TOM KENDREW Architecture Design Portfolio 2013

Archi

tect

ure Tom Kendrew BA ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

STAGE 2 PORTFOLIO

Session 2012 - 2013

Design Module Work Year Design Report

“My passion and great enjoyment for architecture,

and the reason the older I get the more I enjoy it,

is because I believe we - architects - can effect

the quality of life of the people.�

- Richard Rogers

London City Hall - Foster & Partners

*

Work Completed after Project Submission

Klimahaus Bremerhaven - Thomas Klumpp Architects

6

Charette Week Project

Animate Space

7

8

9

Placed Displaced

10

11

Garden

Placed, Displaced was the first project of the year and it involved tight spatial restrictions & a personal, human-scale approach to architecture.

I designed an unconventional house that separated the circulation vertically from the living spaces to create a contrast between places of movement and rest.

Reading Area

Kitchen

Bike Store

Bathroom

Living







12

Bedroom



 











 

13

* 14

* 15

16

17

Home

Economy

Simplicity

Simplicity

economy

home The Foyer Project was the longest of the year and was one of ups and downs. I designed a steel-frame timber-clad structure with one block for accommodation and one for the workshop and tutor’s flat, which enclosed a courtyard and were sheltered by a large retaining wall. This creates a sense of place within the foyer and shields it from surrounding noise, wind and privacy issues.

The foyer’s main selling point was its interactive wall of memories - clients would carve a personal plaque during their time in the furniture workshop onsite, which they could then mount onto the wall at the front of the foyer. This gives a personal and touching memento from each client, as they leave a permanent mark behind on their journey to self-sufficiency, and allows the foyer to proudly display its previous memories and successes.

My foyer also had a low environmental impact which I designed during the Environmental Design Coursework Module - with Photovoltaic and Water Heating panels on the roof, rain collection, biomass boiler, a rooftop garden tended by the foyer inhabitants and attention paid to heating and lighting systems.

20

*

22

Ground Floor Plan 1:100

First Floor Plan 1:100

23

24

* 25

26

27

* 28

29

Environmental Strategy

* 30

31

Sharpness Point Cultural Centre

34

35

Sharpness Point

Civic Centred was an ambitious project for me, as I rejected the four selected sites and chose my own, Sharpness Point. Its exciting location hanging off the end of the headland and sandwiched between the sky, the sea and a plateau of rocks created a dramatic and dynamic setting that changes with the tides.

Thus my building was rather unconventional design, the concept coming from a shard of rock thrust from the cliff towards the horizon, both pushing forward in a dynamic and forceful gesture but also tentatively connected back to the land. The building was to feel precarious, like a fragile construction just barely hanging on, while in fact it was sturdy and resistant enough to withstand the barrage of seawater and wind it had to face.

I designed a plan based on radial shards from a vertical central point, and tied the circulation between two entrances on each side. I planned a climbing centre dug into the rock face, an earthy, solid space that felt like a part of nature, with natural rock faces to climb on and heavy structural elements giving a real sense of solidity and weight. Then, above that I placed a revolutionary digital-only library, where visitors can borrow tablets to read, watch or play whatever they like, in the comfort of a warm environment with panoramic views out to sea. The library was a place to think, and to experience literature and media - not a mundane place of storage and borrowing.

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

*

*

43

Section B-B

44

* 45

46

47

48

49

50

Section Alley

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

YEAR DESIGN REPORT At the end of Stage 2 I feel like I have worked much, much harder than last year and it has been much more emotional. I questioned my ability a lot more but also improved greatly because of that, and I’m now in a very good place in terms of my self-confidence in design and my ability to actually produce enough to back it up. I’m looking forward to third year with a healthy dose of anticipation and dread regarding the workload, as I have a tendency to push very hard and stress myself too much when I’m focused on a project, but hopefully I’ve picked up the skills so far to make that work count for something in the end.

Charette Project The first week of the year was a somewhat frantic one as we were given the task of building a chain-reaction machine for a live demonstration and film. I ended up leading our sub-team (I always seem to become team leader despite often not necessarily volunteering for the role) and we decided on a fairly ambitious machine, with more parts than any other group and the idea to cook some popcorn in a microwave completely autonomously, whilst passing the motion on. This resulted in a few late nights and I actually really enjoyed co-ordinating everybody and getting the machine working. Another late night was spent with a small group of leaders from different sub-groups filming and editing the video, which took a lot longer than expected. Overall it was a tiring week and a sign of lots of hard work and fun to come.

Placed, Displaced The terraced house project was a strange one – being more geared towards city-level architecture, I found it hard to adjust to a small domestic scale project. I had an interesting concept involving clouded glass and Teflon screening to create an abstract, soft glow from within the house, and Jennie (my tutor) gave somewhat helpful advice, but I found it hard to establish a strong direction in the project. I finally got the building together a couple of days before the crit, however I didn’t get enough workshop time to finish the model and it compromised the project quite a bit. I tried to make up for it by making a very full presentation, but I missed the personal, human scale the project needed and the presentation ended up feeling too piecemeal and didn’t have enough thought. Although the crit went very well and I was assured I had a good mark, I ended up with a C which left me feeling a bit downhearted.

Simplicity, Economy, Home The Foyer project was a chance to start anew and I tried for something quite sculptural and drastic in an effort to excite James Craig, who seemed quite critical and demanding at the start of the project. I explored using a hyperbolic paraboloid structure to create a really eyecatching project and for four weeks I struggled to fit the building in underneath, and while I feel like a better architect could have managed it sadly I did not and at the end of week 4 I took the decision, at the suggestion of James, to start again from scratch and to scrap the roof. I decided I could still use some of the ideas and instead turned the physical roof into a metaphorical one, creating a building with sloping roofs down towards a central courtyard, giving a sense of place and protection. I worked very hard in the last three weeks, with quite a few all-nighters trying to catch up and in the end I think I produced a pretty good presentation, with large rendered plans, digitally rendered axonometric views and a few hand-drawn sketches exploring the interiors. However the tutor’s weren’t so impressed and I got another C, which really hit me hard. I was really hoping for a boost after Placed, Displaced and I felt that for the second time I was marked overly harshly – I accepted not

getting an A but I felt I was within B range. Whilst Simon tells us marks aren’t something to worry about, it’s hard to accept because they are essentially a short, concise evaluation of our progress in what is to become our career. I have since worked hard on producing more work for this project in the hopes of learning more and improving my skills, and also improving my overall design mark for the year.

Civic Centred Civic Centred was, to me at least, a throwing down of the architectural gauntlet. After a period of self-doubt over Christmas, I decided that this project would be the proof of whether I was cut out for Architecture. So, I wanted to go all-out and be as ambitious as possible. I chose my own site as I didn’t feel much inspired by the other 4 (that and I have a natural tendency to avoid doing what I feel everyone is doing, it devalues an idea in my opinion). Sharpness Point was an inspiring location and I got quite excited on the site as to the possibilities. Di encouraged me on with the advice that I had more work on site research to do, to prove it was a viable option. I produced a large presentation for this in the week 2 interim crit, which I think cemented my project as “one to watch” in the tutor’s minds. I then worked very hard on creating a highly sculptural and exciting building, avoiding the smaller problems of where the toilets would go and whether my floor areas were exact, and focusing on the bigger picture. I wanted to create exciting graphics and a large model for this, to really show my commitment to the project, and once again this involved a solid week spent sleeping and showering in the studios, working solidly to create a really impressive project. For the final crit I printed a large presentation with a site model on the wall, showing the flows of traffic on-site. I also had a large display of models, with sketch models, a model boat, objects from the site, and a large 1:100 model. The crit went well and I could tell Di liked how my project had turned out. I received an A for this project, which lifted my spirits immensely – I am cut out for this after all! I learned mostly from this project that to get good marks, which I can do, I have to really really work hard but it’s possible.

Section Alley The final group project of the year actually felt like a wind-down after the climax of Civic Centred. Seeing as it was a group project we could share the workload and I decided that I’d try not to overdo it this time. For once I wasn’t group leader – me, Raphael and Cleo were the driving forces of the group and we shared ideas and work mostly equally. I produced a large site section for the project in week 1, which took a long time but I wanted to really labour on something and create a really impressive piece. Our presentation was rather modest next to some other groups, but contained some fun ideas (including a flipbook of pictures walking through the site). We worked steadily over the next two weeks, and I had the idea of making a 1:1 installation in the corridor next to stage 2 studios. I then designed and produced instructions for the installation, which the others all helped to build, whilst I produced the presentation. We darkened the corridor and lit it with lamps brought from home, and I reprinted my section larger and added a night section and a few elevations, along with research and site analysis explaining the project. We had a few models too, which weren’t great compared to other groups but we spent most of our energy on the installation so hopefully that made up for it.

61

62

ADDITIONAL WORK

63

Access For All

Means of Escape

Disabled Parking & Exterior Access The strategy is simple, making use of the car park at the back of the site on Claremont Road. Disabled parking spaces can be reserved for 2 people with signage and blue-badge restrictions. The spaces would have clear marking as Disabled spaces and space on each side for the users to exit their vehicle.

Travel from the space to the building is along flat pavement and a low ramp with a gradient of less than 1:20 (1.7) which then meets the rear entrance of the building, where quick access to the workshop or accommodation block is easy. (1.1) Alternatively, the user can follow the ramp downhill to the main entrance of the foyer to enter with other people. the minimum width of the existing access road is 2.2m, easily enough for multiple people or wheelchair users to pass. (1.2,1.10) From the Lover’s Lane entrance point, level changes are minimised as the site is levelled to the height of the entrance point.

(1.4) Paths outside of the site are asphalt and within the site are compacted gravel/sand mix. Both offer a smooth, flat surface that drains rainfall quickly. (1.9) At night, street lamps light the service road and Lover’s Lane (these are already installed) to help all people to access the site. (1.12)

Occupancy Levels:

Numbers in brackets refer to objectives tackled on page 18 of the Part M Provision

Access within the Building Within the building access to the workshop is easy as the floor level of the building is level with the outside, with a simple drainage grid marking the boundary. The large folding windows give easy access and clear visual links between indoor and outdoor and clearly mark the function of the building for those with visual impairment. The windows have circular patterns of frosting at eye level for standing and sitting heights, to stop people walking into them. Doors are controlled via an electronic push-pad between 750mm and 1000mm high for wheelchair users and swing automatically - the speed is limited to avoid hitting people and a guardrail is installed to warn people of the area the door can swing into.

This guardrail also has a panel at floor height to warn blind people using a stick to navigate. Where more privacy is needed, doors simply have glass panels at 500-850mm and 1150-1500mm high.

Vertical Access The upper floor of the accommodation block is accessed via a double flight of stairs, however for disabled users there is also a wheelchair lift that allows access to the top floor, to the same point as the top of the stairs. This allows wheelchair users to access the top floor at the same speed as non-wheelchair users and to meet again at the same spot, resulting in minimal interruption for the wheelchair user. The landing area has 1500x1500mm space for maneuvering into the lift and electronic push-pad buttons to call the elevator, with a visual and audible cue when it arrives and a power-assisted door to aid entry.

The stairs have mesh railings with handrails on each side at 900mm from the pitch line of the staircase, and have visually contrasting nosings to aid visually impaired users. The stairwell will also be clearly lit at night. There will be corduroy warning patterns at the top and bottom of the stairs and guarding with cane detetction at the top and bottom.

Accommodation & Toilets Accommodation for two disabled users is provided with two bedrooms having a larger floor area than the others and containing disabled WC and shower units. These also have more space by the door in the access corridor to allow wheelchair users more room to maneuver getting in and out. The toilets include handrails on each side, maneuvering space of 1500mmx1500mm next to the toilet, a washbasin at 650mm high and an emergency alarm cord with handles at 800mm and at 100mm from the floor.

Workshop & Kitchen In the workshop and kitchen, there are signs to aid visually impaired people to find sinks and shelves, and an induction loop system for hearing aid users. The workshop has (in storage when not in use) folding collapsible worktables that can be adjusted to a height suitable for wheelchair users, or for users who cannot stand for extended periods.

66

Please refer to the Building plans on the next page

Grand Total: 104.05

General Strategy The accommodation block offers the highest risk for fire safety due to the nature of the foyer clients and potential isolation of a fire as it develops. Thus, every room will have smoke alarms installed with additional units in the circulation spaces, as per item 1.10 on page 18 of the Approved Document B. with additional heat alarms in the communal kitchen and social rooms, as per 1.12.

The corridor on the upper floor of block A presents a potential fire hazard as smoke can fill the space quickly, blocking escape routes. To minimize this cavity barriers are minimize this a fire door in the middle of the corridor is installed, with an intumescent strip to prevent smoke ingress. Each half of the building evacuates to its own side for maximum efficiency. In the event that one of the stairwells is unaccessible, resident go through the fire door and escape via the alternate stairwell. Thus, each stairwell has to be prepared to accommodate the full building’s worth of inhabitants.

Stairs & Final Exits The width of the stairs in each protected stairwell must be able to accommodate the full occupancy of the first floor of block A, which comes to 19.1. Since this is below 60, the minimum width of the stairs and final exits is 750mm. however, this is not suitable for wheelchairs so the final exits and stairs are 1200mm wide. This allows easy transport of a wheelchair user in an evac-chair in case of fire - the wheelchair lift is not safe to use in the event of a fire.

The values for the others doors are displayed in the above table; clearly every door is wider than the minimum specifications for ease of use, particularly for wheelchair users.

Emergency Services Access for Emergency Services is easy on the ground floor as the large folding sections of glazing allow entry to the building. In the event that these are closed or otherwise impassable, both buildings have two entrance points. For the upper storeys, the two stairwells offer quick access to the part of the building on fire.

67

68

BA ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

STAGE 2 PORTFOLIO

Tom Kendrew

Archi

tect

ure