GLASGOW HARBOUR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – PHASE 2 GM + AD Architecture Introduction to Practice – Case Study Report Colm Donnelly Lara Bandoni Liam Byrne Kieran McCallion
GLASGOW HARBOUR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – PHASE 2 GM + AD Architecture Case Study Report
This case study aims to thoroughly investigate the architectural, design and practical approach to the construction and conception of The Glasgow Harbour Phase 2 Residential Project, located on the north side of the River Clyde in Glasgow. This investigation shall look at the design concepts undertook by the responsible architecture team in charge to the current uses and practicality of the building today. The investigation shall also look at all the trials and tribulations undertook by all responsible parties throughout the project, from financial and budget constraints, public reactions to the project, and interpersonal clashes between different people involved in the project. The investigation hopes to thoroughly explain what it fully means to build a new building, by going through and analysing every part of the design and construction process. The numbered paragraph organisational system refers to the concurrent section of the RIBA Plan of work in which the paragraph closely relates to, as the process of the build directly links to the Plan of Work as should all new buildings build in Britain.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 0 – STRATEGIC DEFINITION The Glasgow Harbour masterplanning project is a total rebranding project of the Glasgow waterfront. The Project is a residential and commercial overhaul of the Glasgow waterfront. The site for the project is a 130-acre, high-quality mixed-use development on the west end of Glasgow waterfront (Appendix 1). It is one of the flagship projects of the Clyde Waterfront regeneration. The site, which sits at the bend of the river, used to be filled with old granaries, but were removed to make way for the new buildings. The masterplan was to build roughly one thousand new apartments on the area through a variety of phases and different architecture and developer companies. Kohn Pedersen Fox drew the original
masterplan for the Glasgow Harbour project, however they decided that they did not want to develop the full thing so they sold off part of the masterplan, which Dandara – a national developer company - bought.
Dandara then had to find an architect to design the buildings so they held a small competition which GM + AD, Sheppard Robson, Cooper Cromar + other architecture firms all designed proposals for. All the other architects based their designs around the master plan that Kohn Pedersen Fox had originally designed however GM + AD thought that the master plan that they had proposed was not successful and based their design for the project around a critique of the Kohn Pedersen Fox master plan to show that there was a more successful way of doing it. This is how they won the competition and were chosen by Dandara to design the buildings. The previous designs done by Kohn Pedersen Fox were essentially courtyards that did not get any sunlight into them. The design that gm + ad proposed opened up the blocks to the water so that everyone had a view to the river and everyone got sunlight into their flat. Another important design feature of opening up the blocks was that it meant that there was permeability between the street and the riverfront. It was these design choices that Dandara liked and were the reason that they were chosen. (Appendix 2)
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 1 – PREPERATION AND BRIEF The first phase of buildings that were part of the Glasgow Harbour project were heavily criticized as the materials that were used were not suitable for the conditions and were already corroding and coming off the building and having to be fixed and replaced. For the design of these buildings, gm + ad responded to the criticism of the first phase to make sure that they did not make any of the same mistakes that the first phase made. They done a lot of research to make sure they used the right materials. The choice of materials of ceramic, copper and glass were used to try and avoid any corrosion and also because they had a long life span, worked for the site and did not need very much maintenance. The
public and private spaces in the first phase of the Glasgow Harbour project were also not very successful so gm + ad worked to try and to resolve that in their design.
Dandara, based in Manchester, was the developer, the contractor and the client on the project. They set up their own contracting company to build the project and hired other people for them. They were able to do this because they were such a big company and it was a lot more cost efficient. This process is a lot rarer, having a developing company encompass all aspects of the project and setting up the construction is simpler and easier than having lots of different companies. Dandara chose Woolgar Hunter as their structural engineers. GM + AD architects worked very closely with Dandara to create a streamlined, efficient unit. Dandara was very professional and thorough throughout the whole process. Gordon Murray was the lead architect of the project and named partner in GM + AD, and he was our source or information in the preparation of this report. Murray said, “For Dandara, nothing is left to chance; every detail is thought through.” It was a bold move for Dandara to embark on the Glasgow Harbour because at the time there was a flurry of reports in the media that Glasgow had become saturated with new homes, but the developer knew its market and product very well. Dandara along with GM + AD designed affordable flats that made Clydeside living a very appealing proposition to first time buyers.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 2 – CONCEPT DESIGN Gordon Murray, who was the lead architect on the project and worked with 6 other architects, was frustrated by the claims that the new plans were too big and the constant comparisons of the blocks to the Red Road flats. He said “…not all high-rise blocks are failures.” Murray explains his justification as to why the scheme was not too big. “The densities achieved during the 20th Century are far lower than previous centuries. The RIBA/Egan Review, Delivering Quality with Quantity, suggests a minimum density of 80-100 homes per hectare, which should be compared with central Paris at 300/h and Barcelona at 500/h, If similar densities were applied to Glasgow, its population of about 600,000 could be
housed in 1,200 hectares. In this respect the tenement form is, in some areas, inappropriate for achieving higher densities.”
Due to controversy in phase one of the Glasgow harbour regeneration, GM + AD were under a great deal of pressure to address the issues where Phase One failed. One of the main problems lay in the choice and quality of materials. After a group visit to the site, there was a visible contrast in quality between Phases 1 and 2. Phase one looks a lot older than it should for a reasonably new building, where as GM+AD’s phase 2 project still appears to have a well maintained, clean finish. GM+AD recognised this as being a key failure in phase one of the program, Gordon stated ‘there were cladding panels on the buildings that you wouldn’t think of using over five or six stories’. Panels were already falling off the buildings due to wind loads and poor design, this became a vital issue to investigate and resolve. During the design development stage the decision was made by the architects to design the blocks as a slip, making them appear as two half’s to reduce the mass of the building, this split was to be reinforced in the choice of materials and composition of elements in the façade. The architects worked alongside Woolgar Hunter (structural engineers) to develop an aesthetically pleasing design which addressed the issues of wind turbulence usually associated with high rise buildings. The balconies and glazing were very carefully arranged within the façade to modulate air and wind speed. The glass balconies acted as dampers which offset any turbulence which usually from wind hitting the building and traveling down to ground level.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 3 – DEVELOPED DESIGN Just like the 1:1 testing of flat types, the same process was used for the cladding panels. Mock up panels were tested in wind tunnels by Arup at a warehouse in Manchester. They were rebuilt until they met the required specification, achieving the highest possible standard of materiality which could cope with the wind pressure. During this testing process Gordon Murray (lead architect) and Ulrike Enslein (project architect) went through a 2 month process of researching and gathering information on how efficient cladding systems
worked and performed in Spain and Germany, to find a suitable specification of materials. There became a process of compromise between the architects and Dandara during this stage. The architects had a list of desired materials to achieve maximum quality and performance whereas Dandara wanted to go with materials which were more affordable on the market. Through the process of trail and testing materials, an agreement was made on a system which would meet both the architect’s specification and Dandara’s budget. This compromise meant the final specification was not the same as what had originally been intended, however still managed to achieve the performance standard they required. The vigorous process of testing and perfecting every part of the building meant that everyone involved was happy that the building could perform as intended by the time it got to site.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 4 – TECHNICAL DESIGN The final system concluded in glazed ceramic panels and copper sheeting scaled to allude to massive ashlar dimension or large steel plates of ships’ hulls. The combination of ceramics, copper and glass became an ideal solution as not only could they withstand the wind turbulence but they were also durable materials which could withstand the effects of corrosion. Since Dandara were such a large company this also meant they were able to buy copper straight from the mine, making it very cheap to buy, meeting the requirements of the design specification and budget. The overall construction of the building followed an SPS system, where the SPS panels were inserted to the concrete frame and cladding panels were then placed on top. At the time this was an extremely efficient system however, Gordon Murray does agree that if it was to be done around 5 years later they would have done it as unitised construction, similar to a project they recently completed on West Regent Street. (Appendix 3)
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 5 – CONSTRUCTION When a final design proposal was achieved, the architects were responsible for drawing up and documenting each element of the building, breaking it down into separate packages i.e. the concrete frame, cladding, roof membranes. These elements were then sent to Dandara who tendered these as separate packages. Although the majority of the project was done as design and build, there was also a contractor design portion within the contract. This meant that the sub-contractor was not only taking responsibility for the erection and manufacture but was also taking on the design responsibility if any amendments were made to fixings or joints to meet the architect’s specification. Another element of the project which wasn’t particularly common was the fact there was no service engineers were required within the project, the services were fully integrated as part of the design and build process through contractors.
Gordon Murray and the other architects working in the project agree that there were some decisions made during the second phase construction process which sacrificed the build quality they were trying to achieve. One of the back linear blocks was constructed as load bearing masonry, this was mainly down to a decision based on economics. The contractors were experienced in cross wall construction in the Channel Islands. Therefore opted for loadbearing blockwork and concrete slab as the method of construction, reaching the limits which load bearing masonry can withstand in a multi storey building. This meant there was a real problem with the quality of the external walls compared to the other blocks, where the cladding sits independently from the frame allowing the quality of the panels to be manipulated to meet the required finish.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 6 – HANDOVER AND CLOSE OUT Construction was completed on the project in January 2010, But this was due the entire project being completed in phases. As a timeline, GM + AD won the competition entry in Autumn 2004 and construction did not start till 2006. This was the time the project took to finalise planning permissions, continue the process of the initial design, relay feedback and develop the design and continue the process of using sourceable materials and contractors. The project was completed in 2010, 4 years after construction began. This was due to the first 2 towers being built first, and construction of the latter blocks being halted due to the global economic downturn of 2008.
After the build was finished, Gordon stressed the importance of maintenance to keep the building operating as planned in the future. Being a tower block and compared to Red Road flats in the press, it was important for GM+AD to combat the issues where it failed – lack of maintenance being a major issue which caused it to go into decline. After spending a great deal of time trialling and testing out flat types, cladding and construction systems, it was ensured that appropriate measures were taken by Dandara to maintain the upkeep of the building fabric giving the building a minimum life span of 75 years, although Gordon believes the close attention to every detail would allow it to reach nearer 125 years.
RIBA PLAN OF WORK – STAGE 7 – IN USE For the first phase of this project they built two of the five towers and one of the blocks at the back. For the second phase they built the third tower and another block at the back. The remaining towers were then postponed due to the downturn in the housing market at the time. Unfortunately due to development ergonomics for high-rise buildings, Gordon Murray does not think that the two remaining towers will be built in the way that they were intended and will instead have to be much smaller. The project intended to create 750 homes over 3 phases. They managed to stay on budget that was projected at £85million but this ended up at about £60million because it never all got built.
GM + AD and Dandara tried not to make the same mistakes that phase 1 did. Dandara tried endlessly to successfully win awards to get rid of the stigma of Phase 1. Gordon Murray even went on a BBC television programme to deal and respond to the criticism of the project in relation to the first phase, and they proved the doubters wrong. The Glasgow Harbour phase 2 was a huge success. People were buying the flats before they were even built because they loved what they were seeing so much. People loved that they could look at the shipyards from their flat and see the flying plane over the Clyde beside them. The quality and effort put into the buildings had shown through. The only change that they would have possibly made to the design of the building would have been using prefabricated units to clad the building, the way that they done with another project that they designed on One West Regent Street.
OVERVIEW As an overview of the entire project, Gordon his firm and the contractors Dandara feel that overall the project was very successful for a whole range of reasons. The focus of 1:1 design development construction model flats very effectively helped create the most hyper-efficient apartments the companies could possibly imagine to design. The focus of creating the perfect liveable apartment has made living satisfaction key to the whole process. The fact that even if the other parts of the masterplanning project had failing points, the apartments are still part of the most desirable locations to live in Glasgow. The high quality output of space plus the new and exciting regeneration project of the entire Glasgow Harbour Project means that they sold out many of the apartments and the apartments continues to sell even today.
In relation to the RIBA Plan of Work as a whole for the project was quite unique. Having the developer the same company as the contractor cut out a whole range of personnel problems
and communication stoppages to the entire design process. In many projects Man management can burden a huge range of issues, like clashes with the construction teams and the developing teams, but in this instance they were both the same entity.
In one sense as architectural creativity GM + AD really got the possibility of putting their own footprint on the original masterplan of the Glasgow Harbour Project, in that their innovative approach to the site was the reason they won with their proposal. But they also has their creative limitations as well, as do most projects. The quality and standard of their materials were very good but some constrains were placed on them due to the ideas of the developers. Also the case as an architectural response to the site, whether 20 story apartment blocks were really the direction to go with an approach to the site. As Gordon Murray told us in his interview - that 10 story density residential blocks are the future of urban living - the desires and financial hopes of the developers were the reasons that the blocks were forced to their maximum height (Appendix 4.) Working under contract for a multinational developer means that the entire project is profit based and minimising costs and maximising profit is the entire driver for the whole project. But as a whole the project was completed very successfully in accordance to the RIBA Plan of Work in that the whole process was a very linear and efficient process for both the developers and the architects.
Architects
GM + AD
Client
Dandara
Location
Glasgow
Complete
January 2010
Contract ValueÂŁ85,000,000
GLASGOW HARBOUR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – PHASE 2 GM + AD Architecture Appendix
Appendix 0 – Final view from the River Clyde
Appendix 1 – An aerial shot of the original site
Appendix 2 – Gordon Murray’s own sketches for the initial concept of the masterplan proposal
Appendix 3 – Detailed plans of the overall Glasgow Harbour Masterplan + the GM + AD proposal
Appendix 4 – Images of the tower blocks in relation to the River
Glasgow Harbour Residential Project – Phase 2 GM + AD Architecture Team Charter
Roles & Responsibilities Leader:
Colm Donnelly
Team Members:
Lara Bandoni, Liam Byrne, Kieran McCallion
Team Leader Role: The Team Leader of the project has the responsibility of distributing the workload amongst the group. Their role is to take control of group meetings and resolve any workload issues which arise in the group. They should act fairly and justly. Team Members Roles: The role of the team members is to work to the best of their ability within the roles assigned and contribute effectively to group work and meetings.
Team Objectives The objective of our assignment is to understand the entire process to the conception, design, construction and hand off of a new building. Our deadline is the 11 th December 2015 and we hope to steadily go through all the processes of forming our report on time. We shall refer closely to the RIBA plan of work in our report and the due process.
Communication Methods Team meetings are arranged for Tuesday of each week. Tuesday:
13:00 – 15:00
In these meetings we shall work together on our report of our case study project. In the early stages constructing our Team Charter and researching our chosen building, and after our interview with the architect creating a fully flowing report in which every member of our team has contributed. Out with these meetings, we shall use our Facebook mail group to discuss further progress in our report.
Decision Making Process All group decisions are made collectively with all members present. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion and concessions.
Resources Required: -
Background information Drawings and diagrams (Development and final if possible) Photographs (Site, progress and current) Project programme Funding information
Available Resources: -
-
GM + AD – Curious Rationalism GM + AD – Challenging Conceptualism Www.clydewaterfront.com www.glasgowarchitecture.com Meetings with the project architects Visiting the Site
Constraints: -
Availability of resources within the university library Time constraints Conflicting assignments Attendance at group meetings
Working Within a Team: The majority of the report and work load shall be completed during our group meetings. Each individual member has been set tasks to do by the team leader and at the end of our meetings we shall combine our completed work into our report.
Ground Rules Attendance at all group meetings is essential to the progress of the group and our report therefore attendance is vital. If members cannot attend then they should notify the team leader. Any other issues can be discussed at the meetings or on Facebook.
Accountability Every member of the team have been assigned tasks throughout the project and therefore is held responsible for their part. The joining and flow of the report is a team effort and shall be resolved at the group meetings.
Performance Review and Recognition At the end of the report all team members shall evaluate each other’s performance impartially and fairly. Recognition shall be put forward to Gordon Murray, lead architect on the project who greatly helped in the construction of the report.
Agreement: In signing this document, all team members are agreeing to abide by the rules set out within the charter and acknowledging their roles and responsibilities within the team.
PRINT NAME:
COLM DONNELLY
DATE: 05/11/2015
PRINT NAME:
LARA BANDONI
DATE: 05/11/2015
PRINT NAME:
LIAM BYRNE
DATE: 05/11/2015
PRINT NAME:
KIERAN MCCALLION
DATE: 05/11/2015