Summary of Changes (Accommodation Possibilities)

Table 8.2: Summary of Changes

146

Installation of a touchdown area for field workers. architect, and finally the changes that have happened within the building. It shows a building that has been specifically built for an owner. However, despite this, the architects have still put thought in as to how the building may change, and have designed it with some adaptability. Both the owner and the architect are very keen to learn from the building, but have not done any formal feedback activities as yet. This interest in learning needs to be understood and harnessed in the most effective way. An insight into how they want to learn suggests what type of feedback mechanism provides the information most effectively. The learning outcomes relating to feedback with regards to adaptability can be seen below:

 As explored in section 8.2.2 the architect cannot simply design what they would like; they have to take in to account the views of the user. This can sometimes lead to conflict that

147

suggest that, the architect is currently learning about what the user of a building they are designing want during the design phase, but do not test whether this is successful post completion.

 The architects are keen to create frameworks with clients, where they continue to do work for them. They acknowledge that these frameworks can be used to learn about the buildings they have built in the past for the clients. Through this, it could be noted that the primary driver for frameworks is repeat work. It could also be said that the architects are taking advantage of this in order to learn something they might not have done from a one off design and build.

 The architects also acknowledged that they revisit old buildings they designed in the past.

However, they do not formalise this in any way; it was simply the values of the architects that took them back.

 The need to make the existing building stock last longer is a key value for the architects.

They also believe that understanding how these buildings have changed would help them make longer lasting buildings.

 The architects use lunchtime CPD sessions as a way of disseminating information throughout the practice. This could be a way of exploring how buildings have changed, but would require someone within the practice to collate this information and then present it back.

 The architects also learn by visiting different buildings. They do this by identifying projects similar to buildings they are designing, and then visiting them to see what has and has not worked.

 The architects have partaken in POE’s, but have said that they only participate when it is paid for by the client. They also said that it is difficult to gain useful information from them as they do not give contextual views. They also currently do not focus on adaptability.

 The architects understand the need to make E&SW robust and adaptable, so that it can last a long time, and have implemented different strategies that they feel make it adaptable.

148

to architects. There are suggestions, however, that if asked the right questions, the users might intuitively know the answers.

 Visual feedback, including floor plans, elevations and time-lapse photography, were mentioned by the architect as a way of feeding back information; in a way that would engage the architects.

 The communication links between all of the different building stakeholders, post completion, are completely decentralised. There is no formal mechanism or link between them all. It could be suggested that this is affecting the way information can be fed back to any stakeholder, especially the architect who now has very little communication with the building or its users.

All of the above points need to be taken into consideration when looking at how to best create an adaptability feedback mechanism which feeds back all of the different changes explored in 8.7.8.

This needs to be done in such a way as to allow architects to learn about how the uses of their buildings have changed over time. It could be suggested that these learning outcomes help architects better conceptualise how future buildings may change over time. A comprehensive review of the feedback mechanism is produced in the discussion chapter.

149

 A section on the architect, which includes a brief description of the architectural practice, followed by the ethos and values of the practice, and how these related to the Angel.

 A section on feedback, exploring what was used and why it does not address adaptability.

 A section detailing how the model of communication/feedback links was constructed to show how all stakeholders interacted with each other.

 A section on the design strategy of the project and how this related to the elements of adaptability.

 An evaluation of the building’s adaptability, describing both the changes that occurred and changes that have not happened, but were desired. These changes are then evaluated based on the design strategy and ethos.

The lessons from the adaptability, architectural practice and feedback sections are then combined to illustrate the learning outcomes based on the Angel project.

9.1.1. Participating Interviewees and Codes

This section details the generic names used for all of the different sources of information for Angel, this was done to protect the names of participants.

Table 9.1 - Participant Interviewees and Generic Codes

Interviewee Case study assigned code

Senior Architect Angel SA

Project Architect Angel PA

Project Manager Angel PM

Building Manager Angel BM

User Angel User (numbers will be used to identify

which user)

Documents Angel Doc (numbers will be used to identify

which document)

150

Figure 9.1: Angel building pre refurbishment

Figure 9.2 - Angel building post refurbishment

The Architects stated that the Angel Building was once an “unsightly and problematic building, significantly set back from the streets with a poorly resolved landscaped area separating it from the pavement” (Angel PA). Due to this they went about creating a design that extended the building up to the pavement and reduced many of the existing problems, which are explored throughout this case study, whilst retaining as much of the original structure as possible.

151

that although they cannot charge the same premiums as they could with new buildings, they can offer lower rents, in similar locations, and more flexibility in leases. These drivers for refurbishment are also suggested by Wilkinson & Reed (2008) within the literature.

The Angel PM have very clear principles about the buildings they like to refurbish, the buildings tend to be ‘written off’ by the majority of developers and they can therefore get them at a reduced price.

Along with this desire to take on buildings that others have disregarded as good investments, the Angel PM also feel that the ability to create a large entrance to the building is very important in the desirability of a building as this is the first thing prospective tenants see when they come into the building: “Typically 1960’s and 70’s office buildings are very poky, for example a poky little reception, and we would say, well look okay, we would take out some of the structure on the ground floor, and make a much more imposing, fantastic first impression entrance” (Angel PM). An example of this is on the Angel building itself when they have created a large entrance and atrium.

Along with the taking on of undesirable buildings, The developers have come up with a set of principles they feel help buildings when it comes to refurbishment, these are collectively called White Collar Factory (WCF) Principles, which is a concept, and may never be built as an entire building, but the developers feel that if they can incorporate as many of the principles as possible into their buildings they increase its longevity. The five prominent principles are; tall ceilings, smart/simple servicing, simple passive facades, deep plan and concrete structures. Some of these principles have been used on the Angel building and is described throughout this case study.

Another principle that the developers employ, to ensure they deliver a desirable building, is the use of building managers instead of receptionists. They do this as they feel it gives a better service to the tenants, and allows problems to be solved much quicker. This again has been used on the Angel building.

152

architects brief was to devise a working environment that was aesthetically compatible with the rest of the building, but flexible enough to show potential tenants the exciting possibilities of the space.

From this quote it is possible to deduce that the two key elements of the brief were for the aesthetics of the building to be improved, and for the building to be flexible for tenants. Due to this the architects devised a number of aims that they wanted to deliver within this project, these are listed below, (Angel Doc 2):

 Creation of a landmark building with a clear identity on a prominent corner site

 Creation of useable, comfortable and desirable office spaces

 A minimum net internal area target of 270,000 sqft

 Ability to become multi-let with horizontal and vertical split capabilities

 Three existing entrances into one main entrance

 Creation of active and viable retail spaces at street level

 Re-use of the existing frame

 Produce a “new building” using existing components

 Regeneration of the public realm to create new external city spaces

 Integrate new green spaces with the building architecture

 Create an energy efficient building

 Integrated energy strategy

 Efficient lighting design

The retention of the original frame was a big part of the brief, and something the project architect agreed with: “The embodied energy argument was overwhelming, we did some calculations on that and we think there was about 7400 tonnes of carbon locked up in the frame, which is about the equivalent of running the building for about 13 years” (Angel PA). The argument that buildings should be retained due to the amount of embodied energy already stored within them is made by Ball (1999) within the literature.

153 before any new elements were added.

Figure 9.3 - Image of the retained frame (Angel Doc 2)

Once the architects knew which parts of the original frame they were going to keep, after the structural assessment, they designed the extension and atrium around this, floor plans of the ground floor can be seen below.

154

and a roof terrace. When the building was being refurbished, the developers were able to gain interest in a pre-let from a prestigious charity, who wanted to let the bottom two floors of office space. This allowed the developers and architects to work with the charity on their fit out meaning that the charity could get elements specific to them within the design. The staircases were never part of the original brief, however, the architects could add in that level of specificity due to the charity coming on before the building was complete. This also allowed the architect to complete the aim of being able to have current vertical and horizontal split capabilities. It does not mean however, that these floors now have a stair case in the middle of them, which may hinder future rent, if companies only wanted a single floor of these offices. The staircase in question can be seen in figure 9.5.

155

vacant. The development model of refurbishment over new build is still proving successful, if this success can be demonstrated regularly, this would add to the argument that buildings should be adapted rather than demolished.

9.4. The Architectural practice and its Ethos

This section provides an overview of the Angel from the point of view of the architect. It explores the architectural practice, the values within that practice and how that practice currently utilises feedback about their buildings. This is done in order to start to understand how adaptable feedback can be best utilised in practice.

9.4.1. The Practice Background

The architectural practice was started over twenty years ago, according to their website they pursue a pragmatic, analytical and open working method that produces responsive, intelligent architecture.

Utilising this approach has enabled the practise to work as far afield as Ghana.

The architectural practice feel very strongly about the process they go through when designing a building: “certainly some architects like to have a product that clients enjoy buying into. I think for us our product is that process, it is a logical process and I think as a result of which the buildings are all

156

achieved by incorporating the two side entrances into the new office space, and placing a larger entrance at the front of the building. This can be seen in figure 9.6.

Another aim of the design team was to create a ‘new building’ using existing components, one element that demonstrates this is the use of the existing frame and the creation of an internal atrium where the existing court yard was. This can be seen in the figure 9.7 below. What the images also show is the amount of new structure that has been added to the building, so despite re using the existing structure it is clear that it was not of good enough quality to be exposed within the new building. The issue that occurred when refitting the original building was that there was originally a dropped ceiling throughout the building, the architects took this out, so they could use the thermal mass of the building, however the dropped ceiling was hiding a very rough soffit, so this also had to be rectified: “there are all sorts of column heads and stand beams and we had to go carefully around and integrate those. What we have done in the end is we have sprayed them with a coat of plaster so it looks clean and then painted them, so it looks very sharp and clean but it’s all still there” (Angel SA). This shows that the due care to make the soffit as clean as possible was not taken initially as the

Figure 9.6 - An image of the main entrance of the Angel building (Angel – Doc 2)

157

Figure 9.7 - Images showing the transformation of the atrium (Angel – Doc 2)

9.4.3. Values in Practice

A key value that the architects follow is to ensure that everything they do has architectural ambition:

“For us, it is about having architectural ambition at the core in everything that we do, and treating everything that we do as an architectural project. Those might be pure architectural projects as in buildings, but some of them might be research projects. Some of them might just be how you run the business of architecture in terms of the practice and its people and its premises and its infrastructure, but everything we do needs to have architecture at the core of it. So we find that’s extremely important for our business.” (Angel SA).

This shows that everything within the business is given as much care and attention as the architectural projects they work on. This quote also explains that they think this is important as it allows the employees to take ownership of their work. Cuff (1991) explores the idea that architects have a desire to start their own practices, so that they have control of what they design, this could be one of the reasons the architects try to do this, in order to keep their architects satisfied.

Sustainability and how to improve it are high on the agenda for the architects, they have created an internal blog for the practice so that all of the employees can learn and post about sustainability.

This shows that the practice is intrinsically linked with sustainability issues and how they can design more sustainably. Another value linked to this is that they are very keen to make sure that their buildings are still appropriate in future years: “the existing building stock now is the problem. We

158

do it [learn], if you can, because I mean buildings by their nature are one off projects but there’s so many things in common, with office buildings you would be mad not to verify what you’ve assumed”

(Angel SA). The fact that buildings are bespoke creations is explored within this quote, however, the architect does believe that there are many things building project have in common and that they could learn from. Taking this view, it could be suggested that architects would learn valuable lessons from reviewing how buildings have evolved since completion. This shows a real desire to learn from their projects in order to improve in future. It is felt that it is important to determine if this architect is unique in wanting to learn about their buildings, as this suggested whether any feedback mechanism exploring changes in buildings is successful.

One thing that the architects feel allows their buildings not to be a problem in years to come is that they try and create strong architectural pieces of work that the users find appealing, they feel that if they do this then users are more likely to accept the building. This is also backed up by the work they have done with the Angel building where the quality of the material is used as a selling point with in sales material.

Another thing that the architects work hard at is trying to influence the design as much as they can, currently they feel that a lot of factors are out of their control: “a lot of people do perhaps over estimate the influence an architect has on a project, there’s lots of things we do have control over and lots of things we can be blamed for, or congratulated for, but a lot of the time, many of the people involved and the influence of agents, and to some extent project managers on commercial buildings anyway are really significant” (Angel SA). They did however suggest that they work really hard to try and make sure the building is designed in the best way possible, “we know from experience we’re going to do some things a little bit different we’ll be successful but we try and work hard to persuade them [clients] that we could do things in a smarter way” (Angel SA). This lack of influence is supported in literature where architects are described as having an increasingly reduced role (Brady 1996). This could have an influence on the type of feedback an architect can gain from the building; it also affects an architect’s enthusiasm for feedback, if they know their design has

159

The next sections explore whether this is true, it explores how architects currently use feedback and then identifies the type of feedback that would be most effective for them to use, in order to improve their future design decisions, with regards to adaptability.

9.5.1. The Feedback Methods that are currently used and their ability to Support Learning for Adaptability

As stated in section 9.4.3 the architects are very keen to continually learn, this is reaffirmed by the

As stated in section 9.4.3 the architects are very keen to continually learn, this is reaffirmed by the