Photo courtesy of Ashwell Group
CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURE
Winter/Spring 2006
Ashwell model of the refused proposals for the Cambridge Station redevelopment
REBRANDING CAMBRIDGE
53
architecture urbanism environmental issues • in the Cambridge city region
With the widely expected refusal of the outline planning application for the Cambridge Station area redevelopment, the developers will now no doubt be considering an appeal, against the merits of submission of an alternative, scaled-down version of their scheme. The issues are ongoing for this vital sector of the City, and for many other developments. One of our editorial team involved with the recent interaction of civic associations with the council, offers some pointers towards a preferential approach, given the particular strategic importance of the Station area to the future of Cambridge. It is no coincidence that emphasis on high quality places to live, work and visit, feature conspicuously on the agenda of the new regional agency. The attractiveness of the Cambridge area resides not only with its research and development record, its ent er pr is e and ex c e l l e n c e , b u t a l s o i n i t s congeniality as a place to live and work, its riverine collegiate heritage, and the still evident vernacular setting of surrounding landscapes and settlements. This had somehow escaped the eye of the local developers seeking outline planning permission to convert the Station Road area into a fenland Croydon. Intensification The metropolitan scale and coarse grain of the CB1 proposals were felt to be at odds with the needs and character of the City and any new proposal needs to be compatible with the general scale of our city centre. Urban Task Force recommendations for higher densities do not override concerns for open space and sensitive height and mass issues. There is no direct conjunction of high density with scale of buildings. The Urban Task Force Report demonstrates this in comparing high density, low rise building clusters with their high rise counterparts. But there is a correlation between loss of privacy in such residential development with demands of architectural treatment, of private open space, favourable orientation and aspect which calls for particular forms of spatial grouping. Particular attention will need to be given to the contrasts of scale and to the quality of civic space
created by the redevelopment of the station forecourt, and the impact on the setting of the listed Station. The designation of World Heritage City refers to the historic content represented in the academic setting, largely indistiguishable from the general fabric of the city. The Station area is the burgeoning modern counterpart to the historic centre, its character deriving from time and function. It has been identified as a 'gateway,' a symbolic threshold, not well served by its present surroundings and deserves high quality architectural treatment. Ashwell's choice of 'iconic' masterplanners introduces a highly eminent design team with background experience from Coin Street, London to the Potsdamer Platz, Berlin. Their embodied metropolitan scale of thinking may be alien to a provincial city and some quick shift of gear would seem to be called for. Congestion A solution and policy has to be found for the present problems of traffic in the Station area which is at capacity, in road and rail, even without pending development casting its influence. Resolution of new public transport modes and improvements are a part of the exercise. The opportunity for improving permeability for traffic and pedestrian movement will ease the situation. Any development impacts on traffic flows and the infrastructure of adjacent areas, and has relevance to local community interest. Proposals require a reasoned acceptance from the Highways authority for traffic flows and measures.
gateway to commercialism
WORLD HERITAGE CITY?
Office development envisaged by Richard Rogers for Coin Street, London.
Transport interchange The railway station as a transport hub, is already subject to scrutiny in regard to improved city-wide transportation and the conceptualisation of the Southern Corridor. This is a once-and-for-all opportunity to create a workable transport interchange that looks to the future. There needs to be integrated strategic thinking, to bring together improved and new forms of public transport links with the station from outlying places; shuttle services; improved traffic flows, including cycle routes, and the opening of new links to Hills Road; provision of bus and coach interchange (relieving the congestion on other parts of the City at Christ's Pieces and the pressure for expansion on to Parkside etc); improved cycle and vehicular parking, around the station. All need to be addressed comprehensively in conjunction with the stakeholders. The resolution of these transport issues is of such significance for the city region that it should take priority over other forms of redevelopment. The Holford Plan of the 1950s (illustrated) showed an appreciation of the kind of vision needed to overcome the limitations of access to the railway station, pointing to a solution which seems increasingly appropriate in regard to long term development of transportation systems and traffic capacity. Tenure and form of housing Government advice in its draft general planning guidance is of some relevance. It asks local authorities to undertake urban housing capacity studies to establish their ability to accommodate development. Capacities of sites in the vicinity in relation to the housing programme need consideration with the eight or so adjacent developments. Government supports greater intensity of development around places with good public transport accessibility and encourages a creative and positive approach to planning. But in the provision for social housing, there is nothing to indicate how this might be achieved when local authorities are not allowed to specify tenure. Local authorities are expected to reject poor design and applicants have to demonstrate that the principles for good layout and design relevant to the outline stage are taken into consideration. A major issue in central Cambridge is provision for key workers. Do we need the level of 2 bed apartments that thIs flood of development is creating - what does that say for mixed development and balanced communities? The poverty of process The piecemeal approvals granted for the Red House, the Triangle site, and for the mill and silo buildings - all components of the regeneration scenario, have been preemptive and prejudice the integrated renaissance of the area surrounding the station. Given the numerous official studies and reports subsequent to the 1993 Gateway to Cambridge public urban design workshop, there is an opportunity now for real vision, of civic ambition, and of unified creative thought. The accumulation of CB1 sites has created a situation where, for the first time, a comprehensive re-imagining of the station precincts is possible.
What is needed is an entrepreneurial spirit with a public conscience. This is the time to draw together all the key players - the City and County Councils, Network Rail, Laings (developers of the adjacent Triangle site) and government and regional agencies, in a constructive examination of possibilities. The future of Cambridge embodied in this city sector is too important to be defined just by government and business interests. The CB1 project and other recent schemes have spurred local civic activists to give voice to public frustration with the consultation process and the lack of favourable circumstances in the planning system for influencing new development at a formative stage. Until more sophisticated measures are introduced there will always be an absent partner in the deliberative process - and in the absence of a fuller partnership of interest, all planning applications for the Station area may seem not only premature but could warrant being called-in by the ODPM, or its successor, for the setting-up of special procedures. Colen Lumley
Develop or redevelop? There has been wide public concern with the Ashwell scheme. This may be partly the result of what has already been built on the Cattle Market site (CAg51) and what is being built opposite between Hills Road and the railway line . There appears to have been no coordinated planning and general lack of concern for the character of what is being built, with little sensitivity to locality. Perhaps like many people I have been uneasy with the term ‘redevelopment’ at least since the 1960’s and 70’s when the word was fashionable. We now look for growth and change in an evolutionary way, without sweeping away everything which has gone before. We enjoy the sense of history in a place, the sense that it has been used and worked by others before us. We are also stimulated by diversity, complexity and ambiguity, more likely to be experienced in an evolutionary process. We see evidence all around us that buildings and built artefacts are part of this Richard Rogers Partnership courtyard housing in the Potsdamer Platz, Berlin 1991 - metropolitan thinking translated to the Cambridge scene.
OTHER MAJOR CITY PROJECTS
Residential development CoinStreet by local residents in conjunction with the LA.
process and are capable of nurturing or destroying these qualities. Our City Planning Department has traditionally been largely reactive rather than proactive, processing the numerous planning applications large and small. There have also been the ongoing strategic studies and planning policy documents. Good small scale work is being carried out by the landscape architects and others, rationalising local movement, planting trees, improving surfaces etc; making the City in parts safer and more attractive. The general monitoring of major projects by the Conservation and Design Committee is supplemented by the work of the new Urban Design Unit, with, in the case of Station Road, Urban Design Consultants. The Council’s comprehensive review and rejection of the Ashwell scheme gives hope for improved design quality for major schemes. It is also hoped that the Urban Design Unit can be further expanded and that permanent consultants can be retained. We must get ahead of the developers and evolve principles and plans for the City which are broadly understood and accepted by residents and business users. Then we will be in a much stronger position to work with, and influence the developers, who want to invest in this City, for community benefit. There are some obvious priorities for the Station Road area and for other schemes: (1) a visual analysis of what we have in this City, an analysis of the City’s innate character, scale, density etc, so we can understand how this should influence new developments. From this we can then evolve a set of clear visual and conceptual design principles for the handling of large development schemes. Many sites across the channel use a physical working model for the central areas of the City in order to consider and monitor the visual effects of all significant new schemes. Cambridge needs to do this also. (2) for the housing we should develop a conceptual and visual analysis of appropriate patterns and forms which meet modern needs in a mixed use, sustainable way. (3) we also need a comprehensive traffic analysis, integrating all modes of transport, dealing with physical circulation strategies over immediate and longer term periods. Congestion points need to be identified with methods of tackling these. (4) suggested other studies must include an analysis of the existing building stock and available land and its capacity for growth and change (5) we should also look at key environmental issues on
the ground: climatic, safety, care and maintenance, local pollution etc, etc. This kind of work needs strategists, policy makers and creative people; designers (urban designers, architects, landscape architects etc) and wide political support. Matters need to move quickly and one hopes it is not all too late. David Raven
The City Urban Design Unit led by Glen Richardson is monitoring a number of development sites in addition to Station Road on the desired basis of ‘dialogue negotiation and resolution’. As a unit they are financed mainly through planning delivery grants. (The more planning applications are determined within the 8 week period, or other stipulated time, the more government money is received for ‘other uses’). There are only three urban design staff at present who act in a coordinating role with other sections to provide the required Council expertise. They also commission outside consultants when necessary. In the Station Road negotiations Roger Evans Associates were commissioned to review the Richard Rogers Master Plan alongside other council officers. Other current major projects include 1) A number of proposals for the Southern Fringe – the Clay Farm/Showgrounds site with developer Countryside Properties and PRP Architects as master planners – Addenbrookes 2020 with developers Liberty Trust/Addenbrookes NHS/ Countryside Properties and Auckett Fitzroy Robinson as master planners – Trumpington Meadows site (Monsanto) with developers USS/Grosvenors and consultants Terence O’Rourke 2) The NIAB site in NW Cambridge with developer David Wilson Homes and master planning by LDA Design (1500 houses) 3) The Marshalls site east Cambridge with master planning in 3 phases by LDA Design (4/5000 houses) 4) The Anglia Water Sewerage site in NE Cambridge (at early negotiation stage) The Inspectors Report on the Local Plan, reviewing the future of Cambridge up to 2016, is now available, to be discussed in a future issue David Raven
Holford and Wright Plan 1950 showing dual access to the station.
NEW COURT BUILDINGS
Top County Court from East Road Middle Hurd Rolland Scheme Bottom View from Walkworth Terrace
Until recently the court buildings in Cambridge c onsist e d of t he C r o w n C o urt i nsi de the Guildhall, the Magistrates’ Court on top of Lion Yard, and the County Court next to Park Street car park. Overcrowded, with outdated facilities, and a major reorganization of the legal system looming, an overhaul was overdue. When first c onside re d t he pre f erred o p ti o n w as to relocate them all on one site but a suitable loc a t ion c ould not be f ound. I nstead the Magistrates have now relocated to a temporary building in Trumpington, returning to a new home in the Grand Arcade in 2008, the Crown Court has a new building on the old Mackay’s Garden Centre site in East Road, and the County Court has its new building opposite the Zion Baptist chapel at the other end of East Road. The English legal system has been around since William the Conqueror. Over the centuries it has grown and divided into the Court of Appeal, the Royal Courts of Justice, the High Court, Crown Courts, County Courts and Magistrates Court, but today’s court room is the physical manifestation of a set of principles that have been around for nearly a thousand years - the dock, the witness stand, the jury box, the judge’s dais- are all meticulously prescribed, and circulation routes for judge, jury, defendant and public carefully segregated. Even so there have been substantial administrative changes over the last few years (the Court Service now brings all the different courts into one organisation for the first time) and the demands of the 21st century: tighter security, disabled access, improved facilities for jurors and the public, have led to the recent construction of many new court buildings around the country. The new County Court was designed up to planning stage by architects Hurd Rolland. The site, formerly occupied by the Territorial Army Drill Hall, had been empty for many years. Owners, Turnstone Estates, agreed to provide a new building for the Court Service on a lease-back, and brought in Cambridge firm CMC as architects for the construction. To speed the process tenders were obtained in advance of planning consent. Contractors Haymills were appointed, at a cost of around £7.5 million, but the planning application proved controversial and was only granted on appeal, resulting in a year’s delay. The building is arranged as a simple rectilinear block clad with Portland stone, white render and pale grey zinc, offset by charcoal grey aluminium windows and louvres. It handles civil claims such as divorce, adoption, and insolvency and is deliberately non-threatening with lots of
glass on its public face, looking more like an office block than a traditional court building. Inside everything is cheerful, bright and detailed in a no-nonsense way with white walls and cherry panelling; the three courtrooms have relatively low ceilings and are domestic in scale. The public entrance is directly off the East Road pavement, the building then steps back to line with Wellington House next door and provides space for a sculpture, a double twist piece designed by Newcastle sculptor Colin Rose. Secure parking and service access is off Walkworth Street at the rear. Being south facing the road frontage glazing is louvred externally to reduce solar gain. These are surface fixed, allowing the skin to continue uninterrupted, but producing a rather less satisfying result than the Hurd Rolland scheme, which shows the louvres deeply recessed in a stone surround. Nevertheless the pale palette and crispness of the detailing create a refreshingly light gateway to this end of East Road. The new Crown Court is a very different kind of building. It was designed by Austin-Smith:Lord as part of a PFI partnership with contractors Mowlem at a cost of about £30million, including fees, fittings, and maintenance charges for 30 years. Evans and Shalev had designed a building for the site but it was abandoned in favour of this, much larger, three-court scheme that fills the teardrop shaped site with an oval drum. Built entirely of buff brick the sheer-sided building has its northern face peeled away like a snail shell to create a dramatic full-height glazed entrance screen. A high wall separates this from the secure car park which is accessed from New Street via ram proof steel gates. The section is a clever, and efficient, gateaux of double and single height layers allowing office spaces and Jury common room to be stacked on top of each other against Court 1 on the first floor while Courts 2 & 3 sit back to back at the top with the all the plant contained between the clerestorey light housings. Judges’ chambers and Jury Rooms slide in on the east side, public circulation on the west. Probation rooms, cells, security offices are on the ground floor. Concrete floor slabs have chilled air circulating inside them providing a pleasant internal environment without the need for lots of ductwork and grilles, the down side is that the slab must be exposed in order to work like a radiator so there are no ceilings to conceal what pipework and ducts there are. Unfortunately these are not celebrated Pompidou Centre style and this spoils some of the internal spaces. This could be a result of PFI cost cutting, as well as the veneered panel balustrades in lieu of glass, compromising the otherwise successful atrium space, and the broad expanses of white plaster with precious little artwork in sight. The courtrooms are naturally lit from high level but, other than the entrance screen and the narrow slot windows to the Judges’ Chambers, offices and Jury common room, there is little other glass in the building. Early on the architects decided that East Road was so devoid of worthwhile context that no windows should look on to it. This has the unfortunate effect of producing a fortress-like building that sends out signals of authority and impregnability, looking like one of Rommel’s Atlantic Wall gun emplacements so admired by the Brutalist architects in the 1950s. Jonathan Glancey claimed in his Guardian article last year that this was a reflection of our terror-obsessed times and that Cambridge Crown Court was the result of some government edict that public buildings should stand as a ‘bulwark against the forces of destruction and disorder’ like the Martello towers of Napoleonic times. It is an interesting argument but fails to recognise that a building like this takes a long time to gestate and was designed before 9/11. In any case the architects strenuously deny that security was a factor, citing the contextual argument and traffic noise as design generators. It is hard to believe that strong stylistic forces were not also at work. The similarity to some of Mario Botta’s work, such as the Casa Stabio and Banca del
ONLY CONNECT
Crown Court from East Road
Gottardo, is striking, particularly the drum and toothed slot windows; it is just a shame that trees were not planted on top - as Botta did at Evry Cathedral - to supplement the rather disappointing planting scheme. Neither building is neighbourly in the sense that both architects admit their buildings respond negatively to their context; in the case of the County Court contrasting in style and materials, or turning in on itself as in the case of the Crown Court. They may have a point. For many years East Road suffered from planning blight, the threat of a dual carriageway stifling development and pushing back building lines haphazardly. The result is that neither building sits comfortably in its surroundings, especially when seen from adjoining residential areas, reminiscent of those images of ocean liners rising surreally above dockside terraced housing. This may not be a bad thing of course as we now have two signature court buildings, which, along with Hawkin Brown’s admirable transformation of Anglia Ruskin, are bringing architecture, boldly, if not entirely sympathetically, to a much neglected part of the Cambridge city-scape. Jeremy Lander
louvres to offices
(Below) Typical court interior (Bottom) View from St Matthews Street
(Above) main entrance (Bottom Left) a Guernsey fort..defensible space?
County Court: Architects: Hurd Rolland/CMC Contractor: Haymills QS: Stace Structure and Services :WSP Crown Court: Architects: Austin-Smith:Lord Contractor: Mowlems Structural Engineer: SKM Services: Drake & Scull
Cambridge has a design champion. Good news? Yes – but, as Sian Reid explained to Peter Carolin, there is one problem: architectural obfuscation. “The design community’s voice is not nearly as strong as that of the disability, parking and cycle groups,” says Sian Reid, Cambridge City Council’s ‘design champion’. This, despite the fact that the City has, for many years, had a Design and Conservation Panel. So what’s the problem? Reid is tactfully cagey on this point, preferring to look to the future, but it’s fairly clear that it is one of communication – of actually understanding what architects are saying and of a certain lack of clarity in the advice given. She finds this frustrating because it can, on occasion, allow unsatisfactory proposals to slip through. So what does the job of ‘design champion’ involve? “It’s not a ‘job’”, Reid replies. “It’s just an additional Council role for which there is little time. CABE and the ODPM encourage planning authorities to appoint a champion. There is a formal definition of the role – but each champion has to define the role in his or her own way. A key task is to increase the external design expertise used in planning decisions. All 42 members of the City Council are involved in planning applications. Like me, they are amateurs. “CABE research has revealed that planning authorities that reject applications on the basis of poor design rarely have their decisions overturned on appeal if they use high quality design advice. It’s therefore very important that the views of the advisory panel are clear so that the councillors can understand them. Without this kind of input councillors find themselves making decisions on a purely subjective basis.” Architecture and business It was her strength of feeling for design that led Reid to volunteer for the role of champion. Her interest began with her marriage to Alex Reid, an architect whose multi-faceted career has included a period as RIBA Director-General, and who now also sits as a county councillor. They have so far employed architects on three occasions – each of which she found “A fantastic experience. They achieved things and a quality that I could never have imagined. Not ostentatious designs but ones with grace and cohesion.” Reid’s own background is in business. Her MBA degree comes from the London Business School where she studied under one of the most passionate and articulate proponents of the value of design, Peter Gorb. “He stressed the importance of invention, innovation and research,” recalls Reid. One of Gorb’s most strongly held beliefs is that, to be continued...
effective, designers must learn to speak the language of those they engage with – be they accountants, users or government: only in this way will the benefits of design be fully understood. Echoing this, Reid, who now teaches management studies at the Open University Business School, says “My greatest fear is that my Open University management studies students will emerge speaking in management jargon. They must be able to write and speak clearly. If they use specialist terms they must define them. They must always take the user into account.” Following recent changes, every Councillor can now refer an application to an area planning committee. “It’s very important that we give design, rather than personal aesthetic preference, as a reason for refusal or acceptance” says Reid. “We do train councillors in design awareness through training days and events – sometimes looking at what we’ve consented to (sometimes wonderful and occasionally dismaying). But consider what it is like for us at meetings. We have the officers’ reports beforehand and the chance to look at great packs of drawings. We also try to prepare by looking at the site. Presentations are rare and brief – and usually given by the applicants or agents – architects are not the front-runners any more. It’s a huge problem – architects are now sub-contractors: they have lost the lead and have little visibility. And it’s so difficult to develop a consensus – Do we like the proposal? – Is it something we understand? – That’s why proper design criteria and clear advice are so important.” The bigger picture Championing design resource allocation in the City Council is another of Reid’s roles. “It’s vital that we have a well-trained team of planners and urban designers. Councils have such a wide remit that design can easily be overlooked – not just within the Council but also in its relationships with bodies like the County which, in Cambridge, is responsible for transport and bridge design. I am trying to ensure that our streets are less cluttered with signs, signals and bollards. The design champion title is useful and carries weight.” As chair of the Environment Committee Reid is involved in setting all the Council’s planning policies. ‘It’s a hugely important but problematic subject – large, complex and continuous – in which it’s hard sometimes to engage people at a policy level. The public are more likely to respond to planning applications. One outcome will be the Local Plan due to come into force in a few months. This will be very strong on design policies – and it would be most helpful if Gazette readers could let us know what they think the City should be doing about ensuring design policies are translated into great buildings and spaces. Responses can be sent to me at sianreid@dsl.pipex.com.’ Cambridge design – and architecture – are fortunate to have such an energetic and articulate champion. But it’s disconcerting to sense how little we seem to be helping our own cause. Like ships passing in the night, we plough our separate furrows in the ocean – with professional jargon, self-promotion and frequent frustration. Perhaps it’s time we tried another viewpoint. For a start, how about inviting a ‘layperson’ (or two) to join the Gazette’s Editorial Board? Peter Carolin
CRIPPS COURT The new and refurbished buildings on the north side of Chesterton Road for Magdalene College combine accommodation for forty undergraduate students with flexible amenities for both conference and private hire. These complement and extend facilities already offered within the main buildings just across the road. Magdalene had owned some land and buildings on the north side but it took a number of years to acquire sufficient freeholds for a viable scheme of expansion. The project financed by the Cripps Foundation went out to limited competition to seven architectural practices. The first planning application was refused on grounds of increased traffic and impact on neighbours, vehicular access only being possible via Hertford Street and Magrath Avenue behind. Restricted parking provision was subsequently agreed with a proctorial arrangement and an automatic gate system providing controlled access Magdalene went for a ‘Develop and Construct’ procurement method which was felt to offer the best balance of risks in terms of cost, time and quality. (A method used successfully at both New Hall and St Edmunds College). Architects Freeland Rees Roberts were to take the scheme to detailed design stage working with Hannah Reed as structural engineers and Roger Parker for service design. There followed a complex two stage tendering process arranged by Project Managers and Quantity Surveyors Davis Langdon. Haymills were then appointed to assume responsibility for both production information and for the construction, by contractual obligation assuming design responsibility also. Haymills appointed their own architects, The Charter Partnership as ‘Technical Detail Consultants’. They worked closely with FRR and the various consultants during the working drawing and construction phases. Davis Langdon were retained as project managers and QS’s throughout the process with FRR as Executive Architects and the College’s ‘Quality Control Consultants’ The design is based on a traditional court form but unusually there is a 5 metre change in level from Chesterton Road to the back of the site. The existing buildings on Chesterton Road were refurbished and a central entrance building added to enable the frontage buildings to work together to accommodate the required seminar rooms and computer facilities with some of the new Study/Bedrooms on the upper levels. A paved court at the front with cycle sheds brings the vistor to a generous central Foyer with Porters Lodge.
Beyond this you rise quickly through the full five metres to the Denis Murphy Gallery. This is a lofty space with exposed oak trussed roof providing something of the atmosphere of a traditional College Dining Hall. The Gallery offers space for informal dining but also acts as a bar and ante room for the 140 seat Sir Humphrey Cripps Theatre which adjoins this and the Foyer spaces. Beyond the Gallery, along the back of the site, is a narrow cloistered space (The Orangery) which provides access to the Bedroom accommodation. This runs close to the perimeter of the site on two sides. Most of the accommodation is designed to look over the central court. This is largely paved with some abrupt changes in level. A disabled ramp from the street runs almost the full depth of the space along one side. A small parking and service area extends along the rear boundary, screened from the houses and gardens of Magrath Avenue. A part of the site to the east behind the Theatre has gated access to Hertford Street and is reserved for a Sports Hall to be built as a second phase. The contract was completed for occupation last autumn. It is now in use and seems to be working well. The Foyer spaces are designed to handle large numbers for conferences and other major events and yet maintain a sympathetic scale for daily use by smaller groups. The foyer spaces are broken up visually and interesting to use if slightly marred by some of the details. The fashionable stainless steel and glass balustrading seems over designed and misplaced here. Some radiators and other service elements could have been better considered visually. The refurbishment of the existing rooms accessed from these areas is more confidently put together and the transition between old and new accommodation generally works well. Ground floor plan
The egg-shaped multi-purpose auditorium is handled well architecturally in relation to circulation areas. As a space it is similarly confident and well executed, with state of the art facilities. The Gallery has a robust character with its heavy oak structure in the Arts and Crafts tradition, in which FRR worked closely with the oak fabricators Peter McCurdy. It is only a pity that in one sense this room is a wide corridor and a slightly separated (cloistered) route, to and from the bedrooms, along the courtyard side might have resolved this. The Study/Bedroom accommodation is well considered and restrained with some bold internal use of colour to assist with orientation and identity. The handling of the exterior cladding is interesting. Attempts have been made to achieve some surface relief and complexity of pattern within limited dimensions using Clipsham stone, limed oak and buff bricks. The red clay Provencal roof tiles work successfully with this, but less so with the slate to the refurbished buildings. This juxtaposition for me requires greater visual resolution. The raised gable above the car park exit appears contrived. More subtlety might have worked better here. Similarly the raised pediment over the main entrance detracts from an otherwise pleasantly restrained new frontage building. In spite of these relatively minor quibbles there is a fluidity and maturity in FRR’s work here and given the procurement method a remarkable degree of consistency David Raven
Client: Cloverleaf Ltd for Magdalene College Architects: Freeland Rees Roberts Project Managers & Quantity Surveyors: Davis Langdon Service Engineers: Roger Parker Associates Structural Engineers & Health & Safety: Hannah Reed Associates Landscape: Lisa Camps Main Contractors: Haymills of Stowmarket Detailing Architects: Charter Partnership Services Engineers: Briggs & Forrester Main Sub-Contractors: Groundwork & Frame: MJS (Construction) March Ltd Structural Steelwork: Rowley Engineering Clipsham Stone: Mowlem Rattee & Kett Oak Roof Trusses: McCurdy & Co Ltd Roof Coverings: GHB Roofing Stone Flooring: Granite & Marble Services Ltd Auditorium Seating: Ferco Seating Systems Ltd Timber Flooring: Town & County Flooring Ltd
Photos: © Peter Cook
Courtyard frontage with ground floor Orangerie. Gallery to right
Lisa Camps Landscape Design Established in Cambridge since 1994 From concept ideas to full specification with planning and arboricultural advice
Telephone 01763 837010
Auditorium (Sir Humphrey Cripps Theatre)
Suffolk Brick & Stone Cleaning Company Limited Dickens House, Old Stowmarket Road, Woolpit, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk IP30 9QS
Brick & Stone Cleaning Restoration & Preservation Grit Blasting Repointing lime Mortars Jos System Cleaning Doff System Cleaning
Tel: 01359 242650 Fax: 01359 241211 Email: suffolkbrick@aol.com Website: www.suffolkbrickandstone.co.uk Suffolk Brick & Stone Cleaning Company Limited are pleased to have been associated with cleaning of the masonry and facade repairs at Magdalene College. We have 21 years experience in using methods like ‘Jos Torc’, ‘Doff’, Blast Softkleen & Cleanfilm to remove carbon, grime, moss, paint etc from brick, stone, and wood, to restore the beauty of these surfaces. Repointing and repairs are also our speciality.
(Right) South facade incorporating trellis for climbing plants
(Top) Plant room (Middle) Chilling plant and condenser compound: retaining wall of recycled tyres filled with excavated material from site (Bottom) Floor plan
Consultants Architect: RH Partnership Architects Ltd Contractor: Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd M+E Engineer: Faber Maunsell Structural Engineer: F J Samuely Quantity Surveyor: Gardiner & Theobald Project Manager: Davis Langdon LLP Acoustic Consultant: Arup Acoustics Landscape Design: Department of Plant Sciences CDM planning supervisor: Hannah Reed & Associates BREEAM Assessor: Faber Maunsell
NATURE PROOF Not many buildings are designed for little human occupation: automated-retrieval warehouses, long-term storage and the architecture of general infrastructure. Even morgues have their life. The lack of the social element certainly gives a reduced frisson and the whole idea is slightly chilling; a world of cryogenics and radio-active halflife beckon from the corners of the mind. So it is cheering that this elegant shed is dedicated to plants and the renewal of Nature. But it is ironic also that half the work carried out there involves the artificial infection of plants in order to study the pathology of their diseases. The building must therefore be hermetically sealed from Cambridge and its Botanic Garden: at the conclusion of experiments these plants are incinerated. The manager normally works alone with his corridors of Controlled-Growth Rooms and the hum of services. I immediately thought of Stanley Kubrik's film 2001 and the sole surviving crewman after HAL, the spaceship's computer, had killed off his colleagues, but the reference was lost on him. However, setting right humankind's wrongs may increasingly involve isolated environments, and the University and its architects have demonstrated admirable green credentials both in the conception of the building and care for its (few) occupants. The Plant Facility is within the technical area of the Botanic Gardens, and continues 160 years of botanical research. It is a short cycle-ride from the Department of Plant Sciences and near public transport. Its arched form relates well to the greenhouses and poly-tunnels nearby and answers the need for highly-accessible servicing: this is placed in the curved space above the rectangular Growth Rooms (pre-fabricated in Canada) and the perimeter curve outside the circulation areas. Plants for growth and flower undergo a 16-hour day while those grown for seed call for 8 hours. Light levels, temperature and humidity can all be varied for plant needs, and some extremes of luminance, such as the 'tropics', give rise to high temperatures which must be lowered by cooling. The result is a counter-project for the chilling plant and condensers, which is placed outside in an earth-protected compound, retained by recycled rubber-tyre walling. The plan is straight forward with an off-centre entrance, office and specialised facilities, and 60% of normal research carried out to the north, 40% for diseased plant research to the south; these have separate servicing. Both zones have a laboratory and potting/harvesting rooms. What could have been a closed shed has been humanised by manipulation of the section;
clerestory light gives a sense of the world outside and the central band is heavily glazed and overlooked by the labs. The original impulse for energy-efficiency came from the staff of the Botanic Gardens. The University commissioned a BREAM assessment and the architects have fulfilled these aspirations. From sustainably-sourced European timber to 40% GGBS. (ground granulated blastfurnace slag) in the concrete, waste, pollution and embodied energy have been kept low. Mechanical services incorporate sophisticated controls and heat recovery. (One of the design architects trained with eco pioneer Robert Vale.) Two particularly elegant details stand out. As a part of the aim of sealing the building, a curved, insulated stressskin panel was developed for the interior finish, and a stainless steel coping protects the timber frame and gathers rainwater via curved chutes to sub-soil distribution. The Botanic Gardens have cisterns elsewhere and preferred to maintain general soil humidity. In the light of growing aridity in the South-East one does wonder if this rainwater might have been retained, just as one questions whether shedding heat into the atmosphere was the right answer for the chilling plant. The architects did consider employing waste heat in the nearby greenhouses, but these are due for replacement and the problem of high heat levels coinciding with summer is currently insoluble. I was agreeably surprised to discover that a Design and Build strategy (the architects were employed by Willmott Dixon) had been a success. Negotiations and detailing were determined with sub-contractors and 'open book' discussion with the quantity surveyors; design intentions were not compromised. In these days of thuggish quality-controllers it is heartening that quality need not be sacrificed to deliveryon-time/ budget. John Sergeant
Section at growth rooms
Interior of growth room
Detail: cedar cladding, glulam portal rib with anchorage and integral rainwater dispersal channel. Solar louvres to east facing laboratories
East facade
Ralph Erskine (1914-2005), designed the college in 1964-66 in association with Twist and Whitley, executive architects. It was thought that the college copies of Erskine’s orginal drawings had been lost, but dyeline prints were discovered in near pristine condition in a maintenance plan-chest. The exhibition was displayed around an internal courtyard in the communal segment of the college, an area that is usually hidden from visitors to the curious and fascinating world of Clare Hall perhaps unique in Cambridge, an environment which baffles conventional assumptions. The drawings show that Erskine knew exactly what he was up to from the beginning of the project. Erskine presented half a dozen fine pencil drawn sketch plans to the college in 1964. It’s hard to imagine what was made of them. The buildings were simply blank patches with indentations and cut-out segments. Most of the site was covered by these building outlines, with all the graphic detail concentrated in the gaps between them. Informally paved and landscaped paths connected Herschel Road to the north with the lane to the south of the site. In some plans the paths branched, in others they were separate. A couple of plans were burdened with the footprint of an existing villa. One was boldly marked with an asterisk – the plan that was taken forward. The merits of the alternative schemes don’t immediately jump out at you, but Mike Jones, who curated the exhibition and prepared excellent explanatory notes to supplement the drawings, told me that the chosen plan was definitely the best. Two north-south paths divided the site into the three distinct segments that are seen today: the communal segment, the segment of family houses and the segment of flats. One important change during design development was to flip the segments, moving the communal segment that had been on the west to the east, and vice versa for the flats. Other interesting stories: juggling with the plan of the president’s house to satisfy the requirements of the first president’s wife; the move to a long slope for the roof over the flats, which had started as a cascade of flat roof segments; and the shaky sketch with Erskine’s ostentatious apology for drawing when under sail in a stiff breeze. Some distinctive features seemed to emerge virtually fully-formed: the flowing common room-dining room space with the kitchen at the highest point, and the half-level-sunk car parking, which gives an element of topography to an otherwise flat site. The triumph of Clare Hall is the demonstration that an institutional building can be so comprehensively antimonumental. Compare it with the many other college buildings of the 1960s and ’70s: only Girton’s Wolfson Court in Clarkson Road by David Roberts with Brendan Woods as project architect, or perhaps the pair of little buildings at New Hall by John Meunier and David Handlin, come close, but even these lack Erskine’s astounding casualness. Clare Hall remains an unattainable ideal. Which is why seeing the drawings is so valuable – they help to reveal that it isn’t magic, but a matter of architectural imagination and expertise – things that one feels could be acquired by diligent study. Who knows how these ideas formed in Erskine’s mind; it might be interesting to know, but it is much more important to learn from the marvellous group of buildings in Herschel Road.
ERSKINE ARCHIVE A review of a recent exhibition of Ralph Erskine’s drawings held at Clare Hall, by William Fawcett
RIBA AWARDS RIBA East has announced the fourteen buildings in the East of England which have been shortlisted for the national RIBA Awards 2006 including the following Cambrigde projects. Awards are given to buildings that have high architectural standards and make a substantial contribution to the local environment. Peterhouse Ward Library - £1.4m conversion of former museum into library extension (Conservation) (client: Peterhouse, Cambridge). Architects: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge Institute of Criminology, Sidgwick Site - £8.6m new university faculty (client: University of Cambridge, EMBS). Architects: Allies and Morrison, London New North Court, Jesus College £5.65m refurbishment of 1960s college extensions (client Jesus College). Architects: Avanti Architects, London Library and Archive, Girton College £1.6m extension to college library (client: Girton College, Cambridge). Architects, Allies and Morrison, London Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Expansion, Hinxton - £95m research campus (client: Wellcome Trust). Architects: NBBJ, London All Saints Church, Little Shelford £350k two small buildings in graveyard of Grade 1 church (client: All Saints Church). Architects Barber Casanovas Ruffles Ltd, Cambridge Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge - £9.5m library and teaching facilities (client: University of Cambridge EMBS). Architects: Building Design Partnership, London Botanic Garden Plant Growth facility £4.6m specialist research facility (client: University of Cambridge EMBS). Architects: RH Partnership, Cambridge Water Company Headquarters, Cambridge - £3.1m new offices incorporating part of former pumping station (client: Cambridge Water Company). Architects: Barber Casanovas Ruffles Ltd, Cambridge
JUBILEE FESTIVAL All Saints Church, Jesus Lane, opposite Jesus College, designed by G F Bodley and built 1863–70, was the subject of a festival of events in April to celebrate its rich Victorian heritage. Organised by the Churches Conservation Trust to raise money to conserve All Saints’ rare textiles and organ, it was an occasion to explore its majestic interior, notable for its unity of design, colour and ornament, largely to Bodley’s own designs. The painted wall and ceiling decorations, of remarkable scale and beauty, were executed by the Leach Studio, Morris &Co., and others. Fine glass in the east window is by Morris & Co., to designs by Burne-Jones, Ford Madox Brown and William Morris himself. Other windows are by Charles Eamer Kempe and Douglas Strachan. Fittings designed by Bodley include the alabaster font, the pulpit, and the oak aisle screen. The spire is a prominent Cambridge landmark, soaring above tower and chancel. The church was saved from partial demolition in December 1981 and its care was subsequently entrusted with the Trust. Supported by the Mayor Cllr. John Hipkin, and the Trust’s Chairman, Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP. A weekend festival of events at various locations throughout the city celebrated 25 years of caring for this historic and very special building. On 22 - 23 April talks by a range of experts and guided tours included exclusive access to a rare collection of Morris and Burne-Jones drawings at the Fitzwilliam Museum. The Festival closed with an organ and poetry recital. Full day schools workshops on 4&5 May were part of the Festival, in collaboration with the Fitzwilliam Museum. A reincarnated William Morris took pupils on an interactive tour exploring the history of the church.
Tower size believed correct at time of going to press
TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT If the Cemex application for re-development of the Barrington plant were to go ahead one thing is for sure, the people of South Cambridgeshire would be in for a big shock. The sheer size of the proposed pre-heater tower would dwarf all existing structures in the county. Ely cathedral would appear small in comparison, and the Addenbrookes incinerator tower would no longer be able to vie for the dubious honour of being the tallest structure in the area. The proposed kiln would become one of the new “sights” of Cambridge! What might it look like? We will not know for certain until any planning application is submitted, but the Cemex cement kiln in Rugby is roughly the same height and shape, based on early information released by the company. The Rugby kiln is hardly an object of beauty to most people. In December 2005 it was voted as one of Britain’s worst 12 buildings in Channel 4’s Demolition programme. However, size isn’t everything. There are impacts other than visual; traffic for instance. Most of the cement industry’s customers require reasonable amounts of cement, which is most easily delivered by 28 tonne lorries. The company would like to build a new road for lorry access to the A603, joining it between Barton and Orwell. However, residents of local villages are far from happy at the prospect of an estimated 492 lorries a day going past their homes, and the A603 may not be strong enough to survive the axle weight. Lorries also bring some raw materials and fuel to the plant including Secondary Liquid Fuel (SLF) which is hazardous waste from the paint and printing industries. So is there a demand for so much cement? Cemex will no doubt take advantage of the planned closure of cement kilns belonging to other operators to ramp up their operation but cement is a cheap commodity and it is uneconomical to transport it more than 200km by road. The existing kiln has a maximum capacity of 300,000 tonnes a year. The proposed increase, by a factor of 5, to 1,500,000 tonnes a year will need a much larger market area, hence longer journeys by road. The Olympics may be a reason for producing more, but that is a short term need, and if the application goes to public inquiry it is likely to miss the Olympic opportunity. We already import cement and we can import more if necessary to fill peaks and avoid troughs in the market. From 2012 where will this excess cement capacity go? A more insidious impact is to do with emissions. The abatement technology on modern-day kilns has got better to the point that residents of nearby villages rarely notice their
cars being covered with dust. However what appears to have happened is that the larger particulates are being removed more effectively but smaller particulates are still there. You do not notice them, but fine particles of 2.5 microns and less are much more dangerous to human health, and more so when they carry toxic substances such as heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated organic compounds. Kilns have been in operation for decades burning coal. Then petcoke was added as it burns better than coal, but contains more sulphur. However in the last decade a disturbing development occurred –cement companies, pushed by a drive to cut energy costs and reduce their carbon dioxide levy, have pushed for burning waste materials that do not contain so much sulphur and can be offset against the normal carbon levy on fuels for a substantial rebate. SLF is a low sulphur waste material, but is only one possible substitute fuel – others which may be burned include tyres, packaging waste, sewage sludge, meat and bone meal, waste from the pesticide and explosives industry, and treated municipal waste. In fact many of these you would not consider fuels as they do not burn as well as coal. The worrying thing is that many of these fuels contain elevated levels of heavy metals and chlorinated compounds, and what goes into the kiln must come out, either in the cement product, the kiln dust, or chimney emissions. Burning heavy metals does not destroy them – it simply oxidises them or creates other new compounds. The disturbing thing about burning waste such as SLF is that the emissions appear to contain more ultrafine particles than the traditional coal or coal/petcoke mix. A recent study by the Environment Agency showed that when burning SLF the peak for particles at Barrington was PM2.5. The corresponding peak for a coal/petcoke mix is likely to be PM5 (twice the diameter), and for coal PM30 (twelve times the diameter). The company is only required to measure particulates of size PM10, so there is very little information about the more dangerous fine and ultrafine particles that the dust abatement technology fails to capture. What is known is that in humans particles of 5 to 10 microns only reach the bronchioles and are expelled from the lungs in a few hours, whereas fine particles of size 1 to 4 microns go deeper into the lungs and reach the alveoli, and, if insoluble, have a 500 day half-life for removal! There are many studies about the dangers of PM2.5s, but the UK still does not have ambient air quality levels for PM2.5s. The World Health Organisation says there is no
The cement kiln at Rugby on the edge of the town. The Barrington proposals are for a similar size. Warning: this is a real picture, it is not a photo-montage!
safe limit for PM2.5s. If in addition the PM2.5s contain heavy metals, dioxins, furans and products of incomplete combustion this could be even more disastrous for our health. But how can you tell whether you are breathing it when you cannot smell it, and no one is measuring it? Incredibly, a European report (Okopol) has attempted a cost benefit analysis of fitting better abatement equipment to cement kilns against the financial cost of illness and death of those living nearby. Surely it is time to start applying the ‘Precautionary Principle’, and say that as there is demonstrable risk, we should not be burning waste. Incineration by the back door? The UK signed up to the EU landfill directive meaning we must reduce total volume going to landfill. Ironically the move away from landfill is driven by the fact that landfills start emitting methane after a decade or so due to the biodegradable element of the waste: methane is a greenhouse gas, contributing to global warming. There is nothing otherwise wrong with landfilling materials that cannot be reused, recycled, or composted, or treated in a gasification system, but minimisation of waste should be the final goal. Encouraging incineration is entirely the wrong thing to do. Long term contracts are needed by the supplier to pay for the capital cost, and penalty clauses will tie the councils into providing enough waste to feed the beast for 25 years. This is a terrible disincentive to proper recycling, and goes against the spirit of the European Directive, which is to encourage sustainability. Also, when waste is incinerated the carbon in it becomes carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, and is released to the air rather than being locked up for hundreds of years in landfill! When items are incinerated, replacements are needed. Any energy “recovered” in the incineration process is small compared to the additional energy is needed to remanufacture a replacement item. Waste should be used as a resource rather than being seen as something to be disposed of. Ironically the cement industry has managed to secure a significant rebate on its carbon tax if it burns such waste material. A disturbing development last year was the move to the new Environment Agency IPPC system for regulation of the cement works. On the face of it this looks good, as the European Community is attempting to tighten the limits. However to our dismay on the Barrington Liaison group, the new permit showed that the local specification for SLF had been relaxed in significant areas. The amount of lead, copper, arsenic contained in SLF can now be increased. Much worse, the minimum calorific value of SLF was reduced, and, as the permit is by calorific value, the company can now burn 50% more SLF within its current permit! These modified levels will form the basic emissions starting point for the proposed new kiln. The Environment Agency regulates cement kilns using the “Substitute Fuels Protocol” which was formulated for the Barrington SLF trials 10 years ago. The protocol used to ensure that trials were indeed trials and there was no guarantee of permission being granted. However, last year this document was severely weakened: waste streams from pharmaceutical and pesticide production can now be used as substitute fuel; at the end of a “trial”, which may last for 3 months, the substitute fuel (tyres, etc) can continue to be burnt until the EA inspector makes a decision; public consultation is only required if the inspector deems there is a ‘Substantial Change’, but guidance is also given to the inspector that trials of substitute fuels are not normally considered a Substantial Change! The consequence is that if a cement kiln operator decides to change to a “co-incinerator” it can do so unhindered without public consultation. As a “co-incinerator” the cement kiln falls under the new Waste Incineration Directive (WID) that covers proper “incinerators” also. Surprisingly the WID has different regulations for “incinerators” and “co-incinerators”. Notably the particulate emissions for an incinerator are much tighter, whereas a cement kiln is able to emit 3 times the levels of particulates per unit volume gas emitted. Kilns are being granted special grace and favours. Why should
Late news Cemex has recently announced it has “suspended” its planning application for Barrington and intends to a build a cement mill in the South East to supply the Olympics with imported product. The reason given for the suspension was uncertainty about the UK’s carbon dioxide strategy.
Cambridge Events 16-25 June a cement kiln be allowed to bypass its abatement equipment when levels of carbon monoxide build up causing huge releases of toxic substances to air, while a proper incinerator has tight restrictions when its abatement fails? We need to gear up for ultimate sustainability, aiming for zero waste. In the meantime, if anything has to be incinerated, surely it should be done properly in a purposebuilt incinerator, not in a cement kiln that is necessarily optimised for the production of cement. What we need is vision that will lead us to a truly sustainable future. Have we the courage to confront the giants and curb the excesses of big business while laying foundations for a climate in which new and innovative industries in waste recycling and reclamation can flourish? And if there were a choice between sorting your household waste while paying an extra 50p for a bag of cement, and a high risk of your family getting asthma and respiratory illnesses, with perhaps cancer in ten to twenty years, what would you choose? Andrew Bott
16 – 18 June Art & Architecture exhibition.Corn Exchange. t: 308817 16 – 18 June Henlow Gardens Long Road Taster Exhibition. T: 561192 16,17,23,25 June Cambridge Open Studio’s Gallery Fulbourn. T: 561192 16 & 23 June Tour of extended Folk Museum Castle Street. T: 355159 16,17,19-23 June Space for People-by People Exhibition Dolton’s Warehouse, 23 Tenison Road T: 351879 18 June Family drawing event Kettles Yard & St Peters Church. T: 352124 19 June History Tour ‘Julius Caesar to Tony Blair’ Meet Quayside t: 212189 19 June A debate about public space ‘What makes a City’ The Junction Clifton Way t: 462606 20 June Tour of Genome Campus extension Hinxton t: 494956 20 June Talk & tours of new Library Girton College t: 338970 – 6.00 – 7.00 pm 20 June Talk & tours of Plant Growth Faculty Botanic Gardens t: 316309 – 6.00–7.00 pm 21.22 June Freeland Rees Roberts Architects Open practice t: 366555 With primary childrens drawing competition & exhibition–(Park Street & Great Abingdon) 22 June Walking tour from Lion Yard to Quayside t: 212189 continued on back page
22 June (continued) Tour of AC Architects new sustainable offices. 33 – 35 Victoria Street t: 576315 22 June Talk on building of Kettles Yard t: 352124 23 June Tour of Peterhouse Ward Library with archtects. T: 338213 24 June Tour of Faculty of Education Hills Road t: 0207812 8000 24.25 June Cambridge Open Studios. Fulbourn Centre-Townley Memorial Hall t: 561192 24.25 June Tour of straw bale studios. Wysing Arts Bourn. T: 01954 718881
CFCI EVENTS e-mail: Secretary@cfci.org.uk 5th June 6.30 pm meeting at SmartLife Centre, off Kings Hedges Road (behind CRC) 14 June 6.00 pm visit to the Grand Arcade 26 June 6.30pm meeting at Theatre, Fitzwilliam College, Storey’s Way. ‘Arbury Park and Northstowe’
CAg52 ERRATA: The four captions on page 3 l/h column were included in error by the printers from a previous issue
CA gazette list of current sponsors Cowper Griffith Associates Barber Casanovas Ruffles Ltd Peter Dann Consultants Ltd Lyster Grillet & Harding R.H. Partnership Architects Ltd Christopher Maguire Architects Twitchett Architects Michael Walton Architects Bland Brown & Cole Wrenbridge Land Ltd Kenneth Mark Practice Saunders Boston Archangel Ltd Granta Architects Patrick Ward Architects Feilden & Mawson LLP Freeland Rees Roberts Neale Associates Rosalind Bird Architects Miller Associates
A review produced by the Cambridge Association of Architects. The views in this gazette are those of the individual contributors and not of the Association. Copy deadline for CAg 54 is 18 September 2006. The editors welcome readers’ contributions but reserve the right to edit ISSN 1361-3375
SUPPLYING AND SPECIFYING ALL TYPES OF IRONMONGERY • • • •
Hills Road Showroom Family Business Personal Service to Architects Free Door Packing Service
56 Hills Road, Cambridge. Tel:01223 363060
Editorial Group: David Raven co-editor Colen Lumley co-editor Jeremy Lander co-editor John Preston Peter Carolin Cambridge Architecture gazette c/o 25a Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1NW Tel 01223 366555 Fax 01223 312882 Email jl@frrarchitects.co.uk or mail@dra-architects.demon.co.uk Printed by Bulldog Publishing Ltd, Whittlesford