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.

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.