MAGGIE'S CENTRES CASE STUDY

CAN A PROJECT LIKE THE MAGGIE’S CENTRES OFFER A WAY FOR ARCHITECTS TO RECAPTURE THEIR RELEVANCE IN AN INCREASINGLY COMMODIFIED PROFESSION

FREDERICK MAWHOOD STUDENT N.O 16008735 AR6023 ADVOCACY & LAW 18 JANUARY 2017 TUTOR: RAFAEL MARKS

(Payne, 1979) AT&T Tower Model

"I AM A WHORE AND I AM PAID VERY WELL FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS"

OUR FUTURE/ URBAN DECORATING?

“Iconic architecture is now corporate to an extent that is historically unprecedented. This is embodied in the skyscrapers that proclaim the wealth and power of major transnational corporations, be they banks, manufacturers of consumer goods and services, or the headquarters of corporations that most people know very little about.” (Sklair, 2006, p. 42) The transformative effects of this architectural posturing are becoming increasingly evident in our urban environments with Charles Jencks declaring that “the iconic building as a genre concerned mostly with its own iconicity is now the foremost category in the world” (2005, p. 23). The unstoppable rise of globalisation and increasing corporate wealth has led to an increasing emphasis on the celebrity and the spectacular and a disassociation with the ordinary - replacing the person as a dweller with the individual as a consumer. Rowan Moore argues

2 INTRODUCTION

So, reads the famous quote from the charismatic architect Phillip Johnson (Powell, 2005) who embraced and became one of the most prominent designers championing the new generation of flamboyant, corporate buildings that swept across America in the late 20th century. Perhaps his most famous building, the A.T.& T tower in Manhattan proved highly controversial at the time, and still is today, as it represented a contradiction to the socialist ethos of modernist architecture and instead produced a spectacle, a colossal architectural logo with the intention of drawing public attention to the company who commissioned it. Whilst, not unique in this regard, it became one of the most high-profile, with Johnson famously appearing on the cover of Time Magazine holding a scaled replica under the moniker “architect’s doing their own thing”. It has been argued that this image represented a turning point in American architecture and foreshadowed a future of iconic buildings intended for mass consumption and commercial appeal; buildings that would transform city skylines across the world.

3 INTRODUCTION

that in noughties London “architecture was the lubricant for the penetration of the skyline; designed to sell itself, architecture became advertisement, and image outran reality” (2012, p.

242), and one has only to cast a glance on its glimmering skyline to realise that, to a certain extent, this is true. From the bulbous form of 20 Fenchurch Street and the trophy homes of One Hyde Park, to the cascading glass veneers of Canary Wharf, the declaration of architectural prestige and power in the city is both breath-taking and overpowering. It portrays London as a booming metropolis and represents an attractive opportunity for foreign investors, but behind the seductive cladding what relevance does this architecture have for an average citizen?

Many argue that the prevalence of this commercialised architecture has damaged the reputation of our profession, with Faida Noori Salim going as far to say “contemporary architecture has moved away from encouraging themes and concepts of the life of ordinary people, and asserted the stratification that the new capitalism promoted by global modernity has created: the ordinary and the celebrity” (2011, p. 256).

David Chipperfield also claims that this increasing emphasis on spectacle has led to a more restricted architectural response to the complicated social issues affecting our urbanity, and resulted in us losing a common ground with the general public; “If what we are concerned with is bespoke moments and architecture becomes only those bespoke moments, we become urban decorators” (2012). There is clearly a responsibility for our profession, as there has always been, to create buildings that celebrate the luxuries and increasing prosperity of our society, but with these monuments increasing in number and garnering a great deal of media attention are we distancing ourselves from the core values that united humans through urbanity in the first place? Rem Koolhaas seems to think so, stating in his essay ‘Junkspace’ that “like the deactivated virus in an inoculation, modern architecture remains

(Vulture Labs, 2016) London Skyline

Perched at the top of the architectural hierarchy are the international practices of star-architects such as Richard Rogers, Frank Gehrey and the late Zaha Hadid, most heavily engaged with this world of ‘wow’ architecture. With years of expertise on a range of different projects, and the power to bring brand image and unparalleled levels of exposure to such projects, they have become the favoured practices for developers or companies seeking to deliver their eye catching and ‘bespoke moments’. Both highly regarded and often controversial, these companies have been criticised for ‘bending to the will of commercialism’ by becoming synonymous with the terms ‘luxury housing’, ‘corporate headquarters’ and ‘cultural landmarks’. However, these institutions are often “powerless to break this tight coupling of late capitalism and huge projects” (Jencks, 2005, p. 48), operating within an increasingly complex economic and political environment where clients and planners aren’t always interested in serving places and cultures in the most meaningful way. However, in their 2011 report ‘The Future for Architects’ the RIBA predicts a rather diminished future for such practices stating that “in the future international practices will be increasingly judged by their ability to produce eyepopping, ‘wow-factor’ design that might help their clients to raise funds”, going on to say that “it is increasingly likely that artists and designers from other professions will be commissioned to take on the concept design of a building” (2011, p. 19-20).

Could it be that the increasing prevalence of iconic, but shallow, spectacle has begun to challenge the reputation and relevance of our profession? Perhaps by engaging with architectural design that disregards the average citizen our future role is

4 INTRODUCTION

essential, but only in its most sterile manifestation” (2002, p.

177), elaborating that architectural branding has become the “essences through which meaning disappears” (2002, p. 182).

5 INTRODUCTION

reduced to a form of ‘urban decorating’. I want to investigate whether one unlikely project, which connects many of these international practices, can help cast doubt on this hypothesis and offer a way of recapturing our relevance by presenting the power of humanistic architecture. It is a project that stands in stark contrast to the scale and extravagance of commercial architecture, and one that seems to show the true impacts that empathetic design can have for those that need it the most. Through my case study, and in relation to the following codes of conduct, I will be investigating The Maggie’s Centres.

ARB CODES OF CONDUCT 5. Consider the wider impact of your work 9. Maintain the reputation of architects

6 INTRODUCTION

(Mawhood, 2016) A Day Wandering in Canary Wharf

ONE SMALL ROOM WITH A VIEW ...

The initial idea for the Maggie’s Centres grew out of Maggie Keswick Jencks own experience with breast cancer, and the mental stress that accompanies a cancer diagnosis; “I could not sit, or lie, or stand, listen or speak coherently because my shattered mind vibrated so violently I felt I might disintegrate” (2007, p. 13). Initially diagnosed in 1988, and again in 1993, ongoing discussions with her medical team resulted in her surgeon persuading her to write a patient’s perspective on the impact of cancer diagnosis and recurrence for a medical journal. It was in ‘a view from the front line’, that Maggie speculated on three areas for improvement within the NHS cancer treatment that were to become the driving force behind the Maggie’s Centres. She observed a lack of patientfriendly spaces within the institutionalised environments she encountered; “overhead lighting, interior spaces with no views out and miserable seating against the walls all contribute to extreme mental and physical enervation” (2007, p. 21). She perceived there to be a lack of sympathy towards the patients (Kay, 2015) Queen Elizabeth II Corridor Seating

8 THE MAG GIE’S CENTRES

When, in 1967, Dame Cicely Saunders established the St Christopher’s Hospice in Sydenham she told architects Stewart, Hendry and Smith that “she imagined a house where people could find relief from pain” (Worpole, 2010).

Unbeknown to her at the time, this building was to become the foundation of the modern hospice movement that has led to the UK being named as the one of the best countries for endof-life care. The ‘right to a good death’ debate has garnered much media attention over the years, and it became clear that a considered, progressive response to the growing need for palliative healthcare was necessary; an unlikely response which helped spark a “revival of humanism” within the world of contemporary architecture. This ‘revival’ has manifested itself in the form of projects like the Maggie’s Centres; “a consolidation and celebration of the achievements of the wellestablished hospice movement in Britain” (Worpole, 2010).

(Andrews, 1997) First Maggie’s Centre

9 THE MAG GIE’S CENTRES

in such spaces; “how you feel is unimportant. You are not of value. Fit in with us, not us with you” (2007, p. 22). Finally, she recognised a potential to empower the patient by involving them more in the treatment process, and how this could help them regain a sense of control over their situation. After visiting the more advanced services on offer in America, she decided that more action was needed and, with the help of her friends, she persuaded Western General Hospital to endorse her idea for a cancer care centre situated within the hospital grounds.

In 1996 Richard Murphy converted a disused stable block on the outskirts of Western General Hospital into the first Maggie’s Cancer Care Centre to an extremely positive reception from hospital staff and patients alike. However, although Maggie herself had passed away, this was to be just the beginning.

By 2016 Maggie’s modest concept of “one small room with a big window looking out on to a green space” (2005, p. 12) had grown into a network of 16 drop-in centres across the UK and spawned an international charity. The programme on offer at each centre revolves around providing emotional, practical, and social support to people that have been affected by cancer; designed to cater for the aspects that can’t be treated with medical intervention, such as emotional issues, money worries and nutrition. By offering a broad range of possibilities which includes, creative writing classes, children/family days, gardening groups and cooking lessons, Maggie’s idea of creating a habitat where the patient is once again placed at the centre of the treatment process has been accomplished. The centres are described as the antithesis of the contemporary hospital, being celebrated for ‘humanising a not so human situation’; but, one of the most progressive ways they are doing this is actually through the buildings themselves.

Both professional architects, Maggie and Charles Jencks soon

“Soon people were saying it was like getting an Oscar, getting a commission for a Maggie’s” – Charles Jencks (Building Hope, 2016) The list of architects that have designed a Maggie’s Centre is extraordinary, not only because many of them are internationally renowned, but also because the project is a complete departure from the kind of commissions that make up most of their work. Since Frank Gehry’s centre opened in 2003, globalised practices such as Zaha Hadid, Foster & Partners and Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners have all engaged with this humanitarian programme, creating widely different and stylistic interpretations of the same brief. In a recent documentary on the BBC, Frank Gehry even told the interviewer that “I think

10 THE MAG GIE’S CENTRES

recognised the potential that architecture had to offer their programme, consolidating the spatial qualities they wanted their centres to embody into a ‘Blueprint for Maggie’s’ which eventually developed into an official architectural brief. Welltravelled and knowledgeable on the ancient relationship between architecture and healthcare they decided that there was “an alternative tradition of hospital building that awaits appropriation by contemporary architects” (Jencks, 2010, p.

42), and determined that the centres would offer respite from the winding, grey corridors, and lifeless waiting rooms of the modern machine-for-healing. The centres would have; an informal atmosphere, welcoming entrance, natural light, views out onto a courtyard/garden, large domestic kitchen area, and above all inspire and stimulate hope within the patient, not patronise them. Fortunately, due in part to Maggie’s standing within the profession, and what Charles believes to be “the challenge of a meaningful and caring commission in the ‘Age of Shopping’”, as more centres were requested, the “architects were coming up to us and asking to design one” (2010, p. 14).

11 THE MAG GIE’S CENTRES

it’s one of the best things I’ve done” (Building Hope, 2016). If the future role of the international practice is to stray further into the realm of ‘urban decorating’, I want to discover whether a charitable and meaningful project such as this has the potential to transcend our society’s obsession with the spectacular, and demonstrate that our profession still has relevance beyond the aesthetic. The brief states that “we choose special architects, not for some luxury add-on value, but because they are a critical component of what we do” (Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust, 2015); therefore, I want to understand how the design approach seen here differentiates itself from the commercial, and whether it results in a more relevant and empathetic building. We have a duty of care to maintain the reputation of architecture, and with one in two people in the UK now facing a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime (Macmillan, 2013), could the Maggie’s Centres offer a way of upholding this? After all, the architecture of health occupies a pivotal position in our existence, and yet “it remains the field of architecture least susceptible to good design” (Heathcote, 2010, p. 88). To what extend can the architectural philosophies embodied within the design of the West London Maggie’s Centre forewarn us of the idiosyncrasies of ‘wow’ architecture?

12

(Wilkinson Eyre, 2014) Maggie’s Centre in Oxford

(Gascoigne, 2006) Zaha Hadid’s Maggie’s in Kirkcaldy

THE MAG GIE’S CENTRES

(Carnegie Museum of Art, 2003) Frank Gehry’s Maggie’s in Dundee

EMOTIONS & EMPATHETIC FAUCETS

ARHITECTURAL DESIGN On visiting the building I was struck by the domestic atmosphere and surprised to be greeted, not by the institutional sounds I’d prepared myself for, but with the reaffirming clinking of teacups and warm conversation. I was free to wander through the central atrium into one of the cosy, well-furnished living rooms, and found that I was not required to announce my presence or approached by a member of staff; “the idea was to create a welcoming environment for patients and to create as many corners as possible for people to retreat into” (Wimshurst, 2016). Differentiating itself from the sterile efficiency of contemporary hospitals, William explained to me that their (Mawhood, 2016) Maggie’s Centre Viewed from Street

14 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

Standing with its back to the brooding, utilitarian presence of the 70’s Charing Cross Hospital in Hammersmith, Maggie’s West London makes a confident statement for the relevance of architecture in a clinical setting. Built by Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners in 2009, it became the first Maggie’s to be opened outside of Scotland and “represented Maggie’s growing up” (Building Hope, 2016). Prescribed an extremely restricting site within the hospital carpark, facing onto the busy Fulham Palace Road, the building had a lot to prove to the London populace. However, after winning the Stirling Prize in 2009, where RIBA president Ruth Reed described it as “a timeless work of architecture that expresses in built form compassion, sensitivity, and a deep sense of common humanity” (RIBA, 2009), Maggie’s had firmly established itself as a national institution. By far the most urban of the centres, receiving on average 80 visits per day (Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners, 2014), it offers the best possible situation for my case study.

Interviewing the project architect, William Wimshurst, provides me a crucial validity in my critique and a unique insight into the project’s; architectural design, process, and wider implications.

(Browne, 2010) Maggie’s Entrance

15

(Sternberg, 2009) Maggie’s Courtyard Space, Kitchen Table Space, Materiality

M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

design approach acknowledged that it’s a daunting decision for a patient to accept their situation by entering the centre, and the atmosphere aims to reaffirm that decision. Eilidh Bateman, one of the Cancer Support Specialists working at the centre, explained to me that “people have walked in and burst into tears, letting their guard down, as they’ve been so tightly strung” (2016), which goes to show that architecture has the potential to help move people forward through their rehabilitation.

What sets this building apart from more commercialised architecture is how the design responds to and nurtures the emotional wellbeing of the people that use the space, without compromising the functional requirements of the brief. The boundary wall, coloured deep orange to inspire hope, pinwheels towards the main structure, sheltering it from the dreary carpark and noisy street which frames the site. It is punctured by a large opening, which reveals the interior sanctum and offers a prolonged journey, decorated with bamboo and sculptures, towards the entrance, to ensure the visitor feels welcomed and provides enough space to diverge off if they are not ready. This opens into a large domestic area, that’s dominated by a homely kitchen and characterised through an absence of a formal reception or signage one would expect in a clinical environment; “the rationale became the antithesis of a hospital and about reengaging with the human psyche through a space where someone could feel comfortable to talk about difficult things” (Wimshurst, 2016). This level of emotional consideration, absent in many contemporary projects, is evident in almost every aspect of the design; furniture and partitions stop short of the ceiling allowing spaces to flow into each other whilst creating a datum of privacy, swinging doors are replaced with sliding ones to allow for a clearer indication of whether a space is in use or not, the industrial use of concrete and plywood are tough enough to not patronise the user but still provide enough texture and grain to add interest to the spaces they frame,

(Bryant, 2009) Yoga Class

“There’s a Chipperfield tap that we used, a nice tap, but to turn it on you have to twist it sideways which isn’t obvious. I’ve been told that some people come out of it feeling very flustered, as it complicates their already precarious mental state. It was this level of emotional engagement that we had to factor into our design.” (Wimshurst, 2016) The domestic scale of the project represents a radical departure from RSHP’s typical projects, which include luxury developments like One Hyde Park, airport terminals in London and Madrid, and commercial projects in New York and Washington D.C; however, this doesn’t mean that the effects of the architecture are lessened. Speaking to members of staff, it was evident they felt privileged to work in a Richard Rogers structure, with Eilidh telling me, “it’s so nice to work in a building like this where someone has actually thought about the journey that visitors have to go through” (2016). However, perhaps the strongest evidence demonstrating the power of the architecture, is the fact that “many people come back to the centre after someone has died or their treatment is over, as it’s such a calming space where people can deal with their emotions” (Bateman, 2016).

If people are returning to a space which represented such a

16 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

the lightweight steel roof obstructs views of Charing Cross Hospital but also filters light down into the courtyards bellow like a protective forest canopy. The entire design in intended to embody a sense of importance and grant an ownership that is lacking in palliative healthcare. William explained to me that one of the reasons the building is so relevant to the human condition, is because “on that building, and what it stands for, there is a closer emotional connection than there could be on any other project type” (2016), elaborating that “unlike larger projects, working at this scale meant we were involved in the totality of the building and able to define its atmosphere” (2016).

(Carnegie Museum of Art, 2009) Approach to West London Maggie’s

17 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

distressing time for them, the building must be responding to the human spirit in a way other architecture is not. The iconic architecture on display here has not been used to impress or dazzle like so much ‘wow’ architecture today does, but instead responds to the soul at its most fragile, empowering and comforting, not imposing its own agenda on the user. I am not saying that the thought process behind the Maggie’s Centre is any more considered than that of say a luxury housing development, but the emotional impact that the architecture has achieved here is surely far more relevant to humanistic values and goes further to defend the reputation of our profession.

On opening the centre, Richard Rogers himself acknowledges this, stating that “in this day and age, where I’m afraid that most of us in the profession spend most of our time designing luxury buildings, and watching the erosion of many of the things we believe in, it’s great to actually be able to play a part in the support of a good cause” (NHS Foundation Trust, 2014).

DESIGN PROCESS “When you get a commercial client, you can’t fall in love like you do with the Maggie’s team.” - Frank Gehry (Building Hope, 2016) One of the main things that differentiates the Maggie’s Centre from the more commercialised architecture of an international practice is the unique client & architect relationship. It’s even more unique in the case of Hammersmith Maggie’s as the architectural co-clients on the project, Laura Lee and Marcia Blackenham, moved into the RSHP offices for a while after deciding that this centre would become the new headquarters for the charity. According to William, this enabled “a continuous weekly discussion to develop”, and forged “a very close client relationship, like having your parents involved in the

“I think in every brief you should always be trying to understand

18 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

design process” (2016). Additionally, Laura Lee was Maggie’s clinical nurse specialist during her time at Western General Hospital, and advised them on the sort of atmosphere they needed to evoke; something William believes helped them engage with the end-users on a deeper level, and from a very early point. Richard Rogers cites this special relationship as one of the primary reasons for taking on the contract after being approached by the organisation, saying that “Charlie is completely off-the-wall and will tackle anything; it was this passion about the buildings that made us do it” (Building Hope, 2016). Also unique to the project, was the ability to visit the five existing centres, investigating their successes and failures to interrogate the initial concept designs; “we learnt that it took people about 3 times to walk into the centre so we discovered that a welcoming entrance was integral, and noticed that in Gehry’s design the first thing you see when you enter is an office, which we didn’t like” (Wimshurst, 2016). The holistic nature of the brief also gave the architects more room to manoeuvre within than other projects, only briefly dictating fundamental spaces like; “a welcoming entrance, library space, office areas, domestic ‘country’ kitchen, various sized rooms for counselling sessions/ group activities, and 3 private lavatories to accommodate for ‘crying’” (Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust, 2015). It talks more about how the building should respond to the users mental-state, rather than placing a greater emphasis on profitability and floor areas, inevitably a major concern in a more commercial orientated brief. As such, the client’s interests corresponded more frequently with the human experience of space; “we want the architects to think primarily about the person who walks in the door” (2015).

To some extent less demanding than a standard brief, but also more complicated in atmospheric qualities; “something that can’t be transcribed into numbers” (Wilmshurst, 2016).

19 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

how people are going to be using the space; however, in this case, it is amplified because of the subject matter and I think the architecture becomes more powerful as a result.” (Wimshurst, 2016) The funding process also presents a break from tradition, but offers an insight into the generosity of a practice that may not initially seem willing to sacrifice profitability. Despite claiming that the modest two million budget didn’t hinder the project, most of the design team was either doing pro-bono work or working for very low fees (Wimshurst, 2016). In addition, the practice organised fundraising events to contribute to construction costs, with an extra one million raised for initial running costs (2016). For a practice whose portfolio includes luxury housing developments and international masterplans, this shows a conscious desire to help improve the lives of those in need, and shows the impact an international practice can have by contributing to more socially responsible briefs in an increasingly commodified architectural landscape.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS The building has had impacts on the architectural profession that transcend its small scale; “It helped to show the NHS that there were other ways to design their buildings and that they needed to spend money in areas other than technology” (Wimshurst, 2016). Coupled with the media buzz of the Stirling prize, it helped reignite the conversation between architecture and healthcare, simultaneously demonstrating the beneficial effects of space and form, whilst exposing its diminishing relationship between design and wellbeing. This impact can be directly observed in the £160 million Cancer Care Centre at Guy’s Hospital, which RSHP won by “challenging the principles of what a hospital should be” (Wimshurst, 2016). William explained to me that

(Sternberg, 2009) Out-patients Balcony, Welcome Village Atrium, Chemotherapy Village

(Tett, 2016) Bespoke Seating Arrangement

20 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

“most of the imagery and principles we were trying to evoke related directly to our experience on Maggie’s which helped our understanding of what we wanted to achieve in this project” (2016). The progressive approach reengages with the humanscale, through a sequence of ‘care villages’ which run alongside areas of specialised clinical services such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy (Mairs, 2016). The villages are characterised through a materiality akin to that used in Maggie’s, adopting a pallet of plywood, steel and concrete, rather than the bland grey veneer commonplace in most hospitals. Similarly, the double-height atrium has also clearly been informed, with welllit seating, balconies, gardens, and the removal of corridors all contributing to a renewed focus on the patient’s emotional experience of space. Designed to encourage human interaction and challenge the idea that the healing process is a solitary experience, it shows a clear indication that working on Maggie’s helped engender a more empathetic design rationale for the architects. This is exemplified by the fact RSHP beat more experienced practices such as Grimshaw, Make and Allies & Morison for the commission (Merrick, 2016), and shows that Maggie’s offered a way for an international practice to prove its relevance beyond mere aesthetic. However, it’s more difficult to determine whether the experience of working on the centre has directly affected the design approach on projects in the office not related to the healthcare industry. However, William explained to me that it did give him, personally, “a very clear ethos of what I wanted to do and I’ve brought some of these lessons on what a building achieve into most of the projects I was involved with”, going on to say that “it was a great way of understanding that architecture can heal – that architecture can help” (2016). This attitude is clearly visible on his own website which states that “good architecture should not just appeal on an aesthetic or economic level, it should also be forward-thinking and enhance the health and wellbeing of the end-users it serves” (Wimshurst Pelleriti, 2015).

21

M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON

22 M AG GIE’S WEST LOND ON (RSHP, 2010) Section Showing 3 Stacked ‘Care Villages’

OUR FUTURE/ MAGGIE’S CENTRES? 23 C ONCLUDING THOUGHT S

In his book, ‘A new look at Humanism”, Robert Lamb laments that the primary creative process driving contemporary architecture is “about the striking image instead of an understanding of ‘what it is like to be there’”, explaining that “its powerful but narrow set of values and convictions has often separated ‘rational’ from ‘human’ values” (2015, p. 19-20). I would argue that perhaps this isn’t a symptom of the architectural profession itself, but rather a demonstration of the growing importance these values have in an increasingly competitive and commercialised society.

However, if the RIBA’s predictions are correct, the international practice will be increasingly judged on their ability to produce eye catching monuments and not on their ability to deliver a design response that contributes to the continuity and well-being of our urban environments. To quote Deyan Sudjic, whatever the architect’s intentions, “in the end they find themselves being defined not by their own rhetoric, but by the impulses that have driven the rich and powerful to employ them” (2011, p. 311).

Practices like RSHP surely don’t envision a future in which their worth is measured on aesthetic beautification; so, as they have an obligation to maintain the reputation of architecture, can projects like the Maggie’s Centres offer a way of recapturing its relevance in an increasingly commodified profession?

Whilst they are unlikely to buck the current architectural trends in our globalised society, what a project like the Maggie’s Centres offers the international practice, is the opportunity to engage with a sensitive social issue and rediscover how powerfully the built environment can respond to the human spirit. In the case of the Maggie’s Centres, this involves a very considered response to the well-being of a recently diagnosed patient, comforting, and offering them relief in a terrifying situation; but, appealing to the human condition with more emotional value is something that can, and should, be applied to all facets of our urban environment. The domestic scale of the intervention allows for a totality in design that gives a practice like RSHP

"I AM A WHORE AND I AM PAID VERY WELL FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS"

24 C ONCLUDING THOUGHT S

the chance to focus its collective wealth of experience, yet also makes it difficult translate to a larger scale. In addition, the client/architect relationship and brief on display here, offers a degree of freedom and direction not permissible in most briefs, not least a commercial one. Nonetheless, Maggie’s West London has already had a notable impact on the diminishing relationship between healthcare and architecture, and the results of this are only just beginning to emerge. An international practice’s involvement in a project like Maggie’s sends a clear message to the average citizen - that their lives matter to the profession and that architecture does have a strong relevance for them. Therefore, in relation to the codes of conduct, I would suggest that a practice like RSHP has a responsibility to ensure that the message their architecture sends is this, and not…

ARB (2009) ‘Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice’. Available at: http://www.arb.org.uk/Upload/3293139b4c34-4b2e-83a1-9e7a90cd2a60.pdf (Accessed: 8 November 2016).

Bateman, E. (2016) Interview with Eilidh Bateman. Interview by Frederick Mawhood, 9 January.

25

Blakenham, M. and Jencks, M.K. (eds.) (2007) A View from the Frontline. London: Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust.

BIBL IO GR APHY

Borrett, E.S. (2013) The Maggie’s Centres: Architecture and Healing. BA (Hons) dissertation. Brighton University. Available at: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Emily%20Borrett%20 AD392%20Dissertation%20(4).pdf (Accessed 15 November 2016).

Building Hope: The Maggie’s Centres (2016) BBC Two Television, 6 November.

Chipperfield, D. (2012) Interview with David Chipperfield.

Interview by Marcus Fairs for Dezeen, 24 May. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2012/08/24/movie-marcus-fairs-talkwith-david-chipperfield/ (Accessed: 2 January 2017).

Fox, W. and Taylor, N (eds.) (2000) Ethics and the Built Environment. Oxford: Routledge.

Heathcote, E. and Jencks, C (eds.) (2010) The Architecture of Hope: Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres. London: Frances Lincoln.

Hyman, T. (2015) A Year with Maggie’s. London: Royal Academy of Arts.

Jencks, C. (2005) The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma.

London: Frances Lincoln.

Koolhaas, R. (2002) ‘Junkspace’, Obsolescence A Special Issue, 100, pp. 175-190.

Lamb, R.H. (2015) A New Look at Humanism: In Architecture, Landscapes and Urban Design. Loch Lomond: Meadowlark Publishing.

Macmillan (2013) By 2020 almost half of Britons will get cancer in their lifetime. Available at: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/ aboutus/news/latest_news/by2020almosthalfofbritonswillgetcancerintheirlifetime%E2%80%93but38willnotdiefromthedisease.aspx (Accessed: 8 January 2017).

Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust. (2015) Maggie’s Architecture and Landscape Brief. London: Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust.

Merrick, J. (2016) We are Designing it for the Patients. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/we-were-designing-it-for-the-patients-rogers-stirk-harbourpartners-guyscancer-centre/10014216.article (Accessed: 3 January 2017).

Moore, R. (2012) Why We Build. London: Picador.

NHS Foundation Trust (2014) Richard Rogers – Cancer Centre Foundation Stone Ceremony. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXtJ5QsSZ2Y (Accessed: 28 December 2016).

Powell, K. (2005) Phillip Johnson. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/philip-johnson-17083.html (Accessed: 29 December 2016).

RIBA (2009) Richard Rogers’ Maggie’s cancer care centre has won the RIBA Stirling Prize 2009. Available at: https://www. architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/NewsArchive2002-2012/AwardsNews/News/2009/MaggiesCentreWinsSitrlingPrize2009.aspx (Accessed: 28 December 2016).

RIBA (2011) ‘The Future for Architects’. Available at: http://www. buildingfutures.org.uk/assets/downloads/The_Future_for_Architects_Full_Report_2.pdf (Accessed: 22 December 2016).

Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners. (2014) Maggie’s West London Design Guide. London: Maggie’s Cancer Caring Trust.

26 BIBL IO GR APHY

Mairs, J. (2016) Rogers Stirk Harbour’s £160 million Cancer Treatment Centre Opens at London Hospital. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/09/26/rogers-stirk-harbours-cancer-treatment-centre-london-guys-hospital/ (Accessed: 3 January 2017).

Salim, F.N. (2011) The Impact of Globalisation on Architecture and Architectural Ethics. Champaign: Common Ground Publishing.

Sklair, L. (2006) ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalisation’, City, 10, pp. 21-47.

Sudjic, D. (2011) The Edifice Complex. London: Penguin.

27 BIBL IO GR APHY

Wimshurst Pelleriti (2015) Wimshurst Pelleriti About Us. Available at: http://www.wimshurst-pelleriti.com/about/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Wimshurst, W. (2016) Interview with William Wimshurst.

Interview by Frederick Mawhood, 8 December.

Worpole, K. (2010) Going Gentle. Available at: https:// newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2231/going-gentle (Accessed: 3 January 2017).

IMAGE SOURCES Andrews, P. (1997) Centre Overview. Available at: http:// www.richardmurphyarchitects.com/viewItem.php?id=2452 (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Blossom, B. (2009) A Home from Home: Maggie’s West London Revisited. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/buildings/a-home-from-home-maggies-west-londonrevisited/8661631.article (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Browne, N. (2010) Maggie’s Entrance. Available at: http://i. dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/21/1411282804564_wps_7_ Open_House_London.jpg (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Bryant, R. (2009) Yoga Class. Available at: http://www.rsh-p. com/projects/maggies-london/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Carnegie Museum of Art. (2003) Maggie’s Dundee. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/tag/maggies-centres (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Carnegie Museum of Art. (2009) Approach to West London Maggie’s. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/maggieslondon/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Gascoigne, C. (2006) Maggie’s Centre Fife. Available at: http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/maggies-centre-fife/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Kay, A. (2015) Queen Elizabeth II Hospital – Seats in Corridor.

Available at: https://www.bcd-urbex.com/queen-elizabeth-iihospital-welwyn-garden-city-uk/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Mawhood, F. (2016) A Day Wandering in Canary Wharf [Photograph].

Payne, R. (1979) AT&T Tower Model. Available at: https:// uk.pinterest.com/pin/291889619575766354/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners. (2010) Section Showing 3 Stacked ‘Care Villages’ (Competition Scheme) [Digital Drawing]. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/cancercentre-at-guys/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2009) Maggie’s Courtyard Space. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/maggies-london/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2009) Maggie’s Kitchen Table. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/maggies-london/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2009) Maggie’s Materiality. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/maggies-london/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2016) Out-patient’s Garden and Balcony.

Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/cancer-centre-atguys/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2016) Welcome Village Staircase and Atrium.

Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/cancer-centre-atguys/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Sternberg, M.V. (2016) Chemotherapy Village. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/cancer-centre-at-guys/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

BIBL IO GR APHY

Mawhood, F. (2016) Maggie’s From Street [Photograph].

28

Tett, D. (2016) Bespoke Seating Arrangement. Available at: http://www.rsh-p.com/projects/cancer-centre-at-guys/ (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Vulture Labs. (2016) London Skyline. Available at: https://www. flickr.com/photos/38181284@N06/23499356429 (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

29

Wilkinson Eyre. (2014) Maggie’s Centre Oxford, UK. Available at: http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/maggies-centre (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

BIBL IO GR APHY

(Blossom, 2009) A Home from Home