Integrated Design Booklet

by Rokas Vilciauskas C1925773

Design intent

Arriving from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 proposals, my vision for the MWR is centred around the idea of a beacon. The Beacon can be defined as a source of inspiration and encouragement. In my Phase 4 proposal I will convert the current MWR building into a community centre that embodies the rich history of the village, brings a community together and becomes a landmark/ monument for tourists and locals.

Social:

• Enhance Social Interaction

• Improve Sense of Place

• Improve Accessibility

• Grow Community Engagement

Environmentally sustainable:

• Improve the Thermal Performance of the Existing Building Fabric

• Revitalise Green Space

• Promote Active Travel

• Encourage Self Sustainability

Cultural:

• Create a Canvas for Creative Arts in the MWR Building

• Provide Venues for a Variety of opportunities of Public Engagement

• Serve as a Voice of a Village for Tourists and Visitors

Representational:

• Respond to the Architectural Heritage Respectfully

• Represent the Rich History of MWR and Resolven through an Architectural Canvas

• Create a Vision for the Rejuvenation of other Historic Landmarks in Resolven

Attitude to the existing

1. The building sits close to / on the site boundary limiting area for development.

2. The front entrance is permanently closed. Traffic is generated through the side of the building.

3. Close proximity to adjacent residential buildings. Requires for care regarding sound polution.

4. Lack of direct sunglight due to the snooker room extension.

5. Complicated traffic patterns due to cars being parked on the street, there is not enough width.

Opportunities

1. In the vision for the future, I will aim to provide an improved traffic pattern to limit congestion, whilst actively encouraging the use of bicycles and other sustainable modes of transport.

2. A public building front will be developed in a form of a park / garden.

3. The building will be made accessible for all from a variety of directions.

4. Vertical connection units will be developed and made prominent by implementing a beacon-like feature.

The current building will be altered to resemble the structural shape of the original art-deco facade. The snooker room extension will be removed to provide the inner rooms of the hall with direct daylight. The vertical extension elements will create a mostly symmetrical facade and feature beacon features.

The circulation within the building will be improved. There will be no dead ends and convoluted circulation patterns. The front entrance will be re-opened to provide the building with a proper reception area.

The current structural core spaced out every 3.7m. will be used an built upon with a vertical extension unit. The envelope will be improved by adding insulation, making the building more sustainable.

Vertical acess strategy

Access to the building and vertical connections are of utmost priority to fulfil the phase 4 brief. With the proposal, I am aiming to meet the regulation of all-inclusive access into the building and eliminate the risks of the current MWR layout. Additionally, vertical circulation around the building is carefully considered to align with fire safety requirements and provide a suitable connection with a vertical extension.

The position of the vertical circulation element and design driver (beacon feature) has been carefully considered and interrogated in tandem with the position of the reception area, points of exit and current building structure.

1. The central position for a staircase is largely impractical due to the current structure of the building, mainly the load-bearing wall. This option poses issues regarding the location of the reception area as it would be in direct view from the entrance, or easily accessible. Furthermore, in 3d the building would be fully symmetrical, which in this case is undesirable as the material interconnection of old-new could look disjointed.

2. The position of the beacon figure on the West face of the building resolves the issue of circulation around the vertical staircase; however, there is no direct link between the staircase/elevator and the reception area. This option is also very intrusive, as a large part of the building would have to be demolished to host the staircase.

3. The third and in my opinion the most convincing option would be to develop the beacon figure on the corner of the street (the most visible spot on the site) and to extend the building envelope ever so slightly. This option would require relatively minimal change to the current building envelope. It is also convincing in developing interconnection with side/ main exits and the reception area in close proximity.

Building vertical / horizontal access strategy

Zoomed in circulation strategy

Detailed junctions | old - new

Vertical access in the building is provided through modern building extensions that function as beacon figures. Thereby, the junction between old and new material is particularly interesting.

The initial idea was that the vertical extension frame cladding would be made out of the same material as the beacon frames. However, I later decided that the beacon features have to be emphasized and the extended structure itself should be permeable. Therefore, the technical analysis (drawn interpretation of a section), provided me with a sense of how the two materials could be merged. I enjoyed the idea of using corrugated steel as it contrasted well with the old brick, whilst the construction and installation of the structure is fairly simple. I later used the conclusions from this study to develop a link between old and new in a detailed plan section.

Interrogation of the structural link between an existing and developed structure provided the basis for the understanding of how materials would merge as the current core of the MWR structure had to be maintained.

The final Old-New junction was informed by the sketch scheme as it highlighted crucial decisions. the idea of insulation on the inner face of the building had been pursued and implemented into the final design, and a structural core of the current MWR was maintained. Even though the insulation doubled around the structural wall in the final proposal which was not foreseen in the sketch scheme, the principles have been carried out.

Stairwell extension in plan section

Old-new junction sketch in plan

Wall build-up

Old-new final junction

Corrugated steel

Timber Batten Mount System

Timber Board and Damp Proof Membrane

Insulation Steel Frame

Light

Fire safety

Currently, the theatre in MWR is not allowed to operate due to its inability to comply with government regulations for fire safety and accessibility. The 2019 fire risk and safety assessment of MWR raises several safety hazards.

1. There is no reception area directly visible from the main entrance (risk of arson, people wandering etc.).

2. The staircases are cluttered at moments in a poor state.

3. There is no disabled access.

4. Based on the floor plans the back end of the building is serviced by additional 2 staircases; however, the top right staircases as depicted is impossible and would not meet regulation; while I personaly haven’t been able to locate the top left one as it is inaccessible to the public.

Phase 2 observations

The group work phase 2 proposal addresses the main issues.

1. A small reception and coat-hanging area are provided to reduce the risk of arson.

2. The building is provided with a lobby for small gatherings before, during and after shows. The staircases are no longer clustered.

3. An elevator is provided for disabled access.

4. However, the back staircase is still an issue we hadn’t addressed. The same seemingly impossible staircase was used at the back of the building.

5. Additionally, the benefit of having 2 front staircases was overlooked. In the process of creating space for a reception area, one of the staircases has been removed, which proves to be problematic for fire safety. That is due to the fact that the 2nd-floor space (the theatre overhang) is only serviced by 1 emergency exit that does not achieve the safe distance of evacuation in the event of fire.

Proposed 4 5

strategy 5 6 6 6 6

I believe the theatre is critical for the financial stability of MWR as well as for the community. Thereby my Phase 4 proposal resolves the before-mentioned issues by using the beacon features, thus creating a modern and seamless design that meets the regulation.

1. A reception area visible from multiple entrances is provided to minimise the risk of arson.

2. A lobby for gatherings before, after and during the performances is provided and made larger in comparison to Phase 2

3. An elevator servicing all floors is provided for disabled access.

4. The back staircase is now clearly visible and easily identifiable, servicing all floors.

5. The 2nd floor (theatre overhang) is serviced by 2 fire escape routes at the front and back of the building, thus complying with the regulation.

The MWR building falls under categories 5b and 5c of the classification; thereby escape routes have to be located at a maximum distance of 45 meters regardless of the position of the building. The maximum theatre capacity is around 450 people; thereby the building has to have at least 2 escape routes. While it is estimated that the width of the stairs should be around 1500mm.

Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 3.2

Current scheme critique

Thermal insulation

One of the largest problems with the current MWR building to be addressed is its lack of insulation. Currently, the wall makeup does not feature a layer of insulation. This means the building is not only more expensive to maintain it is also unfriendly towards the environment. Thereby, strategizing for how the current MWR canvas and a proposed extension can be insulated is of high importance.

building regulations. Slightly worse for concrete junction, but still fits the regulation.

The current section of the wall does not feature any insulation.

I am proposing two ways of insulating the building

1. Externally. This option is fairly simple as the insulation could be mounted on the existing facade.

2. Internally. Removing the plasterboard finishes and applying the insulation. This would allow the building to retain the beautiful facade on the outside; however, would result in a slight loss of space internally.

Current detail | wall junction

Current detail | wall junction at structural point

Proposed insulation on the outside | wall junction

Proposed insulation detail on the outside | wall junction at structural point Proposed insulation on the inside wall junction

Proposed insulation detail on the inside wall junction at structural point

Insulation on the outside

Insulation on the inside

Current structure

The interrogation of the current roof structure is vital for further developments of vertical extension. Because of the pitched roof wood structure, a new structural system has to be implemented to host the vertical extension. Simultaneously the sketches are testing out the idea of internal/external insulation and continuity or lack there of with the floor above.

The current wooden structure spans 14 meters and is spaced out roughly every 3.7m. at the structural grid points of concrete reinforcement in the walls. The structure is roughly 3.5 meters tall from top to bottom, however, it hangs at around 1.2 meters into the theatre space (above 2nd floor wall height), and the rest is an extension on the roof.

The first option is the cold-formed open web steel truss. Although the truss is slender regardless of heavy loading it is not an ideal solution because this type of structure has to be continuous with vertical support elements in order to be fully functional. Meaning steel columns would have to be used alongside the current concrete structure. Which is not financially viable or environmentally friendly.

Current roof structure

A new structural system is heavily important for safety and sustainability factors. As stated in previous pages the building is not insulated; thereby, if insulating internally the roof finishes would have to be removed, additional joists and trusses would have to be added to fixate the insulation boards and because the structure is bent it would be slightly more expensive. Additionally, the frame is assumingly not in a great state, while the extension above the theatre space is not used or maintained; thereby, the removal of these features is crucial for the theatre to reopen its doors.

New proposal detail

In this instance, insulation is done on the outside face behind the brick finish. This would mean that in order to maintain a brick facade a current building face would have to be torn down and replaced after being insulated. This is a direct juxtaposition of the vision for my Phase 4 proposal as I intend to maintain the historic facade.

Demolition scheme

Structural grid

Structural proposal

Because of the need to maintain a current structural core 2 more systems are tested, that is not as space efficient; however, can be mounted upon the existing structural grid.

The second option tested is the rolled steel truss. This structure typically spans 12 - 45 meters; thereby the current structural grid of 14m. spans is easily achievable. It can be assumed that the L/d ratio would be low regardless of high loading due to the typical spans of the structure. However, based on the principles in the “Metric Handbook” this structure at 14m. spans might not be as financially viable as the following option as it is typically used for larger spans.

The vierendeel girder proves to be the most viable option. With a typical span of 6- 18m. the span in MWR is in the middle of the range meaning this option is likely to be financially viable. This form of a truss is also less deep than the rolled steel truss which is beneficial. The gaps in the truss can be used to run building services. It also addresses all the previously mentioned potential issues.

From the narrative perspective and actual possibilities of implementation, it is obvious that internal insulation is the better option. With the vertical extension (garden) functioning as a greenhouse, the thermal insulation pattern can be wrapped up in the theatre space above the truss system.

Precedent analysis

The Granor Greenhouse by Wheeler Kearn Architects is the main inspiration for the vertical extension. I believe the idea of a greenhouse is particularly appealing. Greenhouses are passively heated and cooled; thereby making it self-sufficient and environmentaly friendly. It is also an economically viable solution as the structure is lightweight and easily assembled. Additionally, the structure is completely permeable; thereby, making it ideal for the narrative of a beacon, as the view of the rooftop botanical garden would be stunning in the evening when the lights are on.

Application

Detail interpretation

The same principles can be applied to the vertical extension of the proposal. Because the greenhouse is on the roof of the structure, there are no surrounding buildings casting a shadow onto the envelope. The structure is bound to benefit from daylight and passive heating. Passive ventilation strategies can also be easily implemented by creating side windows and opening the reception area space to the top floor (quadruple height space) thus giving an entire building natural ventilation. There are also opportunities to harvest rainwater and use it to sustain the rooftop garden. Solar panels can be incorporated into the green roof for additional self-sufficiency.

Precedent / Granor Greenhouse Environmental strategies

Vertical Extension

The structure of the vertical greenhouse extension is an important consideration for the structural impact of the building, and financial feasibility. I was looking for a cost-effective and light solution that could function as an independent structure on top of the current building envelope.

The initial idea was to use MetForm steel structure as it is modular, easy to assemble and a cost-effective solution. The wall system could be completed using “L” or “H” shaped steel sections. With cross bracings at regular intervals. However, Metform is typically used as a structural system that is infilled with insulation and cladding on the outside. This would have been a valid approach with the initial idea of cladding the extension in corrugated steel much like with the beacon; however, it does not function well as a visible structure.

For these reasons, I decided to opt for a more typical steel structure solution similar to that of a greenhouse precedent. An independent structural grid and the use of a steel truss structure meant that the steel could span the entire length without being braced, which was desirable. The outside face followed a similar pattern to that of the metform structure. However, because the structure was made out of structural columns, the glazing was mounted on the outside rather than within the structural frame (like metform would). This provided a much more appealing solution in terms of presentability.

Option 3 / Final

Technical imagination

Up to this point, I believe the entire booklet is a continuous exercise of technical imagination. However, in this section, I wanted to interrogate the atmospheric side of technical imagination rather than the quantitative. I am using 3 precedents with different lighting directions and conditions to conduct this little experiment.

The technical imagination brief focuses on creating dynamic lighting conditions in the reception area of the MWR building and looking into the impact of the created interior conditions on the face of the facade.

With this exercise, I was more interested in the atmosphere of space rather than the quantity of light. I was looking for a mix of hard and soft shadows, creating a cohesive and playful atmosphere in the interior space.

Strategy 1 features the loosest design. The first iteration is used as a feeler to interrogate how openings on all facades would impact the lighting conditions internally. The result, predictably, is quite unconvincing as the spatial sequence is disjointed. A floor-to-ceiling window opening on the West side is likely to cause overheating. While the facade of the building is uninspiring as it loses the character of the current and historic MWR.

Strategy 2 features an elevated row of windows wrapping the front facade. Although the lighting is dynamic and looks attractive on the inside. I do believe on a gloomy day the space would feel somewhat uninviting as the duration of quality daylight is likely to be fairly limited. It also feels counterintuitive to scrap an entire second floor and replace it with windows as it would be expensive and the historic window coverups would look asymmetrical. Additionally, from an outside perspective, the building does not feel welcoming as there is no permeability. This option is not representative of the idea of the beacon.

Strategy 3 offers the most balanced approach both internally and externally. The building extension does not interrupt the rhythm created by the current facade while opening the ground floor feels more inviting for the passerby. The quality of light on the inside offers a good balance of playful shadows cast by the upper floors and good lighting conditions on the ground floor.

Cost precedents

The proposal features a large number of changes to the current building envelope; therefore, finding cost precedents for individual segments is largely important to formulate an accurate expectation of the building refurbishment/extension costs.

Vertical Extension | structure

Building use: Hospital

Sq.m.: 2392m2

Cost: 9 402 512.78 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 4 026 £/m2 (rebased)

The proposed use of the roof extension is a community garden and kitchen. Plant pots and kitchen appliances are heavy components; therefore, a structural frame with high resistance to vertical loading is necessary. Therefore, as a precedent for the new roof structure, I have chosen a Hospital in YORK because of the heavy dead and imposed loads in hospital buildings. Additionally, the type of work was a vertical extension; thereby, the costs of the substructure are also relevant as it gives an estimate of how much it costs to extend a building upon an existing envelope.

Stairwell extension

Building use: Medical Centre Sq.m.: 22m2 (2 storeys)

Cost: 143 371.23 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 6 676m2 (rebased)

The precedent for beacon features (vertical access) is the stairwell extension of St Georges Medical Centre. This extension only covers 2 floors and accounts for one staircase, thereby; I assume that the price of my proposal will be significantly higher. Additionally, from the elemental cost breakdown I assume that the stairwell does not offer vertical access for the disabled, thereby, my proposal will be even more expensive.

Vertical Extension | frame

Building use: Warehouse

Sq.m.: 2,788m2

Cost: 1 272 499. 26 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 482 £/m2 (rebased)

For the vertical extension of the building frame (the greenhouse), I have chosen to interrogate the cost of an industrial warehouse unit in East Midlands as warehouses use steel framed structures, and in most cases, the roof does not have to deal with heavy loads. However, I do estimate that my build cost would be 20% higher than the precedent because the precedent is larger in scale (thus cheaper) and uses perforated steel as a facade whereas my proposal is entirely glass, thus will be more expensive.

Refurbishment | Conversion

Building use: Community Hub

Sq.m.: 560m2

Cost: 2 099 976.41 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 3 749 £/m2 (rebased)

The most important precedent regarding the interior restoration of MWR is the Community Hub in Glasgow. It offers a direct prize comparison as the works carried out on the interior behind a retained facade a very similar; thereby the price estimation should be fairly accurate.

Estimated Cost

Overall, the design is very ambitious; therefore, the estimated price of the project is around 3 million pounds and could be more. The renovation of the building is intended to be delivered in stages to ensure that a part of the building remains operational throughout the entire process. This would allow the shareholders to maintain a steady income and cover operational costs whilst waiting for building permissions, grants and other sources of funding, as well as cover a part of the initial deposit for the grants.

It is important to note that the success of the rejuvenation of the MWR building relies heavily on the communities willingness to participate in the activities and pay the fees while the building is being restored. However, as the building is for the community after the building is complete, the idea would be to charge the minimum after the building is complete to pay off depts and cover opeational costs and wages.

Funding strategy

Total area: 749 m2

Estimated cost of build: 2 936 566.74 £

Cost per sq/m: 3 920 £/m2

Lobby Demolition / Renovation

Vertical Extension (1 storey)

Ground Floor Renovation

Vertical Extension (2.5 storey)

Theatre Roof Renovation

Rooftop Extension Facade

Revenue Streams

Community space Event space

Mon - Fri 2h - 60£ (10h. work day)

Sat - Sun 2h - 80£ (14h. work day)

Income per month - 6880£

In the 4 year span - 192 640£

Theatre Cafe

Rehersal / performance space

Mon - Fri 3h - 70£ (6h. work day)

Sat - Sun 4h - 200£ (8h. work day)

Income per month - 6000£

In the 4 year span - 84 000£

4.5£ spent per person

5 customers per hour

in 10 hour working day = 225£

Income per month - 6300£

In the 4 year span - 176 400£

Reflections

Overview

My Phase 4 proposal is a mix of the modernisation of an old building envelope and the conservation of valuable architectural elements. The key design driver was the creation of a beacon feature that would serve as a source of inspiration as well as a reminder of the rich Resolven History, whilst building for the future.

Intent

Overall, the design is very ambitious due to the extent of the work carried out and the mix of different ideologies. In reference to the cost breakdown and comparison to Phase 2 work, the design is potentially not very realistic, especially in the context of Resolven being a village. However, I do believe I have identified a much-needed architectural vision for the MWR building and Resolven as a whole and made it my own. From my working experience I have learned that the proposal before advanced talks with contractors, clients etc. should strive to represent the best possible scenario for the development and can always be scaled down. I do; therefore, believe the proposal captures the initial goals of developing a beacon that embodies community, sustainability, representation and culture.

Phase 2

In comparison to Phase 2, my phase 4 proposal offers a design intent focused largely on the wider scope of influence rather than detailing a multifunctional event space. The Phase 2 proposal whereas the Phase 4 proposal takes on a wider approach, seeking to have a positive financial and representational impact n Resolven.

Integrated Thinking

I tend to enjoy the process of thinking technically in developing design spaces. As a whole, I believe it would have been better if my proposal had been less ambitious technically, as I had to detail and explore a lot of components. Instead, it would have probably been better to take one element and go in-depth on it, as balancing and producing drawings for 4 different elements meant a slight drop in quality and rigour.

Page 4

1. HM Government, 2015. Access to and use of buildings: Approved Document M. The National Archives.

Page 6

1. HM Government, 2020. Fire safety: Approved Document B. The National Archives.

Page 5; 7-9

1. BSI British Standart, 2009. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. BSI.

2. BSI: British Standart, UK National Annex To Eurocode 1: Actions On Structures (BSI, 2002)

3. Buxton, Pamela, Metric Handbook, 7th edn (Abingdon: Routledge, 2022)

4. Cobb, Fiona, Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book, 2nd edn (Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009)

5. Steel Construction Institute, Steel Building Design: Design Data (The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd, 2015)

6. “Steel Recycling - Save Energy & Reduce Pollution | Recycle More”, Recycle-More.Co.Uk <https://www.recycle-more.co.uk/recycling/steel> [Ac- cessed 11 March 2022]

7. Williams, Mann, Structural Guidance For WSA Students (Cardiff: Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, 2022

1. Caballero, P. (2023) Granor Greenhouse / Wheeler Kearns architects, ArchDaily. ArchDaily. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/994818/granor-greenhouse-wheeler-kearns-architects?ad_source=search&amp;ad_medium=projects_tab (Accessed: March 11, 2023).

1. Community Hub - #33447 (no date) BCIS - Independent data for the built environment. Available at: https://service-bcis-co-uk.abc.cardiff.ac.uk/BCISOnline/Analyses/ AnalysesDetail/32449?returnUrl=%2FBCISOnline%2FAnalyses%2FAnalysesResults%3ForiginatingPage%3DRebase%26analysesType%3DNoChange&amp;returnText=Go+back+to+analyses+results&amp;Section=Analyses (Accessed: March 7, 2023).

2. Endoscopy Unit Vertical Extension, York Hospital - #33374 (no date) BCIS-Independent data for the built environment. Available at: https://service-bcis-co-uk.abc.cardiff.ac.uk/BCISOnline/Analyses/ AnalysesDetail/32376?returnUrl=%2FBCISOnline%2FAnalyses%2FAnalysesResults%3ForiginatingPage%3DRebase%26analysesType%3DNoChange&amp;returnText=Go+back+to+analyses+results&amp;Section=Analyses (Accessed: March 7, 2023).

3. Industrial Warehouse Unit - #34301 (no date) BCIS - Independent data for the built environment. Available at: https://service-bcis-co-uk.abc.cardiff.ac.uk/BCISOnline/Analyses/ AnalysesDetail/33303?returnUrl=%2FBCISOnline%2FAnalyses%2FAnalysesResults%3ForiginatingPage%3DRebase%26analysesType%3DNoChange&amp;returnText=Go+back+to+analyses+results&amp;Section=Analyses (Accessed: March 7, 2023).

4. Stairwell Extension, St Georges Medical Centre - #33460 (no date) BCIS - Independent data for the built environment. Available at: https://service-bcis-co-uk.abc.cardiff.ac.uk/BCISOnline/Analyses/ AnalysesDetail/32462?returnUrl=%2FBCISOnline%2FAnalyses%2FAnalysesResults%3ForiginatingPage%3DRebase%26analysesType%3DNoChange&amp;returnText=Go+back+to+analyses+results&amp;Section=Analyses (Accessed: March 7, 2023).

Page 15

1. Group 12 (no date) Resolven Miners Welfare: The Beacon, Phase 2: Strategic Proposal Report. Edited by R. Vilciauskas et al.