. The reason this developer decided to put all of these adaptable features in the building is due to the long term view they have taken with this building.

Expanding on the previous paragraph, the developer believes that it is the short term approaches within the industry that are jeopardising the adaptability of buildings, as developers are less likely to take risks and spend more money. This was explored in section 7.2. It is also suggested by Arge (2005) that the longer a developer or owner is intending on staying involved with the building, the more likely they are to add additional features that potentially help it change over time. This is certainly the case with the NSP, where the developer is looking at the investment with a long term view: “As a private developer we certainly would not have done what was done at the science park.

And colleagues in the industry have queried what we have done at the science park. The main stream market would not have delivered this solution.” (NSP PM). The reason they could take this extra risk was because of the long term view they were taking along with the fact that they were partly funded to use different approaches to developing. The contradiction between over specified services and a

104

was first realised. When NSP PM provided the ‘fit out’ they positioned the service boxes (housing power and data) under where the desks were set to be. If the intended layout was to change, the service boxes might have to be moved, which although possible would not be straightforward. For this to happen new carpet tiles would have to be cut as the service boxes were not the same sizes as the floor tiles. Additionally, fresh air comes through ducts in the raised floor, which have to be moved away from desks for user comfort. These ducts and floor boxes can be seen in figure 7.6 below.

Figure 7.6 - An image showing the layout of floor boxes and air vents. (Authors own image)

Both of these solutions reduce the adjustability, as it limits where you can move the furniture to, without extra problems, or additional work. So whilst it is a relatively insignificant problem, improvements could be made, for example fitting service boxes that are the same size as carpet tiles, or vice versa.

105

An aspect that aids with the versatility of the building is the flexible letting policies designed by the developers. This was set out from the start, as it was always their intention to allow companies to expand within the building. This makes expanding much simpler. As has already happened within the NSP, a wall can be removed and the adjacent office integrated. This is advertised in the NSP Doc 1:

“new flexible leases to suit individual requirements” (NSP Doc 1), and the service strategy within the NSP has been designed specifically with versatility in mind: “The services in this building are designed in such a way that the ducts on the ceiling take away the fresh air that comes through the raised floor. However, they have had to be designed so that it is possible to divide up the space as much as possible and still offer the same solution to each part, which was not an easy solution.” (NSP PM). As mentioned before, this solution is over specified specifically so the offices can be split up in a variety of ways, as shown in figure 7.7.

Figure 7.7 - A floor plan showing different configurations of offices within the NSP

106

them becoming the victim of their own flexibility. Whereas in a traditional office development, a company may be tied into a lease for a particular part of an office, in the NSP it is a lot easier to break this lease, meaning that movement could be considered more often. This frequency of movement has already been shown, with two companies’ already moving or expanding offices in the first two years. This issue with the versatility of the space has been increased by the fact that two large companies have now taken over 70% of the space, meaning that there is very little room for the smaller companies to expand or adapt.

7.6.1.3. Designed Refittability

As mentioned in section 7.6.1.2, the services have been designed so they can be divided up into different sections. Most of the services are exposed within the offices, meaning they can be refitted (albeit with similar fixtures) without affecting the integrity of the structure. It is also designed so that the minimum design life of all service parts is fifteen years, as suggested in the specification. This agrees with suggestions made by Brand (1994) regarding layers, where a normal service layer lasts from 7 to 15 years before needing to be replaced.

Another refittable element is that the cladding can be changed easily as it is a dry connection fitted to insulation. However, when asked whether this was a consideration during the design of this project a NSP PM stated, “No that is post rationalisation.” (NSP PM). Interestingly, it is possible that the architect had thought about this as a design consideration, as they stated when discussing adaptability in general, that, “it should be possible to be able to dismantle an office façade and put another kind of façade, and respond to the climate” (NSP PA). This differing view on whether the façade could be changed, could suggest that whilst the developers did not think about changing the façade, the architects design knowledge lead the architect to prescribe that solution. This design knowledge and the way it has enabled the developers to now state that they can re-clad the science park very easily, adds to the argument that architects are not simply stylists (Kieran & Timberlake 2004).

107

This conforms to the views of Schmidt et al (2010b) in that buildings need initial specificity, at least at some level, otherwise they run the risk of never being fit for purpose.

In terms of the NSP, convertibility would be very difficult, and whilst it can be split up in a number of different ways to change the space, changing the function of the space would be very difficult. As mentioned previously, the developers have taken a long term view for this project and have a lot invested in it being a success as a science park. For this reason the building was never designed to be converted.

7.6.1.5. Designed Scalability

Adding verticality (scaling up) to the NSP is not something that can be done without extensive work.

The brief dictated that the building should be two floors with a car park underneath. The foundations and structure as a whole has not been engineered for an additional floor. Also, as highlighted before, most of the services are located on the roof, so in order to scale upwards these would have to be relocated. The space allocated for car parking, below the building itself was also not a suitable height for another floor of offices. All of these elements mean that it would be very difficult to scale up the building.

Whilst it is not believed that the building itself can extend in size, the development site adjacent the NSP could offer potential for scalability of the scheme and site horizontally, as it is almost double the size of the NSP footprint, and was intended for use within this scheme. This development land can be seen in figure 7.8; the existing science park is located at the top right of the picture.

108

Figure 7.8 - An image showing the additional land available for development.

The idea was originally that if the first science park was a success another one or two could be built on the rest of the site, whilst this is not expanding the size of the original building, the land was initially purchased with this type of scalability in mind, which could have affected the original design.

Architectural drawings of how this would have looked can be seen in figure 7.9. Due to the recession this has not yet happened and the land has remained empty. In future the site could accommodate a scalable change.

Available development land

109

Figure 7.9 - Image showing the proposed expansion plan for NSP. (NSP Doc 3)

7.6.1.6. Designed Movablility

Movable strategies are generally only relevant for very specialist buildings, or potentially temporary buildings. The science park is neither of these and could never be moved from its current location.