Bloomberg - Too Little Too Late? Climate Change and the Architects Duty of Care by Ash Kirk

BLOOMBERG TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?

Ashley Kirk 08037518 AR7023

BLOOMBERG TOO LITTLE TOO LATE? THE ARCHITECTSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; DUTY OF CARE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Cover Image: Bloomberg in a flooded London

Ashley Kirk Student No.: 08037518 AR7023 - Advocacy, Practice Beyond Aesthetics January 2019 Tutors: Tom Reynolds & Rebecca Lee

AN OVERWHELMING OPPORTUNITY

One of the richest people on Earth approaches one of the most renowned and expensive Architects on the planet with £1 billion and asks them to design and build an office of the future, one that sets a precedent. An overwhelming opportunity, I think. Yet, given this opportunity the result is, quite frankly, hugely disappointing, for our planet at least. The new Bloomberg European Headquarters, recent winner of the Stirling Prize by Fosters + Partners, has been ‘crowned’ the world’s most sustainable office building, a title based upon its BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) 98.5% Outstanding Rating. Despite these impressive achievements there still remains questions around how much we are really doing to design for the future; and by design for the future I mean to design in a way that provides a future for a changing world, both through climate change mitigation and adaptation to this multi-faceted issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have delivered the ultimatum – 12 years to save our planet. More specifically, it suggests that we have 12 years in which to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C in order to save the natural world, and civilisation as we know it, from catastrophic changes in climate. For the many, the fight against climate change means targeting direct energy consumption and waste, whether that be energy for our homes, cars, planes or reducing waste and recycling. The topic has made its way, in varying degrees of significance, into practically all developed countries on earth, yet it remains a problem we are unable to agree on and much less deal with. But what is the relevance to architects? Simply that, according to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report the built environment, construction and in-use is amongst the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases. Architects, as the designers of the built world, surely have a significant duty of care to design to both mitigate climate change and adapt to the changing climates we are witnessing. According to a UNEP Report, Buildings and construction account for around 40 per cent of CO2 emissions; and more than half of buildings expected to exist by 2060 will be constructed in the next 20 years. Concrete is second to water in the Worlds most used resources (Rogers, 2018) and accounts for 8% of Global carbon emissions.

1. Bloomberg HQ, London

2. Current CO2 Levels

3 Ozone Concentrations

4 UKGBC - Carbon Impact of Built Environment

CLIMATE CHANGE

Global Climate Change has become an all too common phrase, most of us appreciate the urgency and importance of the problem, yet it is as equally ignored or seen as someone else’s responsibility. It poses the biggest risk to civilisation yet it remains divisive. Media coverage has been on the rise since the IPCC report back in October and again immediately following the recent COP24 – The UN Climate Change Conference held in Katowice, Poland. Awareness is a great tool but Larson (2018b) explains that we still have an abstract and unbalanced view of what change is simply due the disparity in indicators that are thrown around - from 1.5°C (IPCC 2018, cited in Larson 2018a) to 32.7 Gigatons of carbon emissions in 2017 (IEA 2017 cited in Larson 2018a). There is now extensive scientific evidence to prove that human activity is a significant, if not the main, factor inducing global climate change. During a trip to the Arctic in 2017 I visited the Climate Impacts Research Station in Arbisko. It was here I met the lead Ecologist Keith Larson, who presented key scientific research from their work in the Arctic regions. More recently I met personally with Keith to discuss the latest indicators and how it relates to Architects. One of the most prominent greenhouse gases (and most often used as an indicator) is Cardon Dioxide (CO2). Whilst there have been fluctuations in global CO2 levels within the atmosphere over millennia, since the Industrial Revolution we have seen it reach record levels, year on year. Currently levels are at 407ppm (Larson 2018a) and current targets, including the London Plan are to not exceed 450ppm. There are a number of protocols between Global powers, such as the Paris Agreement, against which countries are ranked in the Climate Change Performance Index. Sweden is currently the highest rated, at number 4, but NO country is actually doing enough to meet the targets set by the Paris agreement. Although collaboration has a history of success, there seems no better example in this context than the Montreal Protocol. 2017 marked the 30th anniversary of the agreement signed by world leaders to restore the Ozone layer, and today scientists agree that this has worked.

“CAN WE / ARE WE DESIGNING FOR ADAPTION NOW? IF WE CAN THEN THERE IS HOPE.” LARSON (2018b).

RIBA AND ARB CODES

“ARCHITECTS ARE FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE”JONATHAN PORRIT (CITED IN HURST 2015)

Both the RIBA and ARB administer Codes of Conduct for certified, practicing Architects. These seek to outline all aspects of an Architect’s Duty Of Care when carrying out their work, everything from acting responsibly to having the capacity to complete the work promised. The most recently updated such code was the ARB code in 2017 (updated from 2010). The RIBA code, however, is somewhat outdated – last published in 2005. Whilst the RIBA Code is currently under review, an update is not expected until later this year, at the earliest. On a purely observatory note these timescales, particularly that of RIBA, are extensive - just short of 15 years. Perhaps this is testament to the robustness of the current codes? Let me counter that with an analysis of the RIBA code (see image 5. right) 3.2: “Members should be aware of the environmental impact of their work.” I need to mention that the RIBA Code begins with this mission statement which is relevant in this argument: “Honesty, integrity and competency, as well as concern for others and for the environment, are the foundations of the royal institute’s three principles” But as the specific code 3.2, it remains open to interpretation. The ARB are equally as vague requesting competency and concern but not progress or action. The code here is 5.1: “Where appropriate, you should advise your client how best to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment and its natural resources.” Whilst this is an improvement over the previous wording, in a time when we are more aware of the environmental issues, we face one might expect more rigorous wording from our main professional bodies. It may be naive to think that all Architects swear by these codes but I would speculate that their vague wording leaves potential for a selffulfilling prophecy and, as such, it is difficult to disagree with Porrit’s view.

5. ARB & RIBA Code Analysis

POLICY

Within the UK the first line of controls to our built environment are those written into Planning Policy, both National and Local, and Buildings Regulations. These set of standards and policies ensure buildings meet specific criteria to protect the public, influence planning decisions and control development. Domestic and non-domestic buildings are addressed by different criteria and a number of other standards, codes, assessments exist such as BREEAM which is available for non-domestic buildings, and are the focus here. Key current London Plan Policies in Response to Climate Change (GLA 2016): 5.1 Climate change mitigation – aim of 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. 5.2 Minimising Carbon Emissions - zero carbon buildings by 2019 but currently sets a target of a 25% reduction over building Regulations Part L for carbon emission reduction. 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction – asks for the ‘Highest Standards’ to be used. 5.6 Decentralised Energy In Development Proposals – new developments should evaluate the feasibility of CHP (Combined Heat and Power) units to generate their own energy and make use of waste heat. 5.7 Renewable Energy – seeks to increase the amount of energy that is generated by renewable sources (solar PV for example). 5.8 Innovative Energy Technologies – looks for widespread use of technology to reduce fossil fuel use. 5.9 Overheating and Cooling – seeks to reduce the urban heat island effect which includes initiatives for passive ventilation and active cooling systems.

AND THEY STILL ALLOW FOR ‘PAY OFFS’

6. New London Plan

The London Plan is updated roughly biannually; other standards like Part L (Building Regulations) and SAP were last updated in 2014. SAP 10 has recently been released as a draft, and is due to come in with the next update of Part L in Spring 2020. Dollard (2018) said “These, sustainable building practices and design codes however, don’t currently relate to IPCC reports directly. They presume that CO2 emissions from operational energy should be reduced as much as is viable.”. He further explains that “the current standard environmental performance models of buildings (SAP and SBEM) calculate operational energy and CO2 emissions per annum. In London, the zero-carbon standard requires a 30-year period of CO2 to be calculated and accounted for with a carbon offset payment.”. So, we are taking steps to attempt to address the issue where building performance is concerned. Drafted for consultation in 2017 the New London Plan which is currently at the stage of Examination in Public should be adopted as a formal planning document in the Autumn of 2019. In the context of Climate Change many of the policies are echoed, albeit renamed or combined with others. What it does not do is mandate, or even request, substantial improvements over the current plan. One area of interest, policy 5.2, now S12 – Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions asks that new developments improve on Building Regulations by a 35% reduction, rather than the previous 25%. Although, the minimum aim for non-domestic buildings is 15% “where it is clearly demonstrated that the zerocarbon target cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall should be provided: 1.

through a cash in lieu contribution to the relevant borough’s carbon offset fund, and/or

off-site provided that an alternative proposal is identified and delivery is certain.” (GLA, 2018)

Even these levels appear to fall short of the urgent action the IPCC suggests we need to take, and they still allow for ‘pay offs’.

7. BREEAM Assessment Sections

9. Typical BREEAM Assessment

8. BREEAM Rating Categories

10. BREEAM Map

BREEAM is an assessment method which uses a set of specific criteria to score non-domestic buildings on their environmental impact, covering the use of recycled materials, to access to local amenities. It is operational in 50 countries and currently 250,000 buildings are certified from a simple ‘pass’ to ‘outstanding’. Currently only 10% of certifications are rated excellent or outstanding and, until the recent update in the 2018, certification did not fully account for embodied carbon. Embodied carbon can be simply described as the amount of carbon it costs to make said product, encompassing everything from raw material extraction, manufacture, transportation, installation and in-use. The use of the certification method is either stipulated by local planning policy or by the client who may request their project is developed using the practices and guidelines. Not every building that employs the use of BREEAM is externally assessed – some projects can be ‘self-assessed’ which, seems a rather pointless notion. Buildings are scored on a pointsbased system. Different sections contain specific criteria and the design can then be analysed against these producing a score for each item, which then result in a rating from unclassified to outstanding (see image 8. left) The system has several quirks and awards points for what seem to be meaningless aspects. For example, points can be scored for the distance to local amenities and public transport, or for simply providing recycling bins whether they are used or not. Throughout its years of development, and updates, it appears to be a tick box exercise open to exploiting the easiest and cheapest point scoring items. BREEAM does not currently prioritise as-built performance (in use). Passivhaus and Living Building Challenge are much better (performance, health, climate change, comfort, capex and opex) certification standards (Dollard, 2018), however, these are not applicable for non-domestic buildings.

11. Bloomberg HQ, Isometric View

‘THE GOLD STANDARD’

12. Sustainable Strategies in Bloomberg HQ

13. Bronze Facade Gills

From its conception, the New Bloomberg European HQ in London set out to pursue a strong sustainable agenda (DP9 2011) originally aiming to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘excellent’. In reality it exceeded this, achieving ‘outstanding’ with the highest score ever achieved for a commercial office building of 98.5%. It is a valid and impressive achievement, however, to quote Hartman (2017) “Any claim to a global ‘first’ demands scrutiny. So how green is it really?”. Does the Bloomberg building lead the way for better architecture? (Liu, 2018 cited in Hurst, 2018). Being in a densely populated city, its massing has taken the form of the site’s legal boundary. Whilst the original plan was to simply fill the site with a 10-storey block, the design progression saw the development of an avenue, a through-route strategically splitting the site into two un-equal pieces. A typical response for modern development in cities is to build tall, but this isn’t the case for Bloomberg at just 10 storeys tall (excluding the 3 basement levels). From the Design and Access Statement it appears this was a conscious decision given the close proximity to a number of historic buildings, namely St Pauls Cathedral. However, what leads me to question - a previous design iteration by Foster + Partners, ten years prior, saw a 22-level tower on the site, nick-named Darth Vader’s Helmet; a scheme which halted after the developer pulled out. Foster has since stated that it was the clients’, (Michael Bloomberg) decision to keep things low and sympathetic to the context. The ground floor is dominated by retail, mainly fronting the new avenue, surrounded by a wave-like curtain wall of glass and bronze fins behind the stone clad colonnade. The upper stories are much more uniform. A regular grid of Derbyshire stone, glazing and bronze ‘harps’ or ‘gills’ as they are known. Materials chosen, according to the architect, for their life-value (Waite 2018) requiring little or no maintenance and designed to age gracefully over time. Unfortunately, their value in terms of longevity is not shared with their carbon cost. The bronze ‘gills’ for example have, quite literally, travelled the world being sourced from Japan. “Indeed, the projects’ embodied energy levels are not so slight, given this 600 tonnes of Japanese bronze and a quarry-full of granite from India.” (Wainwright 2017).

From outset the project considered the requirements and guidance of BREEAM, specifically targeting the ‘excellent’ rating. When this project first hit the drawing board the 2008 criteria was in force, updated in 2011 and again in 2014 with the latter being used for the final assessment. Something which all of these criteria have in common is the absence of scoring against levels of embodied carbon although it is understood that this will be addressed in the 2018 amendment, expected to go live in early 2019. BREEAM 2014 did, however, include Life-Cycle Assessment - so embodied carbon would have, at least, been considered, but the high levels prevalent in the Bloomberg building would not necessarily have lowered the overall assessment score (Hartman 2017). However, what would have contributed positively to the high score were innovation credits for numerous techno-engineered solutions the new office incorporates. On face value some of the strategies employed do not appear to be that innovative, but maybe it is more about how they have been incorporated into the building. The bronze gills hide away the intricate workings of the hybrid natural ventilation system which does its best to supply the floor plates with fresh air during the equinoctial seasons. Once inside the ‘smart air movement’ via the integrated ceiling panels ensures air is shifted to the places that need it, which is a metric being constantly monitored. These ceiling panels – a work of art in their own right, provide lighting with efficient LEDs, cooling via chilled pipe networks above as well as assisting air movement. Their design apparently increases the surface area, which inturn aids cooling. During peak heating and cooling months (summer and winter) the building remains closed to the outside and is largely mechanically ventilated, where possible utilising full height cores and the main atrium for stack-effect air extraction.

14. Integrated ceiling panels

15. Bloomberg HQ and Building Regulations Comparison

16. Spencer De Grey Presenting in Beijing 17. The slide suggesting Bloomberg is a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;3oC buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

“SADLY ALL THIS IS NOT ENOUGH” - SPENCER DE GREY 2018 (CITED IN HARPER 2018)

Another key deliverable expected by the client was to dramatically reduce water consumption. This was achieved in two ways: via a clever vacuum drainage system and a rainwater recycling. Water is collected from roof areas and used for toilet flushing which, thanks to the vacuum drainage system, does not require any mains supply supplement. An anticipated 25 million litres of water are expected to be saved (CIBSE 2017). Perhaps one of the largest demands of an office building is energy for lighting. Most offices are lit throughout daylight hours to maintain an acceptable LUX level at workstations. LEDs within the ceiling panels provide this light which is powered by a CHP unit. In essence, a mini power station which burns natural gas to drive a turbine which generates electricity. The efficiency of this is high, compared to traditional methods, and the heat generated contributes to heating demands. It is a system which is encouraged by the GLA within the London plan and can offer power and heat to neighbouring buildings (given the infrastructure to do so). Overall the building sees a reduction of 38% - thus exceeding The London Plan. But; according to Fosters’ own head of design – Spencer De Grey (2018, cited in Harper, 2018) – “Sadly all this is not enough” when referring to saving the planet during his address at a conference in Beijing in late 2018. Bloomberg is a three-degrees building – DOUBLE what we can afford. Dollard (2018) backs De Grey’s findings, “studies show that BREEAM and LEED buildings do not meet their environmental design targets, and can be worse than non BREEAM buildings. (source: Innovate UK BPE study 2015 and other studies by Leeds beckett, Oxford Brookes, UCL, Zero Carbon Hub).” De Grey presented some of his research comparing buildings to the latest IPCC reports. “Let that sink in. Even the world’s most sustainable office building is fuelling global warming more than double what we can afford. And De Grey’s research did not even take into account the embodied energy of the 10,000 tonnes of sandstone cladding, the vast bronze facade fins or the deep foundations required to take their weight.” (Harper 2018).

18. UN Refugee Report (top) 19. Refugee Arrivals (bottom)

WHY IS IT NOT ENOUGH?

The motion that a commercial building rated as high as Bloomberg could still contribute to twice the temperature rise than we can afford is alarming and frankly undermines what our planning polices, building regulations and BREEAM are trying to mitigate. If mitigation is a struggle, then perhaps adaption is all but a concept. 22

In recent years we have seen a rise in the severity of extreme weather events and overall climate changes. It is believed that this will become commonplace and has the potential to be more severe than predicted. Speaking to Tom Dollard (2018) it was evident that our current design methods to deal with summers with multiple days in excess of 40C and wetter warmer winters are not robust. “CIBSE 59 is the toughest set of targets for Dynamic modelling of comfort in buildings, but it is not being followed through into the realised building. Increased modelling and modelling standards do not necessarily lead to better buildings. Current changes in modelling standards are not leading to necessary changes in the architectural and M&E design and installation”. It’s also understood that climate adaption is a multi-faceted issue whereby the direct and indirect repercussions of a changing climate will suddenly need to be addressed. We are already seeing climate refugees in their thousands escape areas of drought in Syria, amongst others. Furthermore, urban population growth is set to rise at unprecedented levels. It’s clear “we are not seriously preparing for change in climate. It is very low on the list of UK and world priorities.” (Dollard, 2018).

QUESTION OF CONTROL Architects cannot be held entirely responsible; even when they aspire to do the best they can be at the mercy of clients and other parties in construction. In simple terms with they cannot design something a client does not want or cannot afford – I say afford because a large majority of ‘eco’ products, technologies and materials still come at a premium

“A 2006 DROUGHT PUSHED SYRIAN FARMERS TO MIGRATE TO URBAN CENTRES, SETTING THE STAGE FOR MASSIVE UPRISINGS” - HAMMER. J 2013 (CITED IN LARSON 2018)

Contractor

Client

Architect

20. The Control Ladder

21. The Willis Building in construction 1973 (left)

22 Bloomberg in constuction 2016 (right)

although, for some, analysis of the life time cost against a higher capital outlay reveals savings. Clients all have different priorities, some of those will be climate conscious, whereas others will not, and whilst architects can strive to influence otherwise it may not always be within our grasp. The project architect for Bloomberg said, “builders like to do things the way they like to do things” (Murphy 2018 cited in Waite, R, 2018) which is an unfortunate truth of the industry. Construction practices have not moved on substantially for decades. Perhaps one reason for this is our acceptance for the status-quo to be repeatedly rescued by sophisticated building services, leaving our approach to design and construction methodology of high-resource and outdated. The issue of control has also been exaggerated by the introduction of Design and Build procurement routes, which leaves architects and clients without control over quality, materials or finish, to name a few. Whilst Bloomberg HQ was not delivered via this route, Design and Build is how the majority of UK projects are procured. ARB and RIBA have the credentials to educate and collaborate within the industry and wider population to influence changes to our practices. There are some positive moves but actions are limited and can be compared to making just enough noise to avoid abject criticism. Other organisations like The Edge, a think tank group which have been driving for changes and particularly collaboration, have set out three key agendas in their report Collaborating Change (Morrell, 2015):

1. Tackling the divide between what is promised and what is delivered. 2. Develop and standardise a code of conduct across the built environment professions. 3. Cross disciplinary review of the education system.

We need RIBA and ARB to get behind these initiatives in order to bring about change, NOW. The current state of affairs sees Architects at the bottom of the ‘control ladder’ and without control we cannot perform our duty of care.

NEW APPROACHES

This biomimetic structure (image 22. right) represents what is possible - it provides its own formwork, prints structural fibres only where they are required. It is an example of computational and technological advancements in materials, design and construction methodology.

The sustainability advisor to the Stirling Prize jury, Simon Sturgis (2018) comments on Bloomberg’s Stirling Prize win “buildings that exhibit true innovation in sustainable design will be made from lowcarbon long-life materials with high recycled content. They will be durable, flexible, easy to maintain, deconstruct and reuse. They will of course be ultra-efficient operationally.” Sturgis cited In Hurst (2018). Or, could our buildings replicate products like Lego? “It never gets thrown away” (Larson 2018b). Lego gets passed on through generations, perhaps our buildings should not be approached as they ever are – disposable luxuries, but as reusable assets, built to last 100s of years, surpassing most design-to targets now of 50 years. This may not seem feasible with current methodology or thinking but a new approach could change this. In the way that our climate appears to be rapidly changing, perhaps our regulations, standards and attitudes need to also, do the same suggests Larson (2018b). He went on to explain that a dramatic shift in standards would be unachievable and, therefore, counterproductive. What needs to be seen are constant updates, perhaps every half year, and improvements to these frameworks. If these small but very frequent updates are not achievable then Larson (2018b) warns that we will be forced into making catastrophic changes in order to survive. Scientific research is outdated the moment it’s published due to the timescale involved with peer reviews and checking procedures. Therefore, we need to match this with a continually sliding process to keep current. Bloomberg HQ far exceeds the requirements set out in Building Regulations. Suggesting there is a large performance gap, an area of Legislation Dollard (2018) would like to see improved to “ensure that design targets are met in operational use. Requiring design teams and developers to demonstrate as

built performance using whole life cycle analysis combined with completion and in use testing/monitoring.”. Unfortunately, comprehensive details about the technologies and strategies employed in this project are have not been and not likely to be shared within architectural profession. Many are calling for Foster + Partners to do this so we can learn from the ‘gold standard’. 27

23. ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2014-15

“THE EARTH HAS BECOME A DESIGN SPACE” (ALLENBY, 2016)

24.

POSTFACE

Our industry is slow to adopt change and evolve its practices. Despite staring down the barrel of the gun for decades, money, policy and control still govern us and our professional bodies seem to have a relaxed stance on our duty of care for the issue but to suggest that a change in our codes of conduct would save the day is somewhat naïve. They are somewhat sanctimonious - to agree with Patrik Schumacher (2015) who explains that the “supposed ‘architects’ responsibility’”, “only serves to distract the discipline from investing its discursive and research resources to competently address the responsibility it has actually been entrusted with, by the legitimate social actors that are its public and private clients.”. There is an absence of pro-active, wide-spread challenges to our paradigm which would instrument a holistic movement within the whole construction industry. Fosters’ Bloomberg had an admirable agenda through its development which culminated in its innovative engineering ‘party pieces’ gain an enviable BREEAM accolade despite it not being an overall holistic creation or feet of architecture. On inspection it seems to simply follow those policies and targets set out in the current London Plan. Take it on face value or compare it to the majority of buildings that are ‘churned out’ by the industry and it looks mightily impressive – the best of a bad bunch. I’m afraid that we do not have the luxury of time that the ‘World’s Most Sustainable Building’, and everything it stands for, suggests. Instead, we face a rapidly changing and unpredictable future planet that we continue to neglect. It is an immeasurable opportunity and one which architects have the tools to serve. Hopefully, Bloomberg HQ is the last flourish for high-resource approach to design and construction (Sturgis, 2007, cited in Hurst, 2017) and we see the bold moves Foster preaches.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Primary Research Sources/Interviewees: Keith W. Larson, PhD, Project Coordinator, Climate Impacts Research Centre, Arbisko Tom Dollard, Head of Sustainability, PTE Architects, London 30

Subject Mentors: Tom Reynolds, Associate, PTE Architects, London & The Cass School of Architecture Rebecca Lee, Architect, PTE Architects, London & The Cass School of Architecture Module Leader: Angie Pascoe, The Cass School of Architecture Richard Gatti, The Cass School of Architecture

REFERENCES:

General Sources of reference: ARB: Architects Journal: BREEAM: RIBA:

http://www.arb.org.uk/ https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ https://www.breeam.com/ https://www.architecture.com/

Cited references: Allenby, B (2016) The Anthropocene: Great Marketing, Wrong Product Are we living in a new geological epoch? Not exactly, Slate Magazine, viewed on 08 January 2019, https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/some-say-climatechange-marks-the-anthropocene-a-new-geological-age-theyre-wrong. html CIBSE (2017) Designing a natural ventilation strategy for Bloomberg’s central London HQ, CIBSE Journal, viewed on 04 Janurary 2019, https://www. cibsejournal.com/case-studies/designing-a-natural-ventilation-strategyfor-bloombergs-central-london-hq/ Dollard, T (2018) in email to Ashley Kirk, 5 December 2018 DP9 Planning Consultants (2011) Planning Statement Bloomberg Place, viewed 31st December 2018, http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/ online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=LV SI66FH02O00 GLA (2018) The New London Plan, viewed on 15 November 2018, https:// www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/ draft-new-london-plan/ Harper, P (2018) The world’s most sustainable office building isn’t enough to save the planet, Dezeen, viewed on 25 October 2018, https://www.dezeen. com/2018/10/12/opinion-foster-partners-bloomberg-sustainabilityclimate-change-phineas-harper/

Hartman, H (2017) Building study: Foster ramps it up at Bloomberg, Architects Jounral, viewed 17 October 2018, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ buildings/building-study-foster-ramps-it-up-at-bloomberg/10025229. article

Hurst, W (2015) Porritt: ‘architects are failing to tackle climate change’, Architects Journal, viewed 20 October 2018. Hurst, W (2018) Stirling result is ‘disastrous’, says Stephen Lawrence Prize winner, Architects Journal, viewed 20 October 2018, https://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/stirling-result-is-disastrous-says-stephenlawrence-prize-winner/10036172.article Larson, K (2018a) Climate change and the global teleconnections of our climate system Viewed from the Arctic, Lecture presentation given to Ashley Kirk, 21 November 2018 Larson, K (2018b) in discussion with Ashley Kirk, 21 November 2018 Morrell, P (2015) Collaborating For Change,The Edge Commission Report on the Future of Professionalism, viewed on 15 November 2018, http://www.edgedebate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150415_ collaborationforchange_book.pdf Rogers, L (2018) Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about, BBC, viewed on 20 December 2018, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ science-environment-46455844 Schumacker, P (2015) Comment on What Are Architects Responsible For, Will Hurst, Architects Journal, viewed on 28 October 2018, https://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/culture/what-are-architects-responsiblefor/8685996.article

Wainwright, O (2017) Bloomberg HQ: a £1bn building that looks like a regional department store, The Gaurdian, viewed on 04 Janurary 2019, https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/25/bloomberg-london-hqnorman-foster-architecture-review Waite, R (2018) Project architect on Fosters’ Bloomberg HQ: ‘It’s about the value not the money’, Architects Journal, viewed 20 October 2018, https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/project-architect-on-fosters-bloomberg-hqits-about-the-value-not-the-money/10036119.article?blocktitle=newsfeature&contentID=19634

IMAGES: Cover Image: Kirk (2018) Edit of original Bloomberg HQ Aerial photo Avaliable at: https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/662507776_1280x720.jpg. Accessed 25 October 2018 1. unknown author (2018) Bloomberg HQ London, Available at: https://images. adsttc.com/media/images/59ef/7022/b22e/3864/9800/0395/large_ jpg/1942_FP631870.jpg?1508863995, Accessed on 13 January 2019 2. Petit et al (2017), cited in Larson. K (2018c) Current CO2 Levels, Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2535/satellite-data-confirm-annualcarbon-dioxide-minimum-above-400-ppm/ 3. NASA (unknown year), cited in Larson. K (2018a) Ozone Concentrations. Available at: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003586/ Waleed30secondMontrealProtocolVizComposite.900_print.jpg

4. UKGBC (unknown year) Carbon Impact of Built Environment, Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/user-media.venngage.com/1250825-307c59b3a 8c888e2cc47e1da75805596.png, Viewed on 13 Janurary 2019

5. Kirk A (2018) ARB and RIBA Codes. Diagram of codes from RIBA (https:// www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/code-of-professionalconduct/additional-documents/codeofprofessionalconductpdfpdf.pdf) and ARB (http://www.arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ArchitectsCode-2017.pdf). Accessed on October 30 2018. 6. Kirk A (2018) New London Plan, Collage of images, Available at: (https:// www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/styles/gla_2_1_large/public/londonplan-image-2x1.png?itok=nI_MeFHv) and (https://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/news/built-environment-firms-must-act-now-on-climatechange/10035924.article) Accessed on October 30 2018. 7. Unknown author (unknown year) BREEAM Assessment Sections, Available at: https://www.volkerfitzpatrick.co.uk/en/corporate-responsibility/ environment/breeam-capability, Accessed on 13 January 2019 . 8. BREEAM (2011) BREEAM Rating Categories, Available at: https://www. breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/03_ScoringRating/ scoring.htm. Accessed on 09 January 2019 9. Unknown author (unknown year) Typical BREEAM Assessment, from professional experience placement. 10. BREEAM (unknown year) BREEAM Map, Available at: https://i1.wp. com/brebuzz.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BREEAM-RegisteredAssessments-for-Buzz.jpg, Accessed on 30 October 2018 11. Foster+Partners (2012) Bloomberg HQ, Isometric View from Planning documents, Avaliable at: http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/onlineapplications/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=LVSI66FH02O00, accessed on 29 December 2018

12. Unknown author (2018) Sustainable Strategies in Bloomberg HQ. Available at: https://data.bloomberglp.com/company/sites/2/2017/09/New-LDNB. jpg, Accessed on 30 October 2018 13. Unknown author (2018) Bronze Faรงade Gills. Available at: https://data. bloomberglp.com/company/sites/39/2018/03/2-Natural-ventilation.jpg, Accessed on 30 October 2018 14. Unknown author (2018) Integrated Ceiling Panels. Available at: https:// static.dezeen.com/uploads/2017/10/bloomberg-european-headquartersarchitecture-news_dezeen_2364_col_6.jpg, Accessed on 30 October 2018 15. Grontmij (2011) Bloomberg HQ and Building Regulations Comparison. Planning Document available at: http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/ online-applications/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=LVSI66FH 02O00, accessed on 29 December 2018 16. Harper (2018) 13 October, Available at: https://twitter.com/PhinHarper/ status/1051026305158971393, accessed on 20 December 2018 17. Foster+Partners (2018) 14 July, Available at: https://twitter.com/ FosterPartners/status/1021668814327566336, accessed on 20 December 2018 18. UN (2015), cited in Larson. K (2018c) UN Refugee Report Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/protection/operations/5592bd059/sea-routeeurope-mediterranean-passage-age-refugees.html 19. UN (2015), UN Refugee Report Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/ protection/operations/5592bd059/sea-route-europe-mediterraneanpassage-age-refugees.html 20. Kirk (2018) The Control Ladder

21. Unknown author (1973) The Willis Building in Construction, Available at: https://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Arch2O-WillisFaber-and-Dumas-Headquarters-27-585x388.jpg, Accessed: 30 October 2018

22. Unknown author (2016) Bloomberg HQ in Construction, Available at: http://watchdogpm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bloomberglondon111024x669.jpg, Accessed 30 October 2018 23. ICD/ITKE (2015) ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2014-15. Available at: https:// icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=12965, accessed: 30 October 2018 24. Jessel, E (2018) Norman Foster Calls For Bold Changes, Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/norman-foster-calls-for-boldsolutions-to-tackle-urbanisation-and-climate-change/10030179.article?sear ch=https%3a%2f%2fwww.architectsjournal.co.uk%2fsearcharticles%3fkeyw ords%3dbold+changes, Accessed 30 October 2018

blank page