WALL-wich Community Centre, London | Refurbishing the City: Design Research

1

AA E+E Environment & Energy Studies Programme Architectural Association School of Architecture MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Authorship Declaration Form

TERM 2 DESIGN PROJECT: Refurbishing the City Part II

TITLE: Wall-wich Community Centre

NUMBER OF WORDS: 12051

STUDENT NAMES: Juanito Alipio de la Rosa Maria Francisca Echeverri Maria Teresa Sanchez Perez Monica Toledo

DECLARATION: “We certify that the contents of this document are entirely our own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”

Signatures: __________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

Date:

1 April 2015

SUMMARY This report covers the study of a portion of the Royal Docklands, particularly North Woolwich, where a big potential is seen in the redevelopment of the site, the refurbishment of listed heritage buldings, and the possible reuse of existing materials (shipping containers). An attempt to orchestrate these three elements together in a way that can be sustainable is explored, simulating the building form and layout, daylighting, and thermal performances.

After determining the project site, building typology, and the end-users, a design brief is made with both performance and atmosphere in mind. In terms of performance, a comparison with precedents and benchmarks play a good role in establishing targets and guiding simulations. In terms of atmosphere, predicting the use of space and ensuring the occupants can be comfortable most of the time in both indoor and outdoor spaces are the main goals.

How can the old train station be reused, thereby eliminating the need for new construction? How can the site be responsibly redeveloped and be attractive enough to encourage usage? How can the blank walls be more useful to the community and at the same time contribute to environmental sustainability? How will they all be in the next 50 years or so? The report seeks to answer these questions.

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The team expresses its utmost gratitude to the tutors and lecturers for their hands-on guidance throughout the term. The project has developed, thanks to the inputs of Simos Yannas, Jorge Rodriguez, Paula Cadima, Nick Baker, Gustavo Brunelli, Mariam Kapsali, and special thanks to Herman Calleja for all the support through out the process.

Likewise acknowledged are the invited architects and engineers who shared with us their valuable experience in actual practice, and also the previous MSc and MArch students of the SED Programme who showed us how they went about with their respective academic undertakings. The lessons learned from them gave the group useful information needed in approaching this project.

Juanito Alipio de la Rosa would like to thank Don Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala for the sponsorship and Senator Cynthia Villar for additional funding for his MSc SED course 2014-2015.

Maria Francisca Echeverri would like to acknowledge the AA School of Architecture for the bursary, she was awarded to attend SED MSc course 2014-2015 and M贸nica Toledo would like to acknowledge her team mates for the term 2 project for sharing their knowledge through the process.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

Page 07

2. Predesign Studies Overview Site potential Climate Density and Demographics Site Analysis

10 11 12 14 15

3. Design Brief Performance Indicators Building Typology and Programme Benchmarks

19 18 19 23

4. Design Proposals Design proposal The Railway Station Wall -Wich Outdoor Plaza Renewable Energies

25 33 57 66 57 66

5. Future Scenarios

66

6. Conclusion

68

7. Epilogue

77

8. References

78

9. Appendix

79

NEW PROYECTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. The Silvertown

15 ha (water)

24 ha

3. The Royal Albert Basin 20 ha

HERITAGE

1. The Royal Victoria Dock

Dock Manager’s office 1883

Warehouses 1859-1883

Siemens Crystal Center

O2 Arena

6

ExCel ExCel

1

Gallion’s Hotel 1881-83

Central Buffet 1883

UEL

The Royal victoria Dock

London City Airport

3

2

Bretannia

5 Tate & Lyle Sugar

4

Dockside Cranes 1920s

Millennium Mills 1903

St Mark’s Church 1861-62

Train Station 1854

Taking off from Term 1 project, where the group found out how old and refurbished buildings can still be managed to perform well, this design project is intended to highlight the use of an existing structure (the North Woolwich Railway Station) while addressing the needs of the community and adapting well to the site and would-be climate.

Situated at the Royal Docks, Borough of Newham in east London, the brownfield site brings much interest due to its historical value, being the largest docklands in the world during its heyday.

Victoria Gardens

Operation and expansion ended in the 1980s, leaving the site close to decay. However, its spirit lives on, with some heritage buildings remaining to tell the story of the site‟s once glorious past (Figure 1.1).

HERITAGE

As investments pour in, many major developments (Figure 1.1) are underway, which, if conscientiously planned, will reap many benefits for the existing small community in the docklands and to London in general.

Envisioned by the London authority as a new Central Business District complete with complementing mixed-used developments, the Royal Dock is in a position to solve many of the city‟s problems through generation of more jobs, provision of more affordable housing, and decentralizing activities in the city proper.

5. Waterside Park

6. The Royal Albert Dock 14 ha

NEW PROYECTS

4. Minoco Wharf 40 ha

Figure 1.1: Collage showing the existing and future conditions of the area. (Source: www.google.com)

The development, or lack of it, in the North Woolwich area has prompted the team to pursue a project on this particular site, taking into consideration the needs of the immediate community, the possible needs of the future community, the increase in density and mix, the relationship with the urban fabric, and the sensitive to existing and future climates.

The team has then embarked on a design-by-research project, where principles on daylighting and thermal comfort learned from the previous term and other precedents will be tested and used accordingly with the occupant in mind.

8

9

2-PRE DESIGN STUDIES Overview

The Royal Victoria Gardens (Figure 1.3) was opened as public gardens on 1890 by the London County Council on land acquired with funds raised through public subscription and a donation of ÂŁ50 from Queen Victoria. For 120 years, it has served as public park and 150 years as gardens. Before being public, the gardens used to be the Pleasure Gardens of the Pavillion Hotel and attracted a lot of people from the area as it was well connected with train services. The Victorian layout was lost after a bomb hit the park in 1940 and the park was all redesigned to what it is today.

Figure 2.1 Royal Docks location in London. (Source: www.pohwer.net)

North Woolwich, Newham London North Woolwich is part of the Newham borough in the east of London and is located between the River Thames and the King George V dock (Figure 1.2). The residential community is also home to the London City airport on the north and the Tate and Lyle Sugar refinery and Standard Industrial State industry on the south, being major contributors to the economy and employment in the Royal Docks. It is very well connected to the central city as it is served by the Docklands Light Railway and connected to the south of the river by the ferry and foot tunnel.

The neighbourhood has several heritage assets that also characterise it. St. Markâ€&#x;s Church (now home to a music hall), the entrance to the North Woolwich Pedestrian Tunnel (still in use) and the abandoned North Woolwich Train Station are all Grade II listed (Figure 1.6)..

Woolwich Pier

Ferry

Figure 2.5 General view of North Wollwich river front area.

Figure 2.3 Former North Woolwich Railway Station.

The North Woolwich Train Station (Figure 1.4) served as a ticket office for 125 years. It was designed by Sir William Tite in 1854 and it was replaced by another office in 1979. From 1985 to 2006 it was used as a Museum of Transport but even though it was a popular attraction for more than 20 years it was closed. Now the building is vacant.

The ferry was first started on 1847 by the Eastern Counties Railways to connect with the new railway line from North Woolwich into London. Later in 1889 the Woolwich Ferry was opened as a public service by the chairman of the London County Council. The Ferry became a popular attraction for the families on weekends and public holidays and along with the gardens, promotions were done. After 1986, the ferry was run by the Greenwich Borough Council as the LCC became defunct and in 2008, the service was taken over by Transport for London. Today the service is still open. (Figure 1.5)

North Woolwich and Woolwich are connected by a foot tunnel under the Thames river. The tunnel was opened on 1912 and designed by the engineer Maurice Fitzmaurice, who also designed other listed tunnels. The connection was done to provide a more reliable way to cross other than the ferry, which sometimes got suspended due to the dense winter fogs.

Figure 2.2 Courts in the Royal Victoria Gardens.

Foot Tunnel (1912)

Train Station

Figure 2.4 View of the Thames Barrier on site.

Main Street

Royal Victoria Gardens

River Thames

HERITAGE_ Listed Buildings 10

Site Potential North Woolwich, as a site, has a lot of potential in itself. It has an existing community whose civic life can be more active and vibrant if only key elements were present. The teamâ€&#x;s study on the activity pattern of the inhabitants reveals the important role of Woolwich district across the River Thames.

Woolwich has a lively high street, complete with shops, restaurants and cafes, as well as a leisure centre, thus attracting many North Woolwich residents to the area. However, there is no reciprocity as there is not much reason for Woolwich residents to go north across Thames. The improvement of North Woolwich calls for complementary spaces and structures to strengthen the relationship between the two communities.

Currently, the two areas are linked by the DLR, the Foot Tunnel, and the Woolwich Ferry that transports both people and vehicles across the river. Improving North Woolwich brings about a healthier exchange of people and goods.

More importantly, the integration of North Woolwich to the rest of the Docklands is deemed more important, not just physically but economically. The residents are seen to benefit more from their economic integration into the emerging new Central Business District than with any other location.

Figure 2.6 Analysis of the existing programs in the area.

11

0°3’47.80”E 51°29’56.42”N

Figure 2.7 Site location. (Source: Google Maps)

Climate The site in North Woolwich is located at the coordinates 51°29‟56.42”N and 0°3‟47.80”E (Figure 2.7), from which the weather data is interpolated through Meteonorm 7.0. Being in London, the site also experiences a Maritime Temperate climate as per the Köppen classification.

Figure 2.8 Wind rose information. (Source: Ecotect)

Sun Path Diagram Figure 2.10 Sun path diagram. (Source: Ecotect)

Using Ecotect, the sun path (Figure 2.10) and shadow ranges (Figure 2.11) are studied to see the potential of the site in terms of solar access and shadowing. With the general orientation of the site to the South, it is understood to be in a very good position. It has very minimal obstruction and even in the future, it is unlikely that tall buildings will obstruct the site as it is already at the edge of the River Thames. However, there is a wall along the river that overshadows the street.

As for the initial wind simulation, the wind rose (Figure 2.8) shows that prevailing winds are from West and Southwest direction, with 3-5m/s being the most frequent velocity. Winair simulation reveals that with the existing buildings, which are rather sparse, a wind velocity of 3-4m/s can be experienced (Figure 2.9). This is primarily due to lack of obstructions in the area, allowing for the build-up of the wind speed.

Shadow Range - December Figure 2.9 Analysis of the wind patterns on site. (Source: Ecotect)

Figure 2.11 Shadow analysis of the site. (Source: Ecotect)

12

Temperature Data from Meteonorm predicts according to the A2 harmonized scenario a temperature increase of around 1°C in the year 2050, particularly in the summer months. A more drastic increase is observed in 2100 forecast, where temperatures are predicted to increase between 1.5°C to 3°C in all the months (Figure 2.12).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on the other hand, currently uses four different scenarios to predict the likely changes in the future depending on CO2 emissions. These scenarios go from current levels to the possibility of more than doubling them. The worst-case scenario projects a global temperature proportionally increasing by as much as 2°C in 2050 and 5°C in 2100.

CO2 Emissions These studies have prompted the UK to commit to decreasing the levels to below 100 MtCO2e. Imported emissions, however, will remain a problem unless the rest of the world takes similar strategies. The study shows that even if the UK becomes successful in reducing emissions, the imported emissions in 2050 will still be similar to London 2010 levels (Figure 2.13).

Figure 2.12 Temperature A2 scenario forecast. (Source: Meteonorm)

The government of London is well aware of the fact that CO2 emissions have to be managed to mitigate adverse impacts in the future.

In 2012, a target has been set for the year 2050, where emissions have to be reduced by 73% with respect to 1990 levels (Figure 2.14).

Already, in 2013, a reduction of 25% from the 1990 levels has been observed, owing to the elimination of coal from heating and energy-producing industries.

Figure 00: UK CO emissions target reduction (Source: -----) 2

Additional imported emissions under global 2DS Imported emissions under global 2DS Domestic consumption emissions under UK 2050 target

Figure 2.13 London CO₂ emissions forecast for the future (Source: Greater London Authority)

In the third quarter of 2014, the levels were reaching more than 400 MtCO2 plus other CO2-equivalent green house gases. Energy supply and residential consumption account for more than half of the CO2 emissions, hence calling for a more responsible construction sector including architecture.

Flood Risk One of the most significant consequences of global warming is the increase in flood risk. London, being traversed by a river, is very vulnerable to the changes in water level.

The sea level has already considerably risen in the last 15 years due to global warming. In the Representative Concentration Pathways of IPCC, sustained high levels of C02 emissions could result in 0.5 to 1 meter sea level rise.

Some irreversible damages have already been done but the forecast may still change and the effects mitigated with the proper measures in place. Two of the biggest risks for the UK are the melting of glaciers and coastal erosion. In a London study, The Royal Docks is within the area where P4 measures are recommended to keep flood risk at least at the current level, and this will involve strategies in the larger Thames Gateway area.

Figure 2.14 Compared London´s CO₂ and future target. (Source: Greater London Authority)

In the Thames Estuary 2100 report however, proposals included the possible creation of a new flood barrier at Tilbury, thereby reducing the possible risk at the North Woolwich site.

13

Table 2.1.1 Newham historic population (Source: www.ons.gov.uk)

Density and demographics Population Density The population of east London rose by 19% between 2001-2011.

Despite this dramatic growth, it is worth noting that most of the east London borough populations are below their historical peaks (1931) and there is a large variation in population density – suggesting, in theory, potential for further growth.

The population density in London Borough of Newham, where the Royal Docks is, is 7,269 persons/km2 (Table 2.1.1).

However, the docklands itself, having an area of 500 hectares and only 10,000 residents, has a density of only 2000 persons/km2. This current density is way below those of inner and even outer London in general.

Consented schemes within the Royal Docks will provide more than 10,000 new homes.

To have a density similar to inner London, it should be closer to 9,000 persons/km2 or roughly 39 dwellings/hectare, which is compliant with the standard. The increase in density, if coupled with the right mix of uses, can potentially activate the Royal Docks into an ideal self-sufficient city in itself.

2001

243,905

1901

338,506

1931 (Peak)

454,096

Camden

22

9,562

Kensington and Chelsea

12

13,834

Newham

36

7,269 (now 8,555)

Tower Hamlets

20

11,891

Westminster

21

9,941

Inner London

33

9,087

Outer London

337

3,734

Greater London

1,573

4,881

20%

Possible Target (2015-2050)

working age residents with no qualifications

9,000 persons/km2

15% Hackney; 7% Camden

44,500 persons

£23,600

15,000 new dwellings

average household income £48,300 in City of London £39,400 in Kensington and Chelsea

Density (persons/km2) 35000 30000

“There are relatively

At present, the lack of these strategies to integrate locals to the new economic growth has resulted in an average household income in the area of only £23,600 , which is relatively low compared to the City of London which is at £48,300, and to the rest of the city. This gap is envisioned to be addressed with this design project.

308,000

Density (persons/km2)

Newham:

In general, the target is still lower than the existing density of Barcelona, Paris, or New York but high enough to function similar to inner London.

In a report on East London by Renaisi (2013), a non-governmental organization, it says that soft skills and work preparation is likely needed to enable east Londoners to compete with commuters (Figure 2.15).

2011

Area (km2)

Lowest employment rate in London

According to Greater London Authority projections, Newham‟s population is due to reach 375,500 in 2031. This increase is 2.5 times greater than the London average and the 3rd highest of all London Boroughs.

An estimated 88,000 jobs will be created by the planned developments.

Ideally, the existing surrounding community will be employed. However, this does not seem to be the case as there is gap between employment and qualifications of the residents. In Newham, as much as 20% of the working age population do not have qualifications (only 7% in Camden), consequently having the lowest unemployment rate in London. With more jobs at hand especially in the Royal Docklands as developments spur in, the local community run the risk of being excluded from the new economy,

Newham* Population

*The Royal Docklands is part of the London Borough of Newham

At 2.3 people per dwelling (UK average), an additional 10,000 new homes translates to 23,000 persons on top of the 10,000 existing. The expected total by 2027 is 33,000 people. This brings the density up to 6,600 persons/km2. (from 9 to 28 dwellings/hectare). This increase in density is still considered inefficient use of land as per UK Planning Practice Guidelines, where the target is at least 30 dwellings/hectare.

Demographics

Year

few specific mechanisms to link local people to new economic growth beyond the formal education system and

mainstream employment and skills services… soft skills and work preparation is probably needed to enable east Londoners to compete with commuters.”

–Renaisi Report on East London (2013)

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Mumbai New York

Paris

Barcelona London Singapore

Hong Kong

Figure 2.15: Borough of Newham population and density (Source: www.ons.gov.uk; www.citymayors.com )

14

Site Analysis Project Analysis (Figure 2.16) The team‟s visit to the site, together with published data, has raised issues and questions that were helpful in zeroing in on the specific project proposal.

CONECTION with other developments PERMEABILITY N-S

Firstly, it was observed that the development areas in the Royal Docks are very fragmented (Figure 2.17) and have no discernible centre. Some areas seem more attractive to developers than others. In particular, no new developments are being considered for the existing North Woolwich community, hence the choice of the team to develop the area. (Figure 2.18)

HIGH STREET

Secondly, there is apparent sparseness in population density, where even in midday, the neighbourhood and the “high street” seemed like a ghost town as observed in a couple of visits. The group intends to resolve this by coming up with a project that would directly or indirectly increase the mixed-use density in the area.

MIX USE development

WATERFRONT treatments at different levels

new NODE e x t e n s i o n with FLOATING structures

N

Figure 2.16 Urban Analysis of North Woolwich.

With the developments ushering in new opportunities, little is known on the extent of involvement of the local community in the planning. It is deemed necessary that the project proposal will directly benefit the locals, especially in North Woolwich.

Lastly, published data reveals that some locals are not competent enough to take on employment responsibilities (discussed in previous page). As this will be a problem especially with all the new developments underway, The team singled out that the project should largely help enhance the skills of the community, helping them to be integrated into future enterprises.

WOOLWICH

Figure 2.17 Views of different existing boundaries in the area.

Interestingly, the site has three Listed Buildings: the North Woolwich Train Station, the Foot Tunnel entrance, and the Woolwich Pier. Aside from these, the Royal Victoria Gardens is also of historical interest. As the third strategy, the team saw it fit to make use or adaptive reuse of these structures to help keep their value, to conserve materials, and to continue to bear witness to the glorious past of the Royal Docks.

Figure 2.18 View of the jubilee pathway in North Woolwich.

15

Site Analysis

Strengths There is a concentration a historically significant structures on the site. In fact, three of them are Listed. Being on the riverside, the site has access to views, as well as to the sun and wind as needed. Just across the old Station is a vast garden that can be easily integrated into the development. It is close to the airport, DLR station, as well as the ferry service.

Weaknesses The Pier Road, which used to be the high street, fragments the development, separating the North Woolwich Station from the Royal Victoria Garden and to the river embankment. Even big trucks and trailers pass through the high street. A blank wall that serves as flood barrier along the river cuts the view from the pedestrians. The existing industrial areas west of the site also poses risk of pollution as the wind blows eastward. The City Airport close may also create noise.

RISK INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION

RENEWABLE

ENERGY:

SOLAR WIND water

DIRECT SOLAR RADIATION

DIRECT RELATION TO THE

RECUPERATION OF EXISTING

STRUCTURES

RIVER AND GREEN AREAS

51 29’ 56.42” N

Opportunities The old structures may be reused adaptively to suit a current need. The huge site also gives enough leeway to explore and use proper orientation with respect to sun and wind. Direct solar radiation may be useful as there is little obstruction. Renewable energy resource may be employed, such as sun and wind power. The river embankment can also be activated, where the programme can be integrated into the infrastructure.

Challenges Listed buildings have some limitations in terms of intervention. The riverside is also vulnerable to climate change, particularly on flooding risk.

The site slopes down from the river and a residential building is very close to the old Station.

0 3’ 47.80” E

With the North Woolwich Station as the proposed epicentre of the new development, the immediate surroundings have been surveyed to see site‟s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (Figure 2.19).

VIEWS FLOODING RISK WIND AVAILAVILITY N-W & S-W

MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE Figure 2.19 General characteristics analysis of the site.

16

3. DESIGN BRIEF

3.4 m/s 18000 lux

m/ s 2.4 m/s

1 February 2015 Mean Temperature: 4 °C Wind: 3 m/s Source_www.wunderground.com

15500 lux 15000 lux

LUX

12500 lux

1.6 m/s 10000 lux 9000 lux

1.5 m/s

11000 lux 1.4 m/s

5.2°C

5.2°C

1.1 m/s 0.8 m/s 8.8°C

°C

6°C

5.5°C 4.8°C

4.5°C

5°C

3.5°C

Figure 3.3 Site plan of spot measurements location.

1.5°C 1°C

1°C

Noise Exposure

PE T -2°C -2.5°C

A

B

C

D

F

E

G

Category

Air Traffic

Road Traffic

A

<57 dB

<55 dB

B

57-66 dB

55-63 dB

C

66-72 dB

66-72 dB

D*

>72 dB

>72 dB

*Planning Permission normally refused

Measurements taken on February 1st 2015 at 12:00 PM Figure 3.1 Spot measurements taken on site.

Site Visit and Spot Measurements On a site visit last 1 February 2015, the team did some spot measurements, as well as observe the site in terms of environmental quality. Since it was still in the winter season, it happened to be a very cold day with some showers and rather stronger winds compared to central London. As high as 3.4m/s was recorded in the measurements, which was found out to affect the temperature from 4.8°C to -2.5°C (Figures 3.1and 3.3).

86 dB 83 dB 71 dB 61 dB

61 dB

58 dB

55 dB 50 dB

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Measurements taken on February 1st 2015 at 12:00 PM Figure 3.2 Noise spot measurements taken on site.

A lower wind speed is recorded in front of the Railway Station and likewise, the same spot registered the highest air temperature (at 8.8 °C) among the different points. The assumption is that the building is blocking the wind and at the same time, has thermal mass that influences the mean radiant temperature.

With a sound meter in hand, the group also checked the different spots.

According to the Royal Docklands report, the site where the Old Railway Station is lies within Category B noise exposure relative to the City Airport noise, which makes it still ideal for development. In the spot measurements however, it is found out that what could possibly cause unwanted noise are the vehicles passing by. Case in point is Spot C, where from 61dB, a passing car raised it to 83dB (Figure 3.2), which is already considered noisy (Category D). This won‟t pose much problem, unless the site has noise-sensitive establishments such as libraries.

Without the vehicles, noise exposure is within the region of 50-61 dB, which are very tolerable levels.

17

To help the group in approaching the design, key learnings from Term 1 project (AA School of Architecture Figure 3.4) are reviewed to see their applicability to the project. Figure 3.5 illustrates them.

Workshop

Views

One side windows

SED/EMTECH Studio

AC and COâ&#x201A;&#x201A; concentrations

Reading Tables/Silent Work

Deep Plan

Lastly, the SED and EmTech Studios taught the group that deep plans, even if dual-aspect, creates a dark zone at the centre which will need to be artificially illuminated at more times. For this project, it is ideal to create more passive zones to help reduce energy consumption. As for the use of air conditioner, it was found out that aside from consuming a lot of electricity, it also does not maintain good air quality, as attested by the groupâ&#x20AC;&#x;s CO2 experiment showing higher concentrations when air conditioned than when naturally ventilated.

AA Library

Noise proof

Rear Second Presentation Room The Rear Second Presentation Room can be compared with the proposed workshops. What was learned from this space is that having dual aspect is ideal in terms of achieving good daylight for many of the occupied hours. It is also very good for cross ventilation. Lastly, having an open plan is regarded as ideal to ensure the robustness of the space in accommodating many other uses.

The AA Library learnings will be applied to the proposed reading areas or areas for silent work. Here, it was learned that having daylight from one side of the space only may not be enough to achieve illumination standards (300-500 lux). However, it was also revealed to the group that occupants can be comfortable at values below the standards, especially if it can be compensated with good views to the exterior. Furthermore, it has been learned that unwanted noise shall continue to be minimized.

Open plan and cross ventilation

Double side windows

Term 1 Leanings

Lecture Classroom

Figure 3.4 Pictures of the three different sites studied during Term 1.

Figure 3.5 Schematic charts representing the learnings from term 1.

18

Location

Figure 3.6 Section explaining the existing conditions of the Railway Station and the team proposal.

The site is in North Woolwich, Royal Docklands, London Borough of Newham. The goal is create an environmentally responsive design that will draw people back to the deserted area in front of the Old Railway Station and adjacent to the park and the wall. More importantly, the site shall remain porous to the existing community, as well as the future communities.

Building Typology As a result of the conditions and demographics of the site, a Community Centre is being proposed as a catalyst for community development, directly influencing and sustaining the interest in education by the people in the area.

Site Strategy A general redevelopment of the site is called for, weaving together the three key elements of the project: the site, the Old Railway Station, and the wall. Reuse of existing available materials is ideal.

Building Strategy

Figure 3.7 Section explaining the existing conditions of the Thames barrier and the team proposal.

Given the site conditions, the single biggest intervention with the high likelihood of impact is the dissolving of boundaries. The main highlight of the site is a closed and impenetrable Railway Station (Figure 3.6) which happens to be a Listed Building. One of the best ways to preserve a heritage building is to use it so it is assumed that opening it up again for whatever good purpose it may serve can help the building last for several more years or even decades.

Contributing much to the inactivity of the area is the wall (Figure 3.7) that coldly accompanies the pedestrian and shuts off view to the River Thames. Making the wall more useful and â&#x20AC;&#x17E;humanâ&#x20AC;&#x; can be taken advantage of.

19

WHY CONTAINERS?

Figure 3.8 Diagrams explaining the use of containers in the project.

For this wall, the use of shipping containers is endeavoured to be studied as a modular building system on the assumption that they can provide „sustainable‟ solutions to the needs of the programme. Why containers? Containers as a prefab building component in architectural design bring efficiency, flexibility and affordability to innovative constructions. A container provides a base element that can be converted, reused, recycled and upcycled, thus assisting in reducing the embodied energy of buildings, which is lower in comparison to other building materials as the unit has already been used for other purposes – possibly for a number of years, whereas normal building components and materials are typically a first use. Afterwards, containers can still be transformed and passed down again. Containers are inherently wellperforming in terms of structural strength. They can be easily stacked to many levels and they are made to be weather-proof, fire-proof, insectproof and even earthquake-proof (Figure 3.8).

In London, it is available at a very close distance of 20 kilometres (at the Tilbury Docks area), and at very low costs (£1000-£1270). It has already been weathered, making it hurricane, flood, earthquake and fire-proof. It is twice as solid structurally as that required by common building codes.

This can also help incorporating passive security in an above-ground structure, and due to the location of the project, becomes a very helpful aspect. In addition it gives a modular standard to work with, it is easy to move – usually done by boat, taking advantage of the closeness to the river and the container facilities, decreasing the transport footprint from 3.9kg of CO2e per journey in a common vehicle, to 0.7 CO2e.

Noteworthy is one of the most common reasons to work with containers – the fact that is very fast to build using them, supposedly reducing significantly construction time and costs. (Figure 3.9)

Figure 3.9 Examples of container projects.

20

19120

15141

3656

7023 65.96% Economically active employee

39.73% Economically inactive or unemployed North Woolwich

Occupants The design is intended primarily for the existing members of the community, particularly to the economically inactive residents in the area.

This creates a range of end-users which include out-of-school youth, the unemployed and the elderly. It is projected that the density will significantly increase by the year 2050, with population growing by as much as 2.5 times. The age group with the highest growth is from 40-60+.

It is important that they remain active and integrated into the community and future business enterprises of the Royal Docklands. (Figure 3.10)

Figure 3.10 Analysis of North Woolwich inhabitants. (Source: GLA Intelligence 2012)

21

Figure 3.11 Analysis of North Woolwich inhabitants. (Source: GLA Intelligence 2012)

Figure 3.12 Analysis of North Woolwich inhabitants. (Source: GLA Intelligence 2012)

Programme Priority Based on the target occupants and projected number of population, the size of the learning centre and related services are determined. As it would be too big to design a space to accommodate for 2050 population projection, it is decided that the programme should accommodate population projection for up to 2030 only, after which extensions may be made as necessary. Educational (Library and Workshops), services and open spaces shall form part of the design proposal, bearing in mind that they be linked to retail and housing in the future (Figure 3.11).

Given the possibility of the number of spaces that can be studied, a prioritization exercise was made to determine which spaces are most important in terms of providing environmental comfort (Figure 3.12). After considering the importance of views, orientation, daylight, noise and temperature in each of the spaces, it was determined that the reading areas, the workshops and computer labs, as well as the cafeteria, should be given more attention.

22

Table 3.1.1 CIBSE Guide A daylight setpoints.

-Blackbird Leys Community Centre Energy Consumption: 100 KWh/m²/yr

3-East Oxford Community Centre Energy Consumption: 69 KWh/m²/yr

Activity

Illiminance (Lux)

Minimmun Daylight Factor %

Teaching and Seminar spaces

300-500

2

Studios

300-500

2

300

Computer room Libraries - stacks Libraries-reading

4-Headington Community Centre Energy Consumption: 29 KWh/m²/yr

5

300-500

Offices

Average Daylight Factor %

300-500 300-500

2.5

5

1

5

-

4

1

3

1.5

6

Restaurant

50-200

-

-

Exhibition _ gallery

300-500

1

5

Performance Indicators Source_ CIBSE guide A, Nick Baker Daylight design of buildings

Targets Table 3.1.2 Benchmarks for Community Centres, and the different spaces used in the project.

5-Buillingdon Community Centre Energy Consumption: 16 KWh/m²/yr

7-College Lake Visitor Centre Energy Consumption: 97 KWh/m²/yr

9-Angmering Community Centre Energy Consumption: 49 KWh/m²/yr

Benchmarks for Community Centres: Energy Consumption Target (actionenergy.Gob.uk) Heat Load Target 15 KWh/m²/yr (PASSIVEHAUS standard)

51 KWh/m²/yr

Benchmarks for Libraries:

46 KWh/m²/yr

Benchmarks for Workshops:

29 KWh/m²/yr

Schools Academic/Arts

67 KWh/m²/yr

Restaurant/Café

137 KWh/m²/yr

Source_actionenergy.Gob.uk Good practice

To gauge the project in terms of performance, data from Action Energy served as guide in showing the good-practice energy consumption of a community centre, which is at 51 KWh/m2/yr. To be more specific, the individual spaces of the project were also looked at as reference: 46 KWh/m2/yr for libraries, 29 KWh/m2/yr for workshops, 67 KWh/m2/year for schools, and 137 KWh/m2/yr for restaurants or cafes. (Table 3.1.1) As the design development continues, results shall be compared to these values.

Benchmark Projects Existing community centres in the UK show that the performance targetis achievable, as seen in Figure 3.13. Some are even going lower than 51 KWh/m2/yr, such as the Angmering Community Centre with an energy consumption of 49 KWh/m2/yr, the Headington Community Centre at 29 KWh/m2/yr, and the Buillingdon Community Centre at 16 KWh/m2/yr. These precedents are to be seen as good models for the project.

Figure 3.13 Different Community Centres in the UK, and their Energy Consumptions.

23

24

4. DESIGN PROPOSAL

The Old Railway Station is to house a restaurant/cafe at the first floor. Acting as the dining room of the community, the space is unique because of being in a Victorian building and because at the first floor, there are nicer views to the River, to the Royal Victoria Gardens, and to the proposed linear park at the rear of the station using old tracks. The ground floor, however, shall be opened and kept permeable, acting as a covered outdoor area that continues the flow of people towards the different locators at the site. + The Wall is given a new life by attaching a programme into it while still managing to delay the impact of flooding. Attached to the wall are the corridors or circulation spaces and from which, modules shall be attached to serve different functions. The wall-corridor acts as a source of energy (renewable) and supply to services where the different modules can just be plugged into them, according to the needs of the community, be it a library, a classroom, or a computer lab. + The Outdoor Plaza extends the open spaces into one contiguous park, blending together and connecting the Royal Victoria Gardens, the linear park, the activated wall, and the refurbished Railway Station. The plaza shall remain a flexible space to accommodate diverse community activities and to help improve the environmental quality of the Railway Station and the wall modules. Moreover, the Pier structure, which is also Listed, shall be converted into an outdoor cafe, creating a good respite to occupants or even just passers-by.

Figure 3.14 Schematic graph showing the general design approach of the project.

25

26

27

9.3m

Base Case

Figure 4.1 Schematic design of the North Woolwich Railway Station.

The initial daylight analysis was based on understanding the general performance of the building (Figure 4.1). With the illuminance simulations (Figure 4.2) for the different periods of the year and based on the learnings from the study of the Term 1 buildings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the AA Georgian houses, the team expected and confirmed that the daylight distribution was not going to be even. The spaces near the windows (Figure 4.3) are likely to be brighter than the center. But, in general, because the two main facades were oriented Northeast and Southwest, morning and afternoon sun could penetrate most of the time and general levels of daylight were achieved.

Early in the process and in line with the urban strategies, the ground floor was thought as an outdoor space that is multi-purpose. In that sense there was concern about the daylight availability on the ground floor. At the first floor, on the contrary, because the group did not want to change the façade as the building is grade II listed, the program placed here had to be not very demanding on uniformity levels. The placement of the restaurant as a main attraction for the whole family and North Woolwich community, and as complementary service of the community centre, could work perfectly.

TRAIN STATION W/F

Mean DF

first

28%

4.07%

ground

24%

5.18%

4.4m

4.4m

12m

24m

x) Figure 4.2 Base Case Daylight analysis of the Railway Station in Radiance.

Figure 4.3 North Woolwich Railway Station in measures.

28

Base Case

Masonry structure, not insulated, high thermal mass - good for summer but cold in winter

Table 4.1.1 Railway Station dimensions and u-values.

RAILWAY STATION GROUND FLOOR AREA

U VALUE

VOLUME

1071.32m3

-

MASONRY WALLS

287.73m2

1.061

SINGLE G.WINDOW

47.07m2

5.68

CONCRETE FLOOR

243m2

1.40

RAILWAY STATION FIRST FLOOR

Figure 4.4 Base Case EDSL TAS analysis of the Railway Station.

As learned in the Term 1 Project, masonry buildings that were built several years ago tend to perform, if not equal, very similar to the outdoors. Especially in this case where the space is not deep but has several openings on its four sides. And because the location is closed, and the team was not able to go inside or get architectural data, it was assumed the structure as an un-insulated envelope, without internal partitions. When calibrating with MINT for the average outdoor London temperature of 12째C, the indoor one was 13.2째C with a swing of 1.25K and for summer temperatures of around 20째C, the indoor temperature could rise to 25째C.

AREA

U VALUE

VOLUME

756.81m3

-

SINGLE G.WINDOW

50.88m2

5.68

MASONRY WALLS

316.96m2

1.061

172m2

1.401

220.72m2

3.21

CONCRETE FLOOR

CONRETE ROOF

29

N

ground floor window to floor ratio: 21%

Figure 4.5 Dalylight analysis of the Railway Station with a different window to floor ratio in the ground floor, and program applied on the first floor.

first floor

Table 4.1.2 Railway Station data.

67.74%

TRAIN STATION <100

ground floor 72.4%

0

20

W/F

Mean DF

first

29%

3.99%

ground

33%

5.86%

100-2000

40

>2000

60

80

100

UDI_ 8AM-6PM Figure 4.6 UDI analysis of the Railway Station.

For the final design proposal (Figure 4.7), some last simulations were carried out to ensure the daylight performance was enough for the program designed (Figure 4.5). The target established by the CIBSE Guide A for restaurants suggests a mean illuminance of 50-200 luxes. A useful daylight illuminance (UDI) analysis was done to ensure that on the first floor, said levels were achieved and that there was less need of hours with artificial lighting. The result showed that for almost 70% of the occupied time, between 8am and 6pm, daylight levels between 100-2000 luxes were achieved (Figure 4.6), which was satisfactory for the proposal. The daylight autonomy for 100-lux target during this same period was of 88% of the time. This confirmed the idea that the space was suitable for a restaurant. Daylight factor of 3.99% is also satisfactory. (Table 4.1.2) For the ground floor further thermal and daylight explorations were done as part of the proposal for the outdoor spaces.

ground floor window to floor ratio: 33%

Figure 4.7 The main strategy for the ground floor of the trains station building was to bring all windows down and create and arcade that could bring more light in and connect the main plaza with the park in the back.

30

FIRST FLOOR 20 CMS INSULATION WALL U-VALUE= 0.25 W/m²K

Figure 4.8 EDSL TAS analysis of the Railway Station with new window to floor ratio and program applied.

By considering the envelope as insulated and changing the windows to better performing ones (Figure 4.9), the development of the internal temperatures improved in a considerable way, especially by already applying the internal gains that correspond to the assigned program of Restaurant/Café.

By considering a minimum occupancy of 2 people in some moments of the day, and a maximum of 45 in peak hours from 9 am to 10 am, 1 pm to 3 pm and 7 pm to 8 pm, we can see how these inputs directly influence the graphs. Even when the performance improved, due to intermittent occupation, it is seen that heating is going to be required, especially in early morning hours. (Figure 4.8)

DOUBLE GLAZING ARGON FILLED LOW E U-VALUE= 1.65 W/m²K Figure 4.9 Schematic design showing the changes applied to the Railway Station.

31

79%

20%

1%

No mechanical means required Overheating Heating (Thermostat Set point 18째C) Figure 4.10 Graph showing the thermal performance of the space in percentage of occupied hours.

N

Figure 4.11 Plans and sections of the final layout of the Railway Station.

Figure 4.12 Render images of the final layout of the Railway Station.

32

1

THE WALL

Findings by doing spot measurements on site and the wind analysis showed that walking along the wall can be very windy; up to 3m/s were measured on the visit. The containers were moved to provide a wider section of wind protection for people passing by.

Between the fist proposal (Figure 4.13 to 4.15) until the final arrangement as shown in Figure 4.15 the area perpendicular to the water front with winds between 0-1m/s was increased as desired. Figure 4.17 though shows that a wind tunnel between the wall and the train station was created. This problem was addressed in the treatment of the outdoor spaces and the last simulations done with the complete design of the building and the landscaping.

Figure 4.13 Evolution of the design of the wall.

2

Figure 4.16 Wind studies of the confguration of the wall. Source Ecotect.

At the same time, modules were overlapped 2 meters to create the internal and main corridor. The creation of patios or small plazas in both sides of the wall was desired, to bring life to the space in different spaces.

Figure 4.14 Evolution of the design of the wall.

3 2.0m

2.0m

When overlapping the containers the main target in mind, was to modify the least amount of sides of each container. As a starting rule, only one of the sides are to be removed. The diagram in Figure 4.18 shows in red the surfaces to be removed.

2.0m

The creation of a corridor in the inside was achieved, but the patios created are too small and will be mostly overshadowed all time of the year, making them not a desirable place as shown in Figure 4.17.

Figure 4.15 Evolution of the design of the wall.

Figure 4.17 Wind studies of the confguration of the wall. Source Ecotect.

34

4 .

8.0m

june

5 september

Bigger and diverse patios are created on both sides of the wall by placing two 20‟ container together and one overlapping. To minimize waste and energy in transformation, one 40‟ container was used to create the longer section instead. Figure 4.18.

Shadow analyses were done to understand the sun availability on the patios created to the south, Figure 4.20. Because of the location, and having in mind the corridors were going to be opened to the south to see the view to the river, .the need of shading devices on the glazed facades was required.

Figure 4.18 Basic wall module configuration.

The connection north-south, from the train station to the waterfront was created by displacing the containers, leaving enough space to circulate in the interior but following the same strategy as that with the basic modules as shown in 4.19 and 4.21.

december Figure 4.20 Overshadowing on patios. Source Ecotect

6

south

Figure 4.19 Evolution of the design of the wall.

The wall is to be opened to the south only in the longer section, the 40‟ container, and to the north on the shorter section, the 20‟ container, of each repetitive module for the creation of the internal circulation. This way, the view to the river is being assigned in its largest opening. Figure 4.19.

Figure 4.21 Connection north south of the wall.

35

9

SHADINGS FOR OUTDOOR PATIO

SHADINGS FOR INDOOR PATIO

With the creation of the indoor patios as covered expansions of the circulations the glazed faรงade was moved to the front. An horizontal shading device was designed in order to stop the direct sun in the summer periods' but letting it in the winter one to welcome the solar heat in into creating a comfortable space to read or seat to appreciate the view.

9:00am

The need of a shading device for the southern faรงade was seen in order to prevent unwanted solar gains in summer but letting in direct solar radiation on winter. The figure 4.22 shows how the shading device works. The structure was also designed also to be sloped to support solar panels.

15:00pm

12:00pm

The design was thought to have a wave form to create different shadow patterns in the inside of the circulation path.

june 21

december 21

june 21

december 21

Figure 4.22 Shadow study for shadings on patios. Ecotect.

36

B. CLASSROOMS geometry

1

As studied in the Term 1 project, school classrooms are best oriented to the north in London, being illuminated mainly with diffuse light and not with large opening to the south as they have high internal gains from occupancy. Southern light is wanted in smaller amount and controlled to even the distribution on the other side of the classroom.

1+1

Figure 4.23 shows the evolution of the design process to define the basic classroom space.

orientation and size

2

The same rule apply with the basic corridor module, only one side of the container were to be removed. By placing the two containers perpendicular to the wall to connect them and having the doors opened to the north a space on the center was left to complete perfectly the module. Figure 4.24.

This â&#x20AC;&#x153;additional spaceâ&#x20AC;? or piece was then developed to create the entrance to the space form the main circulation on the inside, to place a roof light and to create a connection between the two containers. This new element helped to seal space with no infiltration in the joints..

Figure 4.24 . Configuration of the Base case module.

The roof light will help us bring in light to the back part of the space and even the distribution of daylight inside. But in order to achieve a good performance a protection was designed in order to prevent direct light coming in but with out compromising the minimum requirements needed.

3 access and daylight

Combining spaces

connecting

Also, with the design of the roof light, cross ventilation for the space was accomplished. Bringing fresh air from the outside form the northern windows and taking exhaust air trough opening on the roof out.

For the design one piece of the removed walls was used. The piece had the steel finish towards the outside with insulation and a plaster reflective finish towards the inside.

Figure 4.23 Configuration of the basic workshop module.

37

7 BASE CASE

2.591m N ONLY NORTH OPENINGS Mean DF% 7.72% UNIFORMITY RATIO: 0.24

The three roof light presented on the where the ones selected as showed the best performance and required less modification to the piece.

floor to ceiling height: 2.3:1

Figure 4.26: Daylight factor base case analysis on Radiance.

window to floor ratio:

MEAN DF% AND UNIFORMITY RATIO

42% One small side: window area 100%

For the design of the roof light, as mentioned the idea was to use one of the walls removed from the containers to create a new space. Having that premise as a base, and to minimize waste; different roof lights where tested.

The target was to even the light coming in to lower the contrast between the window side and the back part of the space. An uniformity level between 0.3 and 0.4 was desired as a target, as it is stated on de BB90 for school buildings. (Figure 4.26) From Term 1 learnings and in the process of testing different roof lights, improvements were done to increase the daylight performance in winter where there are lower outdoor illuminance levels. The figure 4.27 shows the difference performance of the three models chosen at the end of the process compared to the base case without light coming from the roof.

The main target was also not to have an average DF lower than 4% but close to 6% in all cases as it was the highest target needed for reading spaces, and a minimum of 2.5%, based on the benchmarks presented in chapter 2. Figure 4.25 shows the distribution of the DF in the depth of the classroom being module C the best case in terms of daylight uniformity.

WINTER DIFERENCE DAYLIGHT LEVELS A

DF%_ 6.32 U.R: 0.32

8

70LUX

26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 DF% 0

DF%_ 6.74 U.R: 0.30

B

DF%_ 7.73 U.R: 0.33 170LUX

0 window

6m meters BASE CASE

A

B

C

C

Figure 4.25. Daylight factor comparison chart on depth of the module. EXCEL.

Figure 4.27: Daylight factor base case analysis on Randiance.

38

ADAPTABILITY_ WINDOW to FLOOR RATIO FROM 43% TO 27%

A

B

C

CLEAR SKY WITH SUN _ 06.21.15PM Figure 4.28. Roof lights dimensions.

Figure 4.29: Illuminance with RADIANCE showing the effect of closing the two doors in the different spaces proposed.

CONTAINERS DOORS PART CLOSED

UDI_ 8AM-6PM

CONTAINERS DOOR OPENED C

65.77%

B

72.69%

A

51.16%

BC

<100 100-2000 >2000

71.49% 0

20

40

60

80

100

C

68.89%

B

78.04%

A

60.21%

BC

71.49%

<100 100-2000 >2000

0

20

40

60

80

Figure 4.28 shows the final dimensions for the roof lights. Even though they were sized in order not to created unwanted sun patches that could cause discomfort inside, the illuminance levels on sunny days could create a very high contrast between the side near the windows an the back part. That‟s why the idea of using the doors of the container semi – closed (closing 2 of four) was tested among others, and being the most effective as it permitted change over time with out fixing a wall to change the window ratio. The target was to lower the illuminance values near the window without compromising the performance established for the different type of spaces needed on the community center, as specified in the next pages. Figure 4.29 shows the satisfactory effects of changing the window to floor ratio from 43% to 27% on a sunny day.

As shown in Figure 4.30, the Useful daylight illuminances (between 100-2000luxes) is generally increased as the values mostly on the rage above 2000 are brought on the “useful range “ when closing the doors.

100

Figure 4.30 : UDI for different module using RADIANCE + EXCEL

39

A

Computer Lab

+

+

Once checked, the general performance of the options and having in mind the spaces needed the three option were assigned. A last confirmation was done with the targets for the different uses, to check that the mean DF% and the uniformity level needed. Comparison of the two different scenarios for each type of roof light was done.

COMPUTER LABS TARGET: AVERAGE DF %: 4% MEAN ILLUMINACE: 300 LUX Source: CIBSE guide A

DOOR OPENED

DF: 6.32% U.R: 0.30

Module A was chosen for the space that had less mean daylight requirements, the computer lab. Term 1 learnings from observing and interviewing users of the library showed that people are comfortable with lower illuminance levels when working with a self-lit screen. High or direct light could cause glare in the computer and cause discomfort. A target of 4% mean Daylight factor was wanted and achieved in both cases, with the doors opened and part closed as shown in Figure 4.31.

OPENED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | mean illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

window to floor ratio 43% to 27%

661 469 894 121 247 131

PART CLOSED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | mean illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

491 330 631 92 195 100

DF: 4.38% U.R: 0.29 Figure 4.31: Daylight factor computer lab analysis on Radiance.

DOORS PART CLOSED

40

B

+

+ TEACHING â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SEMINAR - STUDIO TARGET: AVERAGE DF %: 2-5% MEAN ILLUMINACE: 300 LUX Source: CIBSE guide A

DF: 6.74% U.R: 0.30

Module B was assigned for the workshop spaces. A target of 5% as a mean daylight factor was desired and achieved. The opportunity of closing the two central doors was also tested and even though it lowers a DF% of 4.84 is maintained.

Figure 4.32 shows that simulations with a intermediate sky lower mean illuminance than 300lux could happen having the need of artificial light during some parts of the day in this period. From Term 1 learnings from visiting the different spaces of the AA School of architecture, showed that illuminance around 100lux were enough to work, so the use of it could vary a lot from user to user.

DOOR OPENED

window to floor ratio 43% to 27% OPENED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

845 531 868 139 288 135

DF: 4.84% U.R: 0.29 DOORS PART CLOSED

PART CLOSED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | | illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

48 325 517 88 172 83

Figure 4.32: Daylight factor workshop analysis on Randiance.

41

C

+

+ LIBRARY READING TARGET: AVERAGE DF %: 6% MEAN ILLUMINACE: 300 LUX Source: CIBSE guide A Module C was the best option for the reading and classroom spaces because the uniformity levels were the higher. The target of a 6% of daylight factor was achieved but only when the space had all the north doors opened. For sunny days though, the two central doors can be closed to lower the illuminance contrast with the outside without compromising the illuminance levels as seen in Figure 4.33.

DF% 7.73% U.R: 0.32

DOOR OPENED

OPENED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

892 605 882 151 307 136

window to floor ratio 43% to 27%

PART CLOSED

INTERMEDIATE SKY | | illuminance (lux)

SUMMER WINTER

06/21/09 06/21/12 06/21/15 12/21/09 12/21/12 12/21/15

680 426 670 112 206 93

DF% 4.86 U.R: 0.33 Figure 4.33. Daylight factor classroom analysis on Randiance.

DOORS PART CLOSED 42

GROUND FLOOR

LIBRARY STOCK TARGET: AVERAGE DF %: 3% CIBSE GUIDE A

+ TWO LEVEL MODULE

DF% 5.94% U.R: 0.3

DF% 7.0% U.R: 0.34

The ground floor of a two-level space was also tested. In this case, the book stacks were to be placed here and the reading and silent work with books or computers in the first floor. The idea was that the stair placed on the center was the lighter possible to bring some light form the roof in the first floor.

DOOR OPENED

Book stacks do not require a higher performance compared to the other spaces, and do block a lot of the light with the furniture they need, but if the space were to change its use, it still has to perform well. The mean DF% varied between 5.94% and 4.18% for the ground floor and 7% to 4.61%, as shown in figure 4.34.

window to floor ratio 43% to 27%

The first floor tested in its two remaining parts performed equally satisfactory as the space tested for classrooms and silent work.

DF% 4.18% U.R: 0.26

DOORS PART CLOSED

DF% 4.61% U.R: 0.34

Figure 4.34: Daylight factor book stacks analysis on Radiance.

43

BASE CASE

2.591m

U-values Roof – 7.14 W/m²k Walls – 6.5 W/m²K

The container in itself has a very poor thermal performance, following very closely the outdoors during winter, and having very high temperatures during summer, way above than the outdoor due to the high solar radiation absorptance of the corrugated steel, reaching up to 40°C. Because of this thermal property of the steel, the group was unable to do the initial analysis with the Mean Indoor Temperature tool (MINT) which does not account this fact.

The initial results obtained in EDSL TAS (Figure 4.35) were very similar to our preliminary hypothesis and different approaches had to be taken in following parametric studies.

Figure 4.35: Summer and Winter selected weeks thermal analysis EDSL TAS.

44

OPTIONS FOR UNDERGROUND:

INNER PLASTER 1

WEATHERED STEEL 6.5 W/m²K

-CORTEN STEEL CONTAINERS (Performing as plain carbon .07 to 1 mm in 6 penetration in 6 years) -GALVANIZED CONTAINERS (15 micras per year fo the first two years, then 4 micras of penetration up To 75 years) -DISSCO 590 MASTIC COATING ( underground pipe coating)

DOUBLE GLAZING ARGON FILLED - LOW E 1.6 W/m²K

2

INNER INSULATION (15 CMS ROCKWOOL) 0.25 W/m²K

UNDERGROUND (EARTH BERM IN CLOSED FACES) INNER INSULATION (15 CMS ROCKWOOL)

INNER PHASE CHANGE MATERIAL (ENERGAIN)

3

After veryfing that the freight container envelope has a considerably poor thermal performance, it was decided to apply an inner layer of 15 cms Rockwool insulation.

INNER PLASTER INNER PHASE CHANGE MATERIAL INNER INSULATION WEATHERED STEEL (MICRO PERFORATIONS TO PREVENT CONDENSATION)

4

In a second stage study the idea of locating an earth berm surrounding the closed faces of the modules could help not only for thermal, but also for noise control.

In a third stage, the consideration of implementing a phase change material inside the modules with high internal gains was introduced. This could help us to stabilize inside temperatures and prevent overheating.

Because of the type of insulation used, and the location of the project, concerns about moist problems emerged. The solution assumed was to make micro perforations in the corrugated steel layer to allow ventilation into the inner chambers. (Figure 4.36).

Figure 4.36: Wall layers for thermal analysis.

45

+

The workshop module, in this case, specifically the cooking workshop, was decided to be located in the park side of the project, provided with the earth berm.

Morning and afternoon classes are being considered, with occupancy from 2 to 12 people.

Although the high internal gains that a place like this can provide, the lunch break in the middle of the day produces intermittent gains and allows the space to lose heat easily.

Which is why several heating hours are required during the year (Figure 4.38). Still almost 70% of the occupied hours are without the need of mechanical systems (Figure 4.37).

66.2%

32.5%

0.3%

% Total occupied hours a year

No mechanical means required Heating Overheating Figure 4.37. Synthesis graph of thermal performance.

Figure 4.38: Summer and Winter selected weeks thermal analysis of workshop EDSL TAS.

46

+

The Book stack area is the lowest internal gains module, which is reflected in its closely following the outside temperatures throughout the year. (Figure 4.39).

But as a result of the Term 1 learnings, it has been learned that these places require to be in a much colder temperature than the comfort band established for occupancy. When it is in a mixed area, meaning that the reading tables are adjacent to the bookcases, the minimum temperature required for human beings is the acceptable for books too (18째C). In the case of being separated, a lower inner temperature could be accepted.

Still in this project the first case was assumed and the space requires heating loads in 37% of the occupied hours, to maintain it ready for transient occupancy. (Figure 4.40)

% Total occupied hours a year

62%

37.5%

No mechanical means required Heating Overheating Figure 4.39: Summer and Winter selected weeks thermal analysis of book stack EDSL TAS.

Figure 4.40. Synthesis graph of thermal performance.

.5%

+

The classroom module was designed considering a top occupancy of 12 people. In contemporary schools, specially for teenagers and adults it is important to consider that this type of occupancy will be using Laptop Computers for their clases. This amount of internal gains is a key factor (Figure 4.42) in maintaining comfort in mild and winter months.

(Figure 4.41) The north side windows were considered to be openable in a factor of 0.5; and to perform together with the rooflight apertures producing stack effect ventilation in the space, opening when the internal temperature reaches 24째C; providing temperatures within the comfort band in summer.

23%

76%

1%

% Total occupied hours a year

No mechanical means required Heating Overheating Figure 4.41. Synthesis graph of thermal performance.

Figure 4.42: Summer and Winter selected weeks thermal analysis of classroom EDSL TAS.

48

+

The computer lab module is the one with the highest input of internal gains in the project. Accounting 12 desktop computers, continuosly running throughout the day makes a big difference. (Figure 4.43) Even in winter the internal temperature of the space sometimes pasess the top limit of the Winter comfort band; and to a great extent can maintain during night hours in aceptable temperatures.

In summer by appropiate use of adaptive opportunity and stack effect, temperatures can be preserved inside the comfort band (Figure 4.44).This reassures our initial decision of the specific rooflight for this space, preventing unwanted extra solar gains.

98.8%

0.7% 0.5% % Total occupied hours a year

Figure 4.43: Summer and Winter selected weeks thermal analysis of computer lab EDSL TAS.

No mechanical means required Heating Overheating Figure 4.44. Synthesis graph of thermal performance.

The four different envelope cases were applied and studied in the four different project modules.

1-Base case, with the original weathered Steel walls, 2Adding 15 cms of insulation, 3-15 cms of insulation + phase change material and 4-15 cms of insulation + underground.

In the first case the spaces ended up requiring very high loads of heating, analysed with the least amount of occupancy achieving 151 KWh/m²/yr , and even tough when full internal gains possible were applied we were still far from hour target with 36 KWh/m²/yr.

When insulation was applied (Case 2) we were able to see our general heat loads cut in half for unoccupied or very low occupancy, and even more improvement in the cases where internal gains vere applied.

In case 3, we used EDSL TAS ENERGAIN plug in all of our spaces. In the resultst we could clearly see that when applied in areas with intermittent or low internal gains;like the book stack areas, the corridors and the services; it had a negative effect, requiring extra heat loads.

But for the three spaces with higher inputs of internal gains (Lecture module, workshop module and computer lab), it helped to lower the heat loads even further. Alltough for the cooking workshop it was decided to not use it, being already underground, it will be too much of an intervention.

Figure 4.45:Comparison between different possible envelopes with extreme situations.

ANNUAL HEAT LOADS MODULE THERMOSTAT SET POINT 18°c CORRIDOR THERMOSTAT SET POINT 15°c

Figure 4.45, shows the extremes of our results (corridors and computer labs) being the two spaces with the least and the most ammount of internal gains, to compare their performances.

In Figure 4.46 we can see the final results for each individual module. Heat loads having a variation between 1 and 12 KWh/m./yr, and energy consumption between 19 KWh/m./yr in the book stack module where no equipment was considered and 168 KWh/m./yr with 12 desktop computers working throughout the whole working hours. .

Figure 4.46: Heat load and energy consumption results for the four different modules in the project.

50

6. CONCLUSIONS It can be seen in Figure 4.47 that although the base envelope of the modules in the project is almost equal, the important differences are represented by the internal gains input, especially equipment and occupancy.

The almost same module depending on its program assigned can have heat loads from 1 to 12 KWh/m./yr which in general are considered a very good result if compered with the initial target of 15 KWh/m./yr established. In the case of Energy Consumption the values can fluctuate from 37 to 168 KWh/m./yr which are very apart from each other. Even though, in the case of the Book stack module, lecture module and in the Railway station restaurant better results are being achieved than the ones set by good practice benchmarks (Figure 4.48).

Figure 4.48: Final data obtained for the entire project (Wall + Railway station)

In the case of the Workshop and the computer lab module the results are above the expected target, being in a small area and having considerably high equipment internal gains.

When analyzed as a whole a better balance is reached, accounting corridors and services modules; coming to better results for a Community Centre compared to the benchmarks initially mentioned.

(Figure 4.49)

Figure 4.49: Comparison between initially considered benchmarks and actual obtained results in the project.

Illiminanc e (Lux)

Minimmun Daylight Factor %

Teaching and Seminar spaces

300-500

2

Studios

300-500

2.5

5

6.74

-

4

6.32

1

3

5.94

1.5

6

7.7

-

-

Activity

Computer room

300

Libraries stacks

300-500

Librariesreading

300-500

Restaurant

50-200

Average Daylight Factor %

WALLWICH DF%

5

7.7

2

In terms of daylight good results where achieved too. The mean daylight factors target were reached, to include variations in the design explorations of roof light gave opportunities of performance too. Adaptive opportunities were tested using the doors of the containers as ways of reducing the window to floor ratio to variety the amount of daylight depending on the sky conditions available. Further targets of uniformity levels were also tested to provide better conditions for learning spaces carefully thought not to generate discomfort. During the winter the 300lux average illuminance is not achieved in most of the cases during the morning and afternoon, and could be a step further to explore.

Challenging the design opportunities with the container gave us the opportunity to explore several daylight designs different to the ones learned from prescedents. North facing workshops were done but because we didnt want to invest a lot of more energy transforming the containers, rooflight with controlled light coming from the west and east were explored to replace the southern clerestories that in early stages showed very good results. Further experiments could be done to have better results in both the thermal and daylight performances..

Figure 4.47: Internal gains and results comparison of the different spaces in the project.

51

Figure 4.50: Plans of the different layout of the modules.

-The computer lab module was designed as an open space of 35m² for a maximum of 12 students distributed in double tables to encourage the work in pairs, oriented to one side of the room facing the teacher, next to a board.

The workshop module was designed as an open space of 35m² for a maximum of 12 students distributed around tables organized in a linear scheme in the middle of the room to encourage the team work for programmes like cooking, art and crafts, carpentry or painting lessons.

(Figures 4.50 to 4.52)

(Figures 4.50 to 4.52)

The standar classroom module was designed as an open space of 35m² for a maximum of 12 students distributed in individual tables, oriented to one side of the room facing the teacher, next to a board.

The main difference is in the rooflight, which was designed to help to have a better light distribution inside the room.

Figure 4.51: Sections of the different layout of the modules.

Figure 4.52 Interior views of the different layout of the modules.

52

LIBRARY SILENT WORK

Figure 4.53 Plans and section of the double container layout.

Figure 4.54 Internal views of the double container layout.

The library module has 70m², was designed for a maximum of 24 students distributed in two levels connected by a stair in the middle of the space, the ground floor is a bookstock and on the frist floor an open space for silent work. (Figures 4.53 and 4.54)

53

Having the circulation module defined, and workshop space defined other pieces such as stairs, services and connecting modules were designed to complete the modular system. Figure 4.55 shows the different configuration possibilities of assembling the corridor with the other elements to create different spaces and to satisfy different necessities.

A

Figure 4.55: Complementary modules for the system.

54

The initial defined program was then merged with the system to create the Wall-wich community center. The diagrammatic configuration represented on Figure 4.56 shows the layers and distribution of the program . Figure 4.57 illustrates a plan view with the final circulation system on the inside.

Figure 4.56: Programme distribution on the wall and layers that compose the building.

Figure 4.57: Plan view showing the final internal circulation of the building.

55

56

Wall-wich Community Plaza Acting as a glue to the entire development, the community plaza holds together the different programmes proposed on site. It links Royal Victoria Gardens to the linear park behind the Railway Station, the High Street to the Pier and so on, creating a discernible hub.

Checking the condition of the site based on weather data, the group found out that it is in a good position facing South and thus has high potential to maintain desired solar access.

As for the wind, however, 3-4m/s is the velocity range with the most frequency, coming primarily from West and Southwest.

The assumption that this velocity may bring discomfort was validated during the team‟s site visit where, at noon, up to 3.6 m/s of wind speed was recorded in the spot measurement, easily affecting the air temperature of 4.8°C to a Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) of -2.5°C.

During the warm period, the covered area of the plaza (ground floor of the Old Railway Station) and the rear space is assumed to be the ideal places to be in.

Warm Period – Average PET: 18.4 °C

With sun and wind as main environmental determinants of outdoor comfort, two criteria are chosen to help improve the current conditions: a. Maintain good solar access b. Reduce wind velocity Using Ecotect as the tool to help with the analysis, shadow ranges and CFD were generated. Furthermore, the images were overlapped (Figure 4.59) to see which spots have the most potential in terms of achieving the two aforementioned criteria throughout different seasons. As a hypothesis, the areas within the black dotted line are the ones that can be used more comfortably at more times.

The average PET is 18.4°C in the warm period, 11°C in the mild period, and 1.8°C in the cold period (Figure 4.58). Based on these, it can be said that in general, the area is uncomfortably cold and the improvement of which shall be the subject of the next exercises.

In the mild period, the assumption is that the front and rear spaces, as well as the covered area can all be usable with different desirable spots throughout the day.

Mild Period – Average PET: 11.4 °C

COLD PERIOD

MILD PERIOD

WARM PERIOD

min

max

average

min

max

average

min

max

average

-11.7

21.9

1.8

-2.4

35.4

11.0

3.5

41.0

18.4

AV. Min

Av. Max

12.2

24.0

AV. Min

Av. Max

AV. Min

-1.3

5.1

6.1

Av. Max 15.4

For the cold season, an average PET of 1.8 °C does not look promising but in days where the sun is out, it is assumed that places with direct solar radiation will be perceived as much more comfortable.

Figure 4.58: Base Case PET (Source: SED ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Meteonorm, Rayman)

Cold Period – Average PET: 1.8 °C Figure 4.59: Initial solar access and wind analysis (Source: Ecotect, Winair)

58

Objective: influence reduction in wind speed Strategy: use of wind breakers and landscaping elements, layout of programme

Objective: maintain solar access Strategy: plaza at different areas and levels 1.

4.

Plaza Improvement Strategies (Figure 4.60) 1. The site of the main plaza is identified, taking into account the area where there is possibility of greater solar access. In terms of spatial configuration, the plaza, which is proposed to be pedestrianized, has to be big enough to create links to the different activities/areas such as the Royal Victoria Gardens, the Pier, the proposed library and workshops, and to the old Railway Station.

2. Following the elevation of the existing road, the plaza gradually slopes up towards the River Thames and also towards the Royal Victoria Gardens. This is done through steps and ramps throughout the open space, creating levels with seating areas where direct sunlight is likely to fall. A good balance of materials is also considered, with light-colored porous pavers ideally reflecting light, wood for the seating areas so as not to feel cold, and some grass to keep the ground permeable (Figure 4.60a).

Figure 4.60c: earth mound wind barrier (3)

2.

3. As the ground elevation rises more towards the garden, which is also the place which is least overshadowed, more seating is proposed, arranged in a similar fashion as an open-air amphitheater. Likewise, this is intended to act as wind barrier in the adjacent area (Figure 4.60b).

Figure 4.60a: integrated seats and porous pavers at different levels (1)

4. To mitigate the impact of high wind velocity, wind barriers are proposed, making use of both softscape and hardscape elements. For the softscape, earth berms (Figure 4.60c) are used at varying heights, going as high as 1.5m to help reduce direct wind impact to the users of the space. Furthermore, hardscapes (Figure 4.60d) such as wayfinding signage, wind wall, and public art pieces are deliberately put in place to ameliorate wind conditions.

Figure 4.60d: Wayfinding signage, wind wall and public art wind barriers (4) (5) (6)

5.

5. Lastly, the configuration of the programme, in this case, the containers, are arranged in such a way that minimal overshadowing is made on the plaza and at the same time disrupting the flow of unwanted wind.

3.

Suorces_ (1) (2) http://stonedesigns.in/amphitheatre (3)http://skywaymyway.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/17/drumlins-of-federal-courthouseplaza/ (4) http://www.celebmobilewall.com/sign-stands/ (5) http://pixguru.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/rozenburg-wind-wall.html (6) http://www.wendy-mills.com/public/wind.htm

Figure 4.60b: integrated seats and porous pavers at different levels (2) Figure 4.60: Plaza improvement strategy diagram

59

Wall-wich Community Plaza Design Simulation With the strategies applied, new simulations were done to assess the performance of the community plaza.

Similar to the previous approach (Figure 4.56) , the wind speed simulation result of the designed plaza was overlaid on the shadow ranges at occupied hours in different seasons.

In general, wind velocity is reduced from 3-4m/s to 0.5-1.5m/s. This change is seen to have a lot of impact on the PET, allowing for more times within comfortable outdoor conditions.

In fact, the average PET in different periods have indeed increased (Figure 4.61), thereby adding more time the people can use the plaza comfortably.

As for the warm period, the average PET has increased from 18.4°C to 23.7°C (within the adaptive thermal comfort zone of 21-27°C). In the mild period, the average PET of 11.4°C has gone up to 16.0°C, bringing it closer to the comfort zone of 20-26°C. However, in the cold period, although the average PET has changed from 1.8°C to 5.1°C, it is still far from from being perceived as comfortable (18-24°C).

Warm Period – Average PET: 23.7 °C (previously 18.4 °C )

As for solar access, the warm period has biggest area without obstruction but if prolonged exposure to the sun is not desired, the covered plaza and the rear plaza are likely to be preferred because of the shade. In the mild period, the end-users can easily take advantage of seats that are not overshadowed. In the cold period, although much of the area is overshadowed, there are sun patches in the covered plaza, on the seats attached to earth mound, and in the upper seats of the amphitheater.

Finally, a test on PET at different points and times is done to see the effect of the improved case. (Figure 4.62)

Mild Period – Average PET: 16.0 °C (previously 11.4 °C )

COLD PERIOD

MILD PERIOD

WARM PERIOD

min

max

average

min

max

average

min

max

average

-9.3

23.3

5.1

1.8

35.7

16.0

8.3

43.2

23.7

AV. Min 2.0

Av. Max 7.8

AV. Min 18.2

Av. Max 27.6

AV. Min 11.1

Av. Max 19.6

Figure 4.62: Improved Case PET (Source: SED ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Meteonorm, Rayman)

Figure 4.61: Improved case solar access and wind analysis (Source: Ecotect, Winair); ideal spaces to be in is mapped out in the black dotted lines

Cold Period – Average PET: 5.1 °C ((previously 1.8 °C ) 60

PET: 20°C

WARM PERIOD

June 21 10:00 AM Ta: 19.2°C RH: 64% Wind Speed: 4.1 m/s Cloud Cover: 8 octas Global Radiation: 248 W/m2 Tmrt: 30.6 PET: 16.3°C

Wall-wich Community Plaza PET Analysis Testing the PET at different locations across different periods shall give a better picture of the performance of the place and the possible activities that may be accommodated.

new PET: 20°C @ 1 m/s Figure 4.63: Warm period morning rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

Warm Period - Morning In a typical morning of June 21, at around 10:00AM, basking under the morning sun would be ideal with the 20°C PET (Figure 4.63). This is possible even with cloud cover as long as there is reduction of wind speed to just 1m/s. Otherwise, the PET in the base case would have been 16.3°C, which is colder than the air temperature of 19.2°C.

June 21 2:00 PM

PET: 23.5°C Ta: 22.9°C RH: 50% Wind Speed: 1.7 m/s Cloud Cover: 6 octas Global Radiation: 602 W/m2 Tmrt: 49.1 PET: 28.7°C new PET: 23.5°C @ 0.2m/s Diffuse radiation: 160 W/m2 Tmrt: 25 Figure 4.64: Warm period afternoon rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

This Rear Plaza is ideal for the occupants waiting for the classes at the workshops or to just walk around with the children and the elderly enjoying the morning sun.

Warm Period - Afternoon In the afternoon, around 2:00 PM just after lunch, outside conditions would feel uncomfortable with a PET of 28.7°C but by being under the shade at the ground floor of the Old Railway Station, the PET is 23.5°C (Figure 4.64), which is already within the comfort zone of 21-27°C. As the covered area of the plaza, it can accommodate different people with different activities and can have movable furniture according the function needed. Nonpermanent chairs for eating or for coffee are recommended, serving those who are bringing their own food. The place is ideal for lunch breaks from the library and workshops.

61

MILD PERIOD PET: 20.1°C

Sep 21 11:00 AM Ta: 16.3°C RH: 60% Wind Speed: 2.6 m/s Cloud Cover: 6 octas Global Radiation: 417 W/m2 Tmrt: 35 PET: 16.0°C new PET: 20.1°C @ 1 m/s

Wall-wich Community Plaza PET Analysis

Mild Period - Morning In a September morning, the air temperature of 16.3°C can feel much better with the 20.1°C PET (Figure 4.65) that the site provides (Rear Plaza), which is above the average PET for the mild period.

Here, playgrounds can be set up where supervised playing of the children can take place. Morning exercises by community members can also take place here.

Mild Period - Afternoon Taking the afternoon of September 21 as another example, outdoor conditions are generally comfortable whether at the front or rear plaza. With an air temperature of 19.3°C, a PET of 21.6°C can be perceived (Figure 4.66).

As many of the spaces offer a rather comfortable condition, the Pier Café area (which is also a Listed Building) can be ideal for breaks with a view of the river.

Figure 4.65: Mild period morning rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

PET: 21.6°C

Sep 21 3:00 PM Ta: 19.3°C RH: 49% Wind Speed: 1.6 m/s Cloud Cover: 8 octas Global Radiation: 261 W/m2 Tmrt: 33.7 PET: 19.8°C new PET: 21.6°C @ 1 m/s Figure 4.66 Mild period afternoon rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

62

COLD PERIOD PET: 0.6°C

Dec 21 10:00 AM Ta: 2°C RH: 97% Wind Speed: 1.9 m/s Cloud Cover: 8 octas Global Radiation: 34 W/m2 Tmrt: 1.6 PET: -3.4°C new PET: 0.6°C @ 0.2 m/s

Wall-wich Community Plaza PET Analysis

Figure 4.67: Cold period morning rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

Mild Period - Morning

PET: -1.6°C Dec 21 1:00 PM Ta: 1.6°C RH: 99% Wind Speed: 1.9 m/s Cloud Cover: 8 octas Global Radiation: 77 W/m2 Tmrt: 4.5 PET: -3.1°C

In the cold period, it is evident that the plaza is not a comfortable place to be in even in the protected area under the restaurant (covered plaza). Although the PET has improved from -3.4°C to 0.6°C (Figure 4.67), it is far being considered comfortable in terms of environmental and physiological considerations. However, psychologically, being in the covered plaza may still give a feeling of shelter.

Community markets can be introduced here, which can showcase local products or goods from the workshops. Food stalls are also ideal. The number of people and their activities can contribute to the needed heat.

Mild Period - Afternoon

new PET: -1.6°C @ 1 m/s

In a December afternoon lunchtime, it was previously hypothesized that being in areas without shade can improve the occupant comfort. However, due to low solar radiation and the effect of wind, the PET is at -1.6°C, from an air temperature of 1.6°C (Figure 4.68).

Figure 4.68: Cold period afternoon rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit, SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman, Ecotect)

As an outdoor space, expectations are managed in terms of feeling comfortable and in this case, it is proposed the discomfort be compensated by community-related activities such as holiday markets, which can extend from the covered plaza to the front.

63

2. Covered Plaza

3. Rear Plaza

1. Front Plaza Wall-wich Community Plaza Figure 4.69: Warm period morning rendering with PET calculation (Source: Revit)

To assess by how much the outdoor space could have potentially improved in general after design intervention, a comparison is made in terms of the number of occupied hours (9:00 AM to 6:00 PM) within the perceived comfort zone (EN 15251 adaptive comfort model).

Percentage of Occupied Hours in Comfort The base case PET analysis shows that there are no hours within the comfort zone (Figure 4.70) from November to February and so is the case even after the proposed buildings and design are in place, as expected.

However, there has been a general improvement in both the mild and warm seasons, with an increase of up to 15% in the exposed areas and up to 20% under the shade (such as in the covered plaza â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ground floor of train station). Without the PET limitations on clo and met values, the improvement is likely to be much more improved.

In general, the outdoor areas are still cold (uncomfortably) but just reducing the wind speed alone and keeping the solar access as much as possible, there are more hours that the outdoor space can be used by the community. This increase of usable hours of the outdoor space can help reduce energy demands in the surrounding building programmes.

Based on the conditions, the plaza is divided into three distinct areas (front, covered, and rear) not just by location but by different uses across the seasons (Figure 4.69). The choices that these space create allow for adaptive use of the space, where the occupants can experience shelter from prolonged sun exposure, or bouts of thermal delight if so desired.

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Jan

Feb

Mar

Base Case

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

with Proposed Design

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Shaded Areas

Base Case: existing site, weather data from Meteronorm With Proposed Design: lower wind speed (1m/s) assumed as generated from CFD analysis; this takes into consideration the layout of the buildings, wind buffers, landscaping Shaded Areas: generated using diffuse radiation and minimal wind speed (0.2 m/s)

Figure 4.70: Warm period morning rendering with PET calculation (Source: SED_ClimProcess Spreadsheet, Rayman)

64

5. RENEWABLE ENERGY Renewable energies were also integrated to the design of the project as mentioned on chapter 4. Solar panels were ideal as the building was facing south and direct solar radiation was available all year long.

Calculations using the Energy saving Trust calculator, gave us that each module can produce 2,496 kWh/yr and for the total of the 8 designed 19,968 kWh/yr. This energy represents 32% of the yearly energy consumption of the whole project. It also represents 8,720kg of CO2/yr savings.

More solar panels can be installed on the rooftops of the containers but overshadowing to the roof lights have to be considered, also the extra loads on the structure. (Figure 5.1) Further explorations where made and because the site was in a privilege location facing the river where wind and tidal energies can also be integrated. Tidal turbines for shallow depths are not still fully developed and commercially used, but many are in design process and promise to be a very reliable source of sustainable energy because tides are constant day and night and not intermittent as solar and wind ones. A combination of them are a good scenario not only make the project independent from the grid, but to produce energy for the whole community.

Each node of modules have a shading device covered by solar panels, placed over the indoor and outdoor patios.21,76m2 of area inclined at 20 degrees and totally south facing.

Figure.5.1 Scheme where solar pannel are integrated to the design.

5. FUTURE SCENARIOS This is to predict the likely scenarios in the future. In a worst-case scenario of 0.30m sea-level rise as predicted by IPCC, the site will still not be affected. However, the rising temperatures can cause more storms and hence, more chances of storm surges.

This threat can be managed by the existing wall and with the program in place, the flow of water can still be delayed. With the containers having a walkable area on top, it can become the new promenade, one that is elevated and will ensure good views of the river. In another report by Thames Estuary 2100, there is also a study on putting a new flood defense barrier at Tilbury Docks, in which case there is a potential to lower the defense line (the wall) in the North Woolwich area.

In terms of accommodating future population, the modularity of the containers will facilitate the addition of new spaces by simply plugging in to the walls. (Figure 5.2) The flexibility of the program allows for other the modules to be used in other necessary spaces such as retail or start-up businesses. Furthermore, there is added value to the fact that this can be something that is community-generated and not imposed. The walls can extend and enliven more dead spaces along the north of Thames River and these walls, with the PVs in place, can potentially contribute more clean energy supply.

Adaptability-wise, the containers can demonstrate this more as a dynamic form of architecture that can easily change in use and be relocated or â&#x20AC;&#x17E;pluggedâ&#x20AC;&#x; into another wall. Warmer temperatures, however, may pose a threat of more overheating. As for the Old Railway Station, it can be used for many other purposes as the community would need but it will not lose its Victorian charm, which contributes to the psychological comfort and quality of the space. The plaza shall continue to remain robust in terms of flexibility in use but more frequent rains in the future will require it to be more permeable so as delay the surface water runoff to the lower areas in the neighborhood. Overall, the success of the place is determined on how people actually use it. Hopefully, the design proposals are bringing this to effect, influencing the choices of the end-users and leading into a more sustainable lowenergy lifestyle.

Figure.5.2 Scheme with plugged modules.

66

6. CONCLUSIONS Different from most of the other sites in the Royal Docks that are mostly brownfield locations to be redeveloped, the area chosen was full of existing elements to integrate. The historical memory, heritage buildings, green public infrastructure, the convergence of transport systems, a riverfront and an existing community to work with were the starting point of a project for the actual and future population of the North Woolwich community.

Based on the learnings from Term 1, where different school buildings were studied, and the study of precedents and benchmarks, gave us the tools needed to propose a project based on environmental and sustainable principles. The decision of using containers, as a recycling module, and as part of maintaining the collective memory of the site seemed a good idea. A fixed module was challenging to work with, but good thermal and daylight results were achieved compared with the benchmarks targeted for a community centre. However, the process taught the team to be more critical with the decisions being made before moving along and considering not only the good but also the negative sides have to be evaluated as well.

Figure.6.1 Original site.

Reusing containers seems to be a sustainable low-energy alternative, however, the amount of energy required to make the box habitable needs to be addressed. The entire structure needs to be sandblasted bare, floors need to be replaced, and openings need to be cut with a torch or firemanâ&#x20AC;&#x;s saw. The average container eventually produces nearly a thousand pounds of hazardous waste before it can be used as a structure. All of this, coupled with the fossil fuels required to move the container into place with heavy machinery, contributing significantly to its ecological footprint.

Figure.6.2 Final project layout.

Containers are not the best method of design and construction in temperate climates, but it is however a design method that could be employed in warmer climates or where desperately needed, like in developing countries, where resources are scarce, containers are in abundance, and where people are in need of immediate shelter.

(Pagnotta 2011). Building with containers should be the result of truly assessed reasons, being very aware of what is wanted as a result and how efficient one needs it to be.

But over all, Wall-wich Community Centre is a place proposed for social interaction, learning and recreation that covered a necessity of education, connection and the dissolution of physical and non-physical boundaries. The flooding protection wall was converted in a habitable place that could be comfortable to walk along, inside and on top, bringing together knowledge and recreation with the use of containers as the main structure. The Train Station building, on the ground floor became the connection between the main road off the Royal Docks and the main plaza creating an covered outdoor space to be used in different seasons and lead to the river. The first was converted on an entertainment space for the whole family and those visiting the place with a restaurant were views and comfort were privileged. And, what used to be a busy and noisy road finally became the linking piece, the main plaza that connected all.

Figure.6.3 Final project layout.

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

7. EPILOGUE JUANITO ALIPIO DE LA ROSA Sustainable design is one that is coupled with occupant comfort. Too much efficiency may run the risk of inhabitability, but it is always a good practice to explore and optimize. Probably one of the more challenging decisions for the group was to choose the shipping container as the element for modular architecture.

Although I am not particularly convinced that it is the best solution to the needs of the project, I saw the value in the exercise of exploring its potential. People are building with it anyway so of interest to me is how they are faring in terms of performance once they are converted into „habitable‟ conditions. And from available literature, none discussed in detail their environmental performance (aside from just being called „sustainable‟) – and this is a gap that the group has addressed.

Finding out at the end that it can actually perform well, in fact, at par or even better than the benchmarks, puts the containers in a better position than previously thought. Through this project, I saw likewise the potential of modularity, which can be easily applied where needed and not necessarily using shipping containers.

The modules can be added and extended with little deviation from the recommended specifications, allowing for more flexibility over time and making them adaptable enough to be future-proof. The daylight study, for example, can be applied in other modules in another site (of similar orientation) and predicting the results would be easier. At the end, my take is that the choice of containers has an impact on managing the expectations of the end-users. Hence, unless their use is really very necessary, the containers can be left alone to do what it does best – to contain goods and not people.

MARIA FRANCISCA ECHEVERRI ARANZAZU The learnings from term 1 and term 2 gave us the tools to view and engage architecture from a different perspective, were environmental and sustainable principles were the driving keys. Sometimes the process was not easy as it was the first design process following the SED methodology with a group of architects with totally different backgrounds in a city which was not of our field of knowledge, but surely it was very enriching and the result very gratifying. In this case, working with an existing listed structure and the freight containers made us realize we have to be very critical with the decisions we make along the design process, based on ideas are thought to be the "right" ones, but that after the process of an environmental and sustainable assessment are proved not to be like we thought at the start. Working with a prefixed module was easier to start the design process but posed a challenge in designing the desired scenario for the target daylight and thermal performance without involving a lot more energy in transforming and adaptation due to the awareness of the embodied energy stored in the containers themselves. The study of precedent studies and past learning proved the valuable information we have to help us take the right decisions to start designing better and more comfortable buildings. The Wall-wich community centre was a great opportunity to learn about London and its dynamics and an exploration of modular achitecture based on environmnetal applied design.

MARIA TERESA SANCHEZ PEREZ Term 2 turned out to be one unique learning opportunity. While trying to assimilate all the knowledge and new information acquired throughout Term 1 I was then facing the challenge of actually applying all of that into an original design. Not having enough with that, taking the decision of supporting our design layout on containers made things even more interesting..

A really big effort was implemented by the team to design with liveable containers, and although; we like and support our final outcome and very good performance results were achieved, the biggest lesson was to realize how really “sustainable” this modules were. The fact that as a team we could actually understand why this element is not as efficient as thought; contrary to what contemporary trends seem to show.

For me it was an introductory approach to applied sustainability. From the site´s decision, influenced by reconstructing the community in North Woolwich and redevelop an almost dead area; to create an innovative type of space taking a new approach in what used to be enclosing boundaries; like the Railway Station and the Thames Barrier; and making them real spaces for people that could actually perform properly for their needs and activities.

MONICA CAROLINA TOLEDO HERNANDEZ Urban security strategies as prevention of natural disaster, as the wall of contention in North Woolwich in case of flooding, in some occasions solving a problem impacts the environment considering they are just sporadic events. Although as these strategies are needed to look, they should consider the environment side effect consequential during the rest of the period for which they are designed, in other words that is when its first use becomes secondary.

As architects we should consider second impact on these areas to be intervened with a friendly environment project and even more important must be inclusive. Is the case of the proposal "Wall-Wich" Community Centre, generate a solution that involves the local population and future users, improving the quality of life giving opportunities for continuously development, offering meeting places where the first (local neighbors) and the second (users) respect the identity of place.

Facing the challenge of a project in a develop recovery area as in this case (Docklands), the first exercise to do is studying the place to work, its context, history, morphology, among others, trying to get a radiography of it and components, identifying its needs, gaps and opportunities to promote.

When the proposal must be sustainable, always we have to think in a better future and how to give more benefits with the same or less effort and resources. In this case the project proposed recycling (container as existing element in the port) and rehabilitation (train station) as a way to preserve in the collective memory, what that place was at the beginnings. Exercises like this should consider development costs and potential savings, but especially the efforts to achieve that elements like a container can be conditioned as a living space, giving a minimum of comfort to users, achieving in many cases an adverse result contrary to main idea, to be sustainable.

77

8. REFERENCES

-Ben Dayan M (2012) Environmentally Responsive Primary School Buildings in the UK, AA E+E Environmental & Energy Studies programme, Architectural Association School of Architecture Dissertation Project 2011-12 , Graduate School.

-CIBSE (2006) Guide A on Environmental Design, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.

-De la Rosa J., Echeverri M., Sanchez M. and Seeman C. (2014) Refurbishing the city: AA Premises, AA E+E Environmental & Energy programme, Architectural Association School of Architecture, Graduate School.

Studies

-Kotnilk J. (2013) New Container Architecture Design + 30 CASE STUDIES, Links.

-Minguet J (2013) Sustainable Architecture Containers 2, Instituto Monsa de Ediciones.

-Moss K. (2007) Heat and Mass transfer in buildings, Taylor & Francis.

-SLAWIK H. (2010) Containers Atlas, A practical guide to container Architecture, Die Gestalten Verlag.

-Szokolay, S. (2014) Introduction to Architectural Science: The basis of sustainable design, Routledge.

-Yannas S. (1995) Design of Educational Buildings, Enviroment and Energy studies programme, AA Graduate School London.

INTERNET SOURCES -

www.archdaily.com (Accesed March 2015)

-

www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/tools-and-calculators/solar-energy-check (Accesed March 2015)

-

www.ukcensusdata.com (Accesed January 2015)

-

www.london.gov.uk (Accesed January 2015)

-

www.ipcc.ch (Accesed January 2015)

78

9. APPENDIX

RADIANCE INPUTS- workshops INNER WALLS 0.5 INNER FLOOR (WOOD) 0.2 CEILING/REFLECTING INNER SURFACE OF ROOF LIGHT

0.7

DOBLE GLAZING LOW E ARGON 71% Transmitance (Transmissivity)

0.773

*all simulations were done at the working plane level. 0.7m

RADIANCE INPUTS STATION INNER WALLS

0.5

FLOOR 0.2 DOBLE GLAZING 80% 0.87 Transmitance(Transmissivity) *all simulations were done at the working plane level. 0.7m Radiance for Rhino - inputs

MINT calculations for Railway Station 79

CORTEN STEEL

Underground Freight Container Options

Average corrosion penetration in a semi-industrial environment.

Average corrosion penetration in a rural-marine environment. (500 m from shore)

LONDON CLAY Under continuous wet or buried conditions the corrosion rate of COR-TEN may be the same as carbon steel, as the patina does not stabilize and is therefore not recommended. In marine environments stable oxide films may form on the steel, provided chlorides are washed off regularly. Normally the use of unpainted COR-TEN is not recommended for applications subjected to salt spray.

Steel U-value calculations:

R=(1/47) x .002 R=.00004251 m²K/W U-value=1/(.04+.10+.00004251) U-value=7.14 W/m²K (For TAS in walls it lowers to 6.5 W/m²K)

GALVANIZED STEEL

Weathered Steel Conductivity- 47 W/mK Weathered Steel Thickness: 2 mm

80

82

83

84

85