Stage 2 Architecture Portfolio by Henry Cahill

STAGE 2 PORTFOLIO BA ARCHITECTURE 2016-17 HENRY JAMES CAHILL 150271350

Apologia Having been split into Studio groups at the start of the academic year it became clear that each individual studio would need to develop a separate brief. Our studio, Studio G, had the overarching theme of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Socialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Housing for an elderly demographic. Considering that a major issue for many elderly people is the problem of loneliness it became clear to me that it is important to provide opportunities for social interaction throughout my design proposal. Leading on from this there is a blurred interaction between the public and private domains of my development. The basis of the project began with an active facade informed by a cantilevered circulation over the street, again informing an interaction between public and private although on a somewhat larger scale. This circulation hub began to inform the social atrium space within the centre of the plan. Staggered openings are provided across the space to encourage social interaction with neighbours opposite as well as those on different residential levels, Furthermore, outside each flat there is a generous shared balcony with the opposing flat. As shown in my inhabited plan I have suggested that this may become an active social space; for example a game of chess may occur in a morning between two residents that could over time build up an agenda and maybe even a reason to get up in the morning.

CONTENTS - STAGE 2 PORTFOLIO -

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF YOU pages 10-13

STUDY TYPE pages 16-21

SYMPOSIUM: LEITH 2026 pages 24-39

DWELLING PLUS pages 42-67

ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE pages 70-75

EXPLORING EXPERIENCE pages 80-103

PROCESS & REFLECT pages 105-107

NON-DESIGN COURSEWORK pages 110-121

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF YOU

A Day in the Life of You Moorfield, High West Jesmond This project explores the use of spaces throughout a given day in my life. Of specific importance to me is the coffee machine, I have therefore produced a watercolour from coffee; the idea being the very tool provided by the caffeine becomes the tool with which to produce the image. Also shown are sketches of the dormer window (a key aspect of my Newcastle home) as well as a sketch of my bedroom, furthermore I have displayed moments of architectural detail that often go unnoticed on a busy day rushing through the house. On the following spread is a section of the house showing all the spaces and how they are lived in.

STUDY TYPE

Study Type Alexandra & Ainsworth Estate Kiran Basi, Henry Cahill, Jo Cain

This project required a detailed examination into an existing housing project in order to gain insight for our own housing project Dwelling Plus. The brief for the Alexandra & Ainsworth Estate required the interweaving of a number of different functions, incorporating the following: housing for 1600 people in 520 residences; a parking to dwelling ratio greater than 1:1; a dedicated school for 94 mentally handicapped children as well as a special care unit for a further 30; a community centre; a depot for the building department; two shops; an office for estate management; a youth club; a play centre and a 1.62 hectare public park. Furthermore the development continues to the east to include private housing association dwellings, studios and a reception home for children (by Evans & Shalev); for the assessment of children being taken into care by the council. As the site has continued to develop since its original completion, it now also includes a home for physically handicapped adults (also Evans Shalev), as well as some additional housing, shopping, studios and workshops (by Tom Kay).

Study Type Booklet As part of the Study Type project, a presentation booklet showing the scheme was required. This explored a number of methods of analysis including: The Aim of the Architect, Spatial Analysis, Construction & Materials as well as looking at the scheme as a Microcosm.

living

kitchen

terrace

bed

access

hall

kitchen

terrace

living/dining

hall

terrace

living/dining

bed

bath

kitchen

hall

terrace

living/dining

dining terrace

living

bed

wc garage

vehicle access

parking

vehicle access

â&#x20AC;&#x153;In some ways it felt very much like when I went to my first Arsenal game; at the old stadium. I just arrived through some small, terraced streets and ended up in this kind of amazing different place, a different scale to anything else around you.â&#x20AC;?

terrace

kitchen

living

bed

hall

terrace

bed

living/dining

terrace

bed

hall

Key Section

SYMPOSIUM: LEITH 2026

Symposium: Leith 2026 Edinburgh Having been on the study trip to Edinburgh with the whole year, each studio was tasked with creating a presentation of proposed development ideas for their sites in Leith. Our studio, Studio G, took on board this challenge by producing a number of site readings as well as exploring and developing the transport links of our site with the city of Edinburgh itself. Furthermore there were two sites for development chosen within our overall studio site, each with a different idea in mind for the decade to come. The images shown on the following pages within this section of the portfolio are the product of group work.

Ground Floor Space Usage Constitution Street, No. 58-38 (not to scale)

Ground Floor Space Usage Bernard Street, No. 1-65 (not to scale)

Ground Floor Space Usage The Shore, No. 36-58 (not to scale)

Site Readings The rhythms of the region of Leith have been captured here. This is as a result of experiencing the site as well as speaking to local people.

Creative Industries Leith is a creative hub, with many local business thriving around our site. It therefore seemed appropriate to propose a creative industry within the site to be developed over the coming decade.

Edinburgh Sculpture Workshop During our study trip, our studio had the chance to look around the newly developed Edinburgh Sculpture Workshop. I took particular interest in the sculpture workshop and thought about including something similar within my proposal.

Transport Network: Linking Edinburgh to Leith

Current Tram Route

Proposed Tram Extension: Phase 1

Proposed Tram Extension: Phase 2

Proposed Tram Extension: Phase 3

Proposed Tram Extension When researching the tram network of Edinburgh, it became clear that there had been a number of phases of further development proposed. Only due to costs has this not yet been built; it therefore seemed reasonable to propose future tram links between Leith and the City Centre.

Proposal 1 The first option for development proposed by Studio G was to regenerate a space currently occupied by a car park. However, with the proposals taking place over the next decade we thought it reasonable to develop this site into a public square with the hope of reduced road traffic due to the tram.

Proposal 2 The second option for development that our studio proposed was to revitalise the plot on which a rather unexciting warehouse sits. Providing a commercial element on the ground floor with dwellings above.

DWELLING PLUS

Dwelling Plus Leith, Edinburgh After having worked as a large group to develop a pair of proposals that could be developed over the next decade, the next stage of the process was to develop a series of dwellings to interact with the existing area as well as the proposed developments from the symposium. Shown here are some images of the surrounding area, particularly Lambâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s House (opposite) which is a key piece of historical architecture in Leith.

Sketchbook Shown here are initial sketches produced on site in Leith. They explore some of the surrounding areas of the site.

Site Selection Leith, Edinburgh Having fully interacted with both sites our studio selected as possible proposals during the symposium, I decided upon the use of the warehouse site. To me it seemed as though developing the current car park site with a multitude of dwellings would juxtapose the public square that we had proposed for the site a little too much. Furthermore it could be an issue to propose a multi-storey development in an open site with so much facing glazing from the surrounding buildings. I also felt as though the warehouse site would provide a better interaction with the surrounding area; for example with views to and from The Shore.

Conceptual Sketches The initial ideas for this project revolve heavily around circulation. The main concept being a cantilevered protrusion over Broad Wynd; thus creating an active populated faรงade from The Shore.

Sketchbook Shown here are development sketch plans & sections exploring the interaction between the public and private domains of my initial design.

Structural Exploration In order to provide the cantilevered circulation protrusion over Broad Wynd (and therefore achieving views to and from The Shore) I have included two pairs of steel columns with tie backs to transfer load to the ground.

Ground Floor Shown opposite is the Ground Floor Plan in its local context; this houses a workshop for use by the local community as well as the residents. Across the atrium from the workshop is the cafĂŠ (shown in the drawing above), the idea being that the cafĂŠ could be run by the residents for use by the community.

Typical Upper Floorplan (Inhabited)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Circulation Sociable Entrance Balcony Entrance Kitchen Living Area Balcony to Atrium for interaction Private Balcony Master Bedroom Bathroom Dressing Area Spare Room Shared Winter Garden

11 03

09 10

08 07

11 02

06 12

08 07

Section A-A

Circulation As circulation has been a key factor of my design from the beginning, this was the main focus of my model and informed the atrium as a whole.

Perspective Drawing in Context It is important to see a design in its context to fully understand how the building will work. I have therefore continued the simple hand drawn style of my technical drawings in a three dimensional view.

Inhabit This drawing explores what it would be like to inhabit one of the flats in the development. There are two residents shown in the drawing; one is enjoying the external south facing balcony, whilst another is stood on the internal balcony looking into the atrium.

ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE

Engineering Experience Studio A: Symmetry Sub Group iii: Henry Cahill, Christopher Charton, Charlie Donaldson, Freya Emerson, Jasmine Leung, Janet Tam & Alan Wei Each of the 7 studios for this semester were allocated a specific film, or scene of a film, to focus on for this project. The idea being that we take inspiration from the existing film and, through the building of maquettes and development of our own film, create an experience similar to that evoked in the original scene. Our studio were allocated the dance opera film â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Symmetryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, based in CERN around the Large Hadron Collider. The film explores the ideas of particle interaction. The physicist in the film starts to interact with the collider and he himself has an almost out of body experience, whereby he begins to reinact particle interaction through the medium of dance. The film explores further the interplay between art and science as due to the miniscule scale of the interactions within the collider much of the activity has to be somewhat imagined. Shown here are some initial design sketches of what developing ideas for our maquette.

Sub Group Response Within our sub group we decided that it was important for us to try to recreate the representation of particles through the development of what would eventually become our short film. Much of the film (Symmetry) revolves around the depiction of a circle. Whether that be the collider itself or the way in which the dance is choreographed. We therefore decided to use this as part of our maquette and designed a structure to evoke the collider. We originally developed a cylindrical framework, with the idea that it would rotate freely, within which we would film in varying ways to develop the footage for the final output. In order to create an accurate circular framework, we employed use of the laser cutter. Each element of the circular framework was cut in sections from MDF with junctions for later assembly. This allowed us to be as economic as possible with materials. The framework was then built up, as shown on these pages, before being sprayed red to further evoke the collider that inspired it. We decided to try to give our film some human scale, in order to do this we further referenced the film as there is a scene where the shot pans out until eventually it comes out of the main characterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye. Therefore, on the base of our cylinder we painted an abstract image of an eye. We also used broken CDs to create some reflective interplay with light and projection once we would begin to film. The frame was somewhat unstable and therefore bracing was required, this was achieved with the employment of medium gauge wire forming cross-braces in each section. Leading on from this, to create a more realistic interpretation of the collider on film we decided to wrap the bracing in coloured yarn (red and blue). The idea being that this would represent the mass of cabling within and surrounding the collider, although this was an arbitrary solution it did come across effectively in the film footage. The framework was then wrapped in lights and finally a reflective foil covered this. We still at this point had the issue of how we would get the maquette to spin, after some deliberation and sketching, we came up with a solution. We would have the cylinder

rotating in its vertical position, this meant that we would only need one point of rotation and one end of the maquette could be left open for filming purposes. The way in which the base was eventually made was from 2 sheets of 12mm MDF with a central hole into which a dowel was hammered to form the axle for the cylinder. Four wheels were arranged within the diameter of the cylinderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s base in order to allow smooth rotation during filming. (See development sketches below).

Filming Process In order to film the maquette, we had to develop a make-shift rig. To do this we dismantled the central section of a tripod and reconstructed it upside down so the camera could face downwards whilst still remaining stable. This was then fixed to a wooden frame that could be supported across the shoulders of two members of the group who could rotate around the frame in the opposite direction to the cylinder itself to produce smooth footage. For the shots where we required to see the inside of the cylinder with the use of the projection and strobe light we placed the maquette on its side. The camera was then moved into and out of the tube.

Personal Reflection This project provided a different collaboration to usual group projects within the architecture degree program. Personally, I found it of great benefit to work with different faculties â&#x20AC;&#x201C; considering that in future practice it is likely that this kind of collaboration between architects, engineers and artists will occur. The group was able to draw on the expertise of each discipline, being one of the architects I was mostly involved in the development and construction of the maquette. However, we worked closely with our engineer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly when it came to advice about how to stabilise the cylinder and also developing the system of rotating our maquette. I feel as though the team worked well together in response to the film and we spent time talking through ideas of what we should portray with our maquette and how from that we would create something of interest when it came to the filming and editing processes. Initially we talked about ideas of creating digital animation similar to those on show in the film itself, this is something we could have explored more â&#x20AC;&#x201C; although, due to the time period of the project and the fact that this would have required learning new software, in the end we decided against employing this particular technique. However, I do believe that (considering we used our analog maquette to produce all the footage) we did produce an impressive final film. Again, relating to the process of collaboration, we relied on the expertise of the fine artist within our group to compose a sound track; this worked very well alongside the edited footage for the final outcome. Furthermore, we used this sound track to our advantage when it came to curating the exhibition. As the track was composed to evoke a feeling of uncertainty on the viewer, we used speakers with amplified bass to portray this feeling further. The viewer also had the chance to experience the maquette with the strobe lighting we had used to film the footage, I feel as though this really allowed an insight in to how we produced the film itself.

EXPLORING EXPERIENCE

Apologia The studio to which I was assigned had a focus on metal as a material, more specifically than this I developed my brief to be tailored to a sculptor working with cast iron. When researching the process behind casting iron, I discovered that there are a number of steps and therefore a number of different spaces required within the building for these parts of the process to take place. The process is commenced with the design phase, this can be either by hand or with the employment of computer modelling techniques. Once the design has been created, a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;patternâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; must be created that is the exact shape of the final required outcome. This pattern is most commonly created out of timber; and must incorporate channels to allow the molten metal to reach the mould during the casting process. Moulds then must be formed from the patterns into which the molten metal can be poured, these are generated by tightly packing the patterns into sand mixed with clay or resin. The patterns are then carefully removed to leave the mould for casting. The final part of the process is the casting itself, where molten iron is poured into the mould before being left to cool and then being broken out of the sand mould. As the casting process requires a timber form work in order to be produced, I decided I wanted to reference this with the building itself and therefore I chose to develop a timber structure which would be exposed internally; allowing users of the space to fully engage with the casting process. Considering the Exploring Experience brief is based around creating a building for an artist or group of artists surrounding a particular material protagonist, I decided that I wanted my design itself to form a piece of sculpture. However, in order for the design to fit in with its context I decided to extrude the existing neighbouring building before fracturing the design to become more of a sculptural piece.

EXPLORING EXPERIENCE

Exploring Experience Berwick-upon-Tweed The Exploring Experience project revolves around developing a building design focused around the work of an artist, or group of artists, whose work is based on a particular material protagonist. In the case of my studio, metal. Shown here are some images of the site area, particularly the Shore Gate, or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Sandgateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as it was once known (top right) which is a key piece of historical architecture in surrounding my chosen site as it informed the name of the main road, Sandgate.

Sketchbook Shown here are initial sketches produced on site in Berwick. They explore the site I chose for my design project as well as some of the surrounding area.

Sculptural Inspiration Shown here are some examples of sculpture from Charles Hadcock. This artist creates pieces using cast iron, I have used his work as well as the casting process itself as inspiration throughout the design of my project.

Precedent Inspiration Shown here are some images of the Alfriston School Swimming Pool by Duggan Morris Architects. I have selected this precedent for its structural strategy as well as the interesting qualities created by the angular form.

Form Finding through Model Making Shown here is the progression of the 1:200 models I produced throughout the project, with inspiration from the artist whose work I focused on along with reference to the angular roofscape of the surrounding area.

Final 1:200 Model in Context Shown here is the final 1:200 3D Printed Model, this allows the design to be seen in its wider context. At this scale, the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s angular form can be seen to reference the surrounding roofscapes.

ROOF PLAN IN CONTEXT 1:500

External Render Shown here is the key external view of my design from Sandgate. It shows how the building interacts with its immediate context.

A Foyer

Casting Area

Design Office

Sand Moulding Workshop

Timber Workshop

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:100 94

Internal Views Shown here are two aspects of the interior of my design. The view from the timber workshop is above, giving a sense of the great space within. Whist the lower image shows the view down from the top level towards the timber workshop, linking the exhibition spaces back to the production.

Final 1:50 Model This final model shows the internal qualities of the space, particularly in terms of light and materiality. The exposed timber structure is celebrated; showing the form work of the building with reference to the process taking place within.

Artist Accommodation

Walk-through Exhibition

CafÃ©

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1:100

Final Exhibition

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1:100

100

SECTION AA 101 1:50

102

SECTION BB 103 1:50

PROCESS & REFLECT

Model Making at Different Scales Shown here are the progress models I have produced throughout the Exploring Experience project. I started at 1:200 in order to experiment with forms, moving on from this I created a couple of models at 1:100 before producing final models at 1:200 and a detailed 1:50 partial model.

105

Photoshopping Technical Drawings Shown here is the before and after for one of the final sections for my Exploring Experience project. Having been to the Tools for Design workshop regarding photoshopping drawings I decided to render a section to show the internal qualities in terms of materiality and light.

106

Photography Having attended the Tools for Design workshop regarding model photography it became clear the importance to photograph models well in order to show them to their greatest potential.

107

NON-DESIGN COURSEWORK

ARC 2009 ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY pages 110-113

ARC 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN page 114

ARC 2024 ABOUT ARCHITECTURE pages 115-119

ARC 2020 DISSERTATION STUDIES pages 120-121

ARC 2009 - Architectural Technology

Shown here is the Construction Declaration coursework submission relating to the Semester 1 design project Dwelling Plus.

110

111

ARC 2009 - Architectural Technology

Shown here is the Access for All coursework submission relating to the Semester 2 design project Exploring Experience.

112

ARC 2009 - Architectural Technology

Shown here is the Fire Safety coursework submission relating to the Semester 2 design project Exploring Experience.

113

ARC 2010 - Environmental Design

Shown here is the Environmental Design & Services coursework submission relating to the Semester 1 design project Dwelling Plus.

114

ARC 2024 - About Architecture

Shown here is the essay submission for the About Architecture: Cities, Cultures & Space Module.

1. In 1932 Philip Johnson and Henry Russell Hitchcock coined the term the ‘International Style’ for modernist architecture, suggesting that it shared common characteristics even in very diverse parts of the world. Select two buildings in different cities, built within 10 years of each other – whose design is either very much informed by their local context, or disregards it, and explain carefully the differences or similarities between the buildings and their relationship to their local urban environment or culture.

The desire and will to create a monument is often not solely enough to build one.

Context is an integral part of developing an architectural response, or making a case for one, regarding a specific brief. However, it cannot always be presumed that every piece of architecture must be a conformist structure, particularly within an area of such high density as the City of London or New York; considering the incompatibility of existing architectures born from previous ideas of beauty and solutions to aesthetic and form. There must also be the examination of the practical needs and demands that the constant evolving of society and, therefore, architecture in its response requires. Due to their high densities, it is cities that are most prone to be the places of firsts; whether that be embodiments of new technologies, for example in the Lloyd’s of London Building by Richard Rogers, or neo-classicism founded in economic prosperity as with Philip Johnson’s AT&T Building in New York. When passing through the City of London, one would not get the sense that inside the asymmetrical complexity on show from the Lloyd’s

Building exterior lies a simple rectangular box. This internal symmetry is masked by the confusion of external services that, in fact, allow for the central space’s conception. This vast unbroken centre of the complex, The Room, is the most important aspect of the design - it is this space that (thanks to Rogers) can now continue to expand; as it has been required to do since the institution’s somewhat humble beginnings from Edward Lloyd in a Tower Street coffee house in 1688. Lloyd’s of London is the world’s largest insurance marketplace; this is where it differs from the big banks which are its City neighbours. Lloyd’s is a club for individuals along with an elected committee. The corporation has had quite a number of homes since its conception, having left its coffee house roots by the 1770s. Permanent accommodation was first found in the Royal Exchange; hinting at the company’s growing respectability and importance. However, by the 1920s it proved that a move would be necessary due to the scale of operations

115

now undertaken. Sir Edwin Cooper, a favourite of City institutions at the time, was employed as the architect for Lloyd’s new building. Upon its completion in 1928, this would become the first time Lloyd’s would find its home on Leadenhall Street. The site was, in actuality, rather an awkward one as the majority of the principal thoroughfare to Leadenhall Street was occupied by another Cooperdesigned building, namely Royal Mail House. As a result, Cooper’s design was soon inadequate for the needs of Lloyd’s. Fortunately, Royal Mail House became available and was obtained by Lloyd’s in 1936. This led to the somewhat disorganised conjunction of the two buildings; resulting in many circuitous corridors and difficult spaces. A ‘new’ Lloyd’s was therefore started in 1952, with architect Terence Heysham at the helm; the design was linked to the 1928 building via a bridge over Lime Street. However, due to the continued expansion of the firm during the 1960s and 70s, Heysham’s design to “see Lloyd’s into the twenty first century” became redundant. The Room was simply too small with a capacity of 1500 people. More underwriting space was drastically required if Lloyd’s was to avoid deterioration. By this time, the newly elected RIBA President, Gordon Graham, had discovered Lloyd’s plans. Realising this could be the “British commission of the decade” and enthusiastic to see some budding young practices have chance to showcase their work, Graham met with the Chairman of Lloyd’s, Sir Ian Findlay, and suggested that they look to develop a strategy rather than a scheme. In light of this suggestion, Richard Rogers Partnership claimed victory in the Lloyd’s competition; as their response observed Graham’s principles of strategy foremost, followed by scheme. The required outcome was for a “flexible place of work, rather than a one-off monument”, This would lead to the presentation of twenty-six proposal options including one which would incorporate converting the Cooper building. Continuity of trading was a necessity for Lloyd’s as well as the opportunity for future expansion or contraction should it be required. Furthermore, the historic heart of the firm, The Room, needed to be retained as a cooperative and unified space. As a result, the architects studied the previous purpose-built structures and concluded that even though they had been built to last throughout the ages; their congruent issue was that they did not provide for the potential changes that could ensue

116

and this became their downfall. The site the Lloyd’s building now occupies is one of great complexity and, due to the historic medieval plan of the City of London, one of true irregularity. This ground area provided no sort of geometry from which to embark on the design of a new building for such an historic institution as Lloyd’s of London. However, it is within this unusual and challenging site that Rogers’s team achieved just that – geometry. This was realised with the employment of great external service towers and pods; encompassing all that would usually create clutter and inconvenience within a simple plan. These towers, clad in their smooth stainless steel, provide magnificent glimpses from all angles, each providing a new moment of this great building, although the majority of views are somewhat obscured as a result of the City of London’s ancient beginnings. [Figure 2] The Lloyd’s building has a great marriage of aesthetic and function, as nothing is in place for solely one or the other of these two elements. These seemingly separate areas of architectural necessity and human requirement are in this case wholly symbiotic in their portrayal. “Nothing at Lloyd’s is there only for its aesthetic; nothing is there only for its use.” (Powell, 1999) The construction of Rogers’s new Lloyd’s coincided with a new era of how financial markets functioned. The ‘Big Bang’ of the financial markets coalesced with the final year of construction; this was an electronic revolution and heralded the largest office construction age in London’s history. However, when Rogers first became involved with the clients many of the members were set in the tradition of their ‘boxes’ and the confidence of the advantages of personal contacts, a means of working that lived on from the early coffee house days. Therefore, at the conception of the project only four per cent of underwriters at Lloyd’s used computers and numerous members presumed it would stay that way. Rogers and his team thought differently and were, of course, proved to be correct. With the building on site by 1981, the firm realised that they could very soon be vastly under-equipped and therefore had to consult specialists in the newly expanding information technology sector. This led to the requirement of double the original estimate of power provision, in turn causing a vast increase in the building’s required cabling and cooling capacity. This would therefore have an impact on the aesthetics of the construction, causing the service towers to lose their slim and expressive

form originally intended by Rogers and become much more dominant in the design; meaning that at Lloyd’s “the logic of the aesthetic is as absolute – as scientific – as the logic of physical functions.” These external towers expose what would usually be the inner workings of such a structure. [Figure 3] However, the fact that they are on show and have the capacity to extend skywards as and when required embodies the complexities of the global insurance and financial markets; a nod, if it were, to the continual exponential acceleration of technology and growth of infrastructure brought about by the telecommunications developments in the 1980s. Rogers vision for Lloyd’s employs a newer, unprecedented style of high-tech modernism, departing from Robert Venturi’s ‘less is a bore’ view of Miesian modernism. In contrast, the external services can be seen to represent the once hidden and now intangible elements in architecture by thrusting outwards; almost as a hybrid between an attempt of the architect to exude transparency; both internally (the void) and also externally (the exposed services) whilst also reassuring us that as one aspect of our world becomes ever more invisible or intangible, beauty – or at least utility – can be found by removing or rearranging another. Although Rogers began with the ideas of flexibility and function foremost, the final outcome has become an icon of high tech modernism and is therefore a monument within its own right. The structure sits within its context like a Gothic castle, with its great exposed concrete columns providing a sense of security for the busy interactions taking place inside the building. (Powell, 1994) Starting out with a completely different approach to that of Lloyd’s, during the autumn time of 1975, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) announced that it was developing a new corporate headquarters to twenty-five architectural offices, including that of Philip Johnson and John Burgee (Johnson/Burgee). The offices were tasked with giving responses to four pages of questions referring to their potential approaches to designing the new building. (Varnelis, date unknown) Johnson is quoted as saying, “It got here, but we threw it away. We don’t like questionnaires.” He did, however, later expand on the topic revealing that practices would have to invest extensive sums of money in order to enter a competition such as this one and that Johnson/Burgee not only did not have the financial backing but that also they did not believe they had any chance of success. Burgee, on

the other hand, suggested that perhaps the office had confused the competition entry with an old request for an AT&T building in Chicago. Nevertheless, Johnson/Burgee did, in fact, find itself on a shortlist of three practices asked to make a presentation to the then chairman of AT&T, John D. deButts. In the style that had become characteristic of their office, Burgee and Johnson gave their presentation relying on the expertise and wit of the two men respectively. They offered just two photographs, one of the Seagram building and the second of Pennzoil Place. In hindsight, these modernist projects seem to be somewhat improbable precedents considering that the building’s design became a turning point towards historical eclecticism. The presentation was a success, with deButts being a keen supporter of personality; Michael Graves later compared the office’s success to that of Bernini, saying, “Bernini persuaded the Pope to be his Patron, and Johnson did the same with AT&T.” Other company officials who were acquainted with the governing of the decision indicate that “there was no close second” to Johnson and Burgee’s proposal. DeButts wanted something that would be a “monument for the biggest company in the world,” a building on equal ground to the Seagram Building, although not a glass box. Johnson recalls deButts having said, “Now, look. I don’t want just another building. We’d like to see the next step in tall building architecture since the Seagram Building – just go to it.” Johnson had become well known for his support of modernism in America; having co-curated an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in 1932 and is credited with coining the term ‘International Style’. However, by the 1960s his tastes had begun to change direction as a result of the glass tower becoming commonplace. Upon Johnson’s death at the age of 98 in 2005, Paul Goldberger wrote, “What fascinated him most was the idea of the new, and once he had helped establish Modernist architecture in the United States, he moved on, experimenting with decorative Classicism, embracing the reuse of historical elements that would become known as Postmodernism.” Winning a commission such as the AT&T building allowed Johnson the opportunity to revel in his interest for Postmodernism. Johnson/Burgee took influence from McKim’s Beaux Arts-style architectures of New York from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This, paired with

117

the typologies of the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, inspired Johnson/Burgee to create a building with ornamental flourishes; including its material palette and, perhaps most importantly, the recognisable open pediment cap of the tower – gaining the nickname of ‘Chippendale’ as a reference to the English cabinetry and furniture maker Thomas Chippendale. This cap was significant to Johnson/Burgee as they felt the building should be distinguishable from a distance, different from the flat roofs that characterised the towers of modernism. Having grown tired of the ‘International Style’ and with Postmodernism in the air (a term first coined by Robert A.M. Stern) Johnson decided to go along with it and create something new to rival the plate glass boxes that had become the solution of the day. This is something that makes the building so special and an icon of the postmodern movement, as at the time it was conceived; corporate headquarters were indisputably following the model of the sleek glass and metal of the Seagram building. Johnson rejected the contemporary approach to corporate architecture at the time by proposing a building clad in pink granite with bronze detailing; looking back to the edifices of the 1920s for inspiration along with some reference to AT&T’s other most recent New York tower, John Carl Warnecke’s windowless Long Lines building in lower Manhattan. Whilst Warnecke’s monolithic tower took the striking stark approach of late-modernism to the functional extreme (most likely only a possibility due to its function of housing only telephone equipment and, therefore, not people) Johnson/Burgee’s design “revels in its historicist monumentality”. Warnecke’s skyscraper played precedent for the use of granite as a curtain walling material, although Johnson/Burgee’s building reinstated the lavish use of stone of the premodern era. They created a façade with panels up to ten inches thick; allowing a feeling of solidness as opposed to “cardboard thinness and surface effect.” The granite of AT&T, as a result, could be seen as a token gesture towards Mies’s regal bronze of Seagram. The tower’s base also takes a step away from the modernist ideologies; city zoning laws stated a necessity for architects to include a public plaza and retail into the building’s ground level. The architects took an unconventional design decision to incorporate these elements; raising the tower of office space sixty feet above the street level on an “open forest of columns” and therefore informing an

118

uncluttered loggia below the structure. Johnson said this space was “tailored to AT&T – it is an imperial space,” going on to state that “they were an imperial company and they thought of themselves in that way.” The entrance loggia is a response to the required provision of public space at the base of the building. Rather than following the open square precedent set by the Seagram Building, Johnson decided it would be a “good urban statement to make a palatial break in the street”. Johnson felt that retail in the base of the building could be tricky and suggested that one can “go on shopping once you have passed the base of the AT&T Building, and it doesn’t seem to hurt you in any way.” The space created at the building’s base was an imperial space, responding to AT&T having said, “Make it the front door to our empire. Let’s make it so you’ll be impressed when you go by.” (Hilary and O’Connor, 1994) [Figure 4] Johnson managed to contradict critical modernist ideologies and commence a design approach that was defined by its search for architectural meaning with one single architectural detail; the open pediment crowning the AT&T Building. The building certainly wasn’t the first of the postmodern movement, however it is arguably the most high profile (and therefore the most highly publicised). The building made news headlines – reaching the front page of The New York Times “not because of its size or economic impact, but because of its heralding of a new architectural era”. The new style’s acceptance was nourished by the building boom of offices after New York City’s financial recovery and therefore “postmodernism began to flourish in the boom economy of the early 1980s.” (McLeod, 1989) Unlike the Lloyd’s brief requiring flexibility as a strategy for design before anything else, the fact that deButts only wanted a monument for AT&T may have been his downfall. Even before the completion of the building, the company was struggling and although AT&T occupied the building in some capacity for decades, eventually financial troubles caught up with them and the building was sold to the Sony Corporation in 2002 leading to the skyscraper’s renaming of the ‘Sony Tower’. Sony inevitably required some changes to the building’s original intentions, such as the enclosing of the plaza beneath the tower. When Johnson was asked whether Sony had approached him concerning the changes they were implementing he replied, “I was told, but not asked.” He did, however, testify for their changes - as due to the original agreement with

the city for the provision of public amenities there could have been legal implications, saying, “I am for the changes. The space was basically tailored to AT&T – it is an imperial space. Madison Avenue is a shopping street, not an imperial street.” Johnson believed the city would be for the alterations as they “had never liked the monumentality interrupting the passenger foot traffic” he also believed that the new scheme was, perhaps, better placed as “the old situation was so monumental that the area at the base wasn’t used and became cold and unfriendly.” Although Johnson puts this down to the seating they were forced to include in the space as a city requirement, clarified by his statement that “putting seats in doesn’t make people sit in them,” affirming his opinion by saying, “After all, you don’t see chairs in Piranesi arcades.” It seems to me that perhaps setting out to design a building to properly comply with a client’s needs rather than simply to create something new and to stand out may be the better way to, in time, create a monument. The Lloyd’s building is very much iconic within the City of London and is, of course, still in use for its intended purpose. The AT&T Building, however, albeit arguably the most important statement of the Postmodernist movement is proven to have failed to adhere to its intended usage. This is, of course, a result of the company it was built for suffering financial downturn rather than inherently the fault of the building itself. Carter B. Horsely noted that Sony’s alterations “violated the building’s original design integrity” and that Sony had simply “appropriated for commercial use the public space of the original gallerias”. Jerold S. Kayden said of the building’s enclosed plaza “As for the lost arcade spaces, it would be a mistake to romanticize them, during much of the year, they were cold, dark and windy.” (Horsely, date unknown)

Bibliography Powell, Kenneth. “Richard Rogers: Complete Works Volume One” pages 174-209 Phaidon Press Limited, 1999. Powell, Kenneth. “Richard Rogers” pages 58-65 Artemis London Limited, 1994. Varnelis, Kayzys. “Philip Johnson’s Empire: Network Power and the AT&T Building” Published pages 120-133 “Philip Johnson: the constancy of change.” Yale University Press/New Haven and London in association with the Yale University School of Architecture, 2009. Lewis, Hilary and O’Connor,John. “Philip Johnson: The Architect in His Own Words” pages 104-111 Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. 1994. McLeod, Mary. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism.” pages 22-59 Assemblage, No.8, 1989. Horsely, Carter B. “The Sony Building (formerly the AT&T Building” The City Review. Accessed: http://www.thecityreview.com/sonyatt. html

119

ARC 2020 - Dissertation Studies

Shown here is the Dissertation Proposal for the Dissertation Studies & Research Methods

Future Housing in the city centre for the online world This dissertation intends to explore possibilities for housing of the future; particularly in the city centre. We are entering a stage where the city centre is becoming outdated in its current use with a heavy focus on retail provision in a world that is ever progressing online. Therefore the fact that council proposals still focus heavily on further retail development in city centres purely because they provide the greatest return seems somewhat redundant. The current availability of housing in Newcastle is split between a number of different tenures; with a large percentage of Social Housing (29.7%) compared to the national average (17.7%). There is a significant proportion of private rented accommodation at 19.1% compared to the national average of 16.8% whereas in comparison to the owner occupied sector of England (63.4%), Newcastle is significantly below average at 49.5%. There are parcels of city centres, such as the East Pilgrim Street area of Newcastle, that are held as investment opportunities – in this case by the Reuben Brothers – therefore the council’s proposals to achieve the most return are the most desirable rather than necessarily what could be their greatest potential. I am proposing that one use for these areas of the city centre could be for housing; more specifically for community led housing projects. At the moment, the main developments to provide city centre living are to provide student accommodation and whilst students are an important feature of successful cities and can support the economy of the city region, they also provide issues such as noise for neighbouring areas; a lack of benefit to the council as they do not provide council tax income. Furthermore, these developments seem to have a lack of community. I am therefore interested in researching the possibilities of community led housing schemes as a future use of the city centre as there will always be the need for housing even in a world that is migrating online.

120

There are a number of benefits to cohousing schemes, such as the possibility to reduce energy usage as a result of new social practices, technical processes and collective learning. Moreover, as cohousing schemes share many household appliances and functions, residents can achieve a more affordable cost of living when it comes to food, utilities, goods and services. Residents can increase their social and physical resilience through the provision of shared facilities. I have looked at a couple of cohousing models, including a development in Copper Lane, London. This scheme was designed by Henley Halebrown (HHbR) and consists of 6 homes; the development replaces a disused children’s nursery on a 1000m2 site behind residential streets and incorporates a ‘cluster’ model placing the houses around a central courtyard above communal facilities. This scheme allows for perimeter communal gardens and is based around the idea of developing a build type to manifest ‘communality’. Ken Rorrison (HHbR) said of the scheme, “This project is not about creating ideal bespoke houses for six individual clients, but making a collective whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts. Generally, the houses are all made from the same agreed components. Their variation is derived in response to their differing location in relation to their immediate and surrounding neighbours.” A further model I have looked at is ‘New Ground Cohousing, London’. This is a scheme developed by Pollard Thomas Edwards in conjunction with Hanover Housing for the Older Women’s Cohousing group (OWCH). This development consists of 25 private apartments around shared facilities; including a large garden and a laundry room. This is the first co-living development for older people in the UK with a purposely wide age range of 5087; this allows for the possibility of shared care. The scheme is two thirds owner occupied and one third social housing and provides a common house containing a meeting room along with kitchens and dining areas. I intend to look at what kind of housing should be offered as future developments; one such project that I shall research into is the Future Homes Project in Newcastle – this is a group led by Professor Rose Gilroy at Newcastle University and is working to challenge the existing housing offer. This proposal suggests four demonstrator dwellings not specifically for older people but the challenge is to create a housing model to allow people at different life course stages to live together as neighbours. These dwellings are intended to be

lifetime homes for the future age; with the capability of reconfiguration to meet changing needs of the residents. Furthermore, the project hopes to provide new training offering young people the opportunity to improve skill shortages in the industry and seeks to ‘put the Newcastle/Gateshead area on the map as a region with skilled tradespeople and a centre for skills training’. (Gilroy, 2016).

Bibliography

Another area I plan to research is the National Community Land Trust Network, Community Land Trusts are a form of community let housing run by ordinary people in order to develop and manage homes along with other prospects such as enterprises, food growing and workspaces. One aspect of the Community Land Trust Network that I believe is important is the fact that they strive to create genuinely affordable homes based around local earnings meaning they can provide for all future occupiers of their developments.

https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ wwwfileroot/housing/cabinet_draft_-_jan-17.pdf

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn, has recently announced plans for a Community Housing Hub to support community-led housing in London. The Hub is to provide community housing groups with advice and technical support regarding the access to funding and land. One final source I wish to research is ‘Second-Wave Cohousing: A Modern Utopia?” which explores the ideas and experiences of modern cohousing in North America and aims to discover the real character behind people’s experience of modern cohousing and why people choose cohousing; whether that be as an intention to form communities or whether cohousing is ‘just an attractive form of housing tenure for people who want a nice place to live with good neighbours’.

Gilroy, R. (2016) Future Homes, Newcastle University unpublished document http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/ research/london/docs/Cohousing-shared-futuresFINALweb.pdf

http://www.reubenbrothers.com/consultationlaunched-on-draft-vision-for-east-pilgrim-street-2/ https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/city_ for_all_londoners_nov_2016.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ Planning%20Committe%20Town%20Centres%20 Report.pdf http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/ article/2017/5/11/greater-london-authorityannounces-communityhousing-hub https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ onersaffordablehomesprogrammefundingguidance. pdf Sargisson, L. (2012). ‘Second wave cohousing: a modern utopia?’ Utopian Studies, 21: 1, 28-57.

121