40 minute read
Research
Architecture Art and Design After the End of History after Unity The third perspective
All of us currently witnessing the Coronavirus outbreak will quite reasonably have our thinking directed to finding solutions to current issues. In contrast, it is the means by which we engage with the past that will liberate thinking and facilitate the longterm progression of our civilisation through the 21st Century. This introduction will explore three possible perspectives to the past that provide different ways of innovating solutions for the future: the ‘End of History’, the Postmodern perspective and the third perspective, Continuity.
Advertisement
The term “The End of History” was first coined in 1861 by Antoine Cournot to denote the point at which civil society reaches a state of perfection. This was later advanced by Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 article ‘The End of History’ (1) which argued that, following the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and the introduction of reforms in China, there were few challengers remaining to the evolution of liberal order. Free markets, he argued, would become universal. This ‘End of History’ perspective thus conceptualises the past as a pyramid founded upon primitive ideas and capped by a perfect state of civilisation at its apex. Modernism in the Arts and Architecture was broadly speaking aligned with this perspective in the 20C. Any thinking succeeding this point of perfection would therefore be of a lower order, largely filling in the gaps and carrying though ideas originating in the late 19th Century.
However, the first 20 years of this century have been disrupted by three far-reaching crises: the 2008 Financial crisis, the ongoing Climate Emergency, and the current Coronavirus outbreak. These events have seriously undermined public confidence in the ability of free market liberal democracy to deliver solutions to these complex issues. In the need to enhance and protect the main social and economic structures, governments have adapted to state intervention in various forms. Free markets, so confidently espoused in the 1980s, are no longer perceived as the solution to the most pressing crises. The “End of History” itself has perhaps come to an end. It is precisely these circumstances which we must respond to and determine what form academic thought should take “After the End of History”. How we will develop our thinking over the next twenty-five years is particularly important to both our current students, and those who are departing the school to begin their professional careers.
If we can free ourselves from inherited pyramidal perspectives, 21st-century thinking could be liberated to begin in earnest. The second, Post-modern, perspective to the past closely critiqued the Modernist project. Although this at first appeared promising I would suggest that this intellectual framework is far too limited for our century for two reasons.
Post modernism too closely saw its agenda and justification as a critique and rejection of the past (Modernism) and thus unconsciously fell into the trap of repeating the failings of Modernism (rejecting the past). More seriously Post Modernism came at the expense of a tangible engagement with contemporary cultural innovation and technology of our own century. Consequently, historical precedent could not be not actively engaged, informed and harnessed to current research and innovation. Post-modernism could never freely engage with the present.
In contrast to both these approaches there exists a third perspective, Continuity, which allows for the continuation of history precedent into the future. Perhaps the first well documented account of this approach here in the UK was by the architect Sir John Soane (1753-1837). In his Royal Academy lectures Soane espoused a critical approach to the past that carried forward a curated body of historical principles as his theoretical foundation. It was to this foundation that Soane attached his own experimental and innovative approaches.
‘By referring to first principles and causes, the uncertainties of genius will be fixed, and the artist enabled to feel the beauty and appreciate the value of ancient works, and thereby seize the spirit that directed the minds of those who produced them.’ (2)
In basing his design on historical principles, Soane combined precedent with innovation to produce architecture relevant to his own time. More recently, in the late 20th Century, it was Dalibor Vesely who promoted the need for thinking based on Continuity (3) .
Vesely ingeniously sidestepped the postmodern to realign past and present in a complex search for unity. As we look forward to the unfolding 21st Century it is obvious that a reconciliation will need to be made between inherited practice and the new opportunities made possible by unfolding research, innovation and technology to create a sustainable context in which to advance our society. This project is the third perspective, Continuity.
The current willingness to engage in international cooperation across borders on medical research into health could become a pattern of thinking applied to other shared issues such as technology, climate, design, lifecycle, in short, the Arts and Sciences. This cooperation has been facilitated by a newfound desire to use innovative technology for communication which was perhaps resisted or under employed previously. I am delighted to report that we will be working with Tongji University in Shanghai over the next year on a joint design research project. More widely, this cooperation could be the start of a new golden age for universities based on international partnership, innovation and research.
The work in this publication celebrates the work and achievements of the Architecture, Art and Design students of the University of East London. All of this work is founded on exploring ideas around sustainability as a shared theme for this year. This book is by necessity the briefest assembly of many ideas, the briefest glimpse into our unfolding of knowledge and values. It assembles our playful experimentation but playful experimentation related deeply held values.
I am also very grateful for the support given to us by many sponsors and practitioners. In particular I would mention the STO Foundation, sponsors of our international lecture series. I would also like to thank the practitioners who contribute to the national lecture series including the Architecture Society lecture series, the Detour Ahead and the Art Lecture series and who visit for crits and reviews. These lectures have considerably enriched the thinking that drives our work. I would like to thank the students who have assisted with these societies including the presidents of the student society Dominika Kupczyk and Jared Kaleta with Teodora Manolescu, Harry Zimmerman and Natalia Labuzinska. We would also like to thank our student ambassadors Sachini Heenatigala and Laila Rose Kricha.
We are also very grateful to the practitioners who have been mentoring students and offering placements on the RIBA programme and on their own account. In particular we mention Sir Robert Mc Alpine, British Land for their continued mentoring and sponsorship of an excellent student competition in particular Charles Horne and Jeff Tidmarsh for their excellent support and expertise in leading the competition.
At the core of our teaching philosophy is the relationship developed between staff and students and the play of the design process. Students are taught in small groups, one to one, in studios, in workshops, and lecture halls and now on line. Our project work follows a systematic pattern of investigation, experiment and innovation. I would like to thank all the staff and students for their excellent work this year and for adjusting to the Covid crisis with such energy and skill.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate those students leaving us on their work and wish them every success. I am reminded that our word University derives from the Latin Universitas meaning whole or community. Please stay in touch with us. I hope in your professional life you will be able to work within the third perspective, be able seize the spirit of the past as well as the future, to harness history, research and innovation to fulfil your own potential and the potential of our new century.
Carl Callaghan BA (Hons) Dipl RIBA Head of Department Architecture and Design
Notes
1 Francis Fukuyama, see the introduction which gives a reflection on his original article. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the last Man, page xi (The Free Press, 1992).
2 Soane’s first lecture to the Royal Academy D. Watkin, Sir John Soane: The Royal Academy Lectures, (Cambridge, 2000)
RESEARCH
Architecture and Research Two words that build new knowledge
Alan Chandler
Our architectural research is driven by the needs of, and directly assists, groups ranging from local communities up to and including international and inter-governmental agencies such as the United Nations through the work of our staff, often our students, our alumni practices and our collaborations with the UEL Sustainability Research Institute.
We are in the heart of urban regeneration activity in East London, our location provides a very contested, socially diverse context that inspires much of our research focus. It acts as a catalyst for convening multidisciplinary research around the critical question of how change impacts community and environment, and how the benefits of that change can be focused and harnessed. From this catalyst a multidisciplinary research team has evolved that reaches beyond the boundaries of the university campus to co-produce locally-contextualised and, most importantly, solutions-based research within multiple knowledge-exchange and innovation partnerships with industry, government, universities and the public.
Whilst shaped by our locality, research outputs resonate globally across the 21st Century’s industrialised city and managed landscapes. This includes international collaboration at the EU and UN levels, ranging from major inter-governmental bodies to regional and city councils to small local community groups.
Our work is guided by the principles of “sustain, retain, restore, re-use and transform” which are applied, either explicitly or implicitly, across every aspect of our work. As impact drives our research. We operate on the basis that traditional boundaries between disciplines are wholly transparent because genuine action on sustainability requires the integration of social, environmental and resourcebased actions in defining environment, place and living space, as well as maximising social return on research investment - all within the context of a climate emergency, made all the more acute within a global pandemic. The strength of our research comes from partnerships across disciplines both within UEL (environmental science, materials science, architecture, landscape, social science, engineering, fine and performing arts) and beyond. Our transdisciplinary approach to solutions-based research has been central to the success of this research collaboration. We operate a non-hierarchical, collaborative structure that values all contributors equally, bringing opportunities for our postgraduate students and increasingly our undergraduates to support and benefit from research development, acknowledging that our near-future society will be creating participatory relationships rather than exclusive knowledge.
The vehicle for engaging our students – from year 1 to year 4 is a form of design activism – the live project. We convene between 4-8 design/build workshops annually, the legacy of which has since 2009 delivered over 90 collaborative projects bringing in over £110K, delivering birdwatching hides/urban gardening for schools; social spaces/facilities for charities, NHS Trusts and community groups; public consultation events for local authorities; socially beneficial projects with architecture practices as well as research projects for staff and \PhD students, even winning a Silver Gilt at the 2009 Chelsea Flower Show.
The workshops enable our students to engage with a diverse range of people and places to support knowledge exchange, place transformation, design for change and ongoing research. The work of our students has been integral to journal papers and books, as well as lectures and workshops in the UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Chile. Our project with Studio Bark this year to prototype and fabricate self-build components generating ‘protest architecture’ for the 2019 XR rebellion in Trafalgar Square was reported globally.
We also engaged with the Charity Shed Life in Barking to co-design a community building for vulnerable senior citizens and excluded young people, enabling crowdfunding and submitting a planning application for construction by our students and volunteers in 2021. Projects like this are at the forefront of what UEL calls ‘Mental Wealth’, in curriculum experience of live issues that affect communities, and that the innovation and enterprise of staff and students can collectively address and change. Our architectural teaching explores how we innovate to respond to situations and opportunities that confront the digital generation that owns the world on a phone, but need us to frame that endlessness to achieve real social and environmental change in real time, right now.
What follows is a series of impact driven case studies, stories of the work by our staff that actively informs our collective and collaborative teaching environment – Anna Minton, Bridget Snaith, Heba Elsharkawy, Maria Segantini and Claudia Palma articulating our commitment to research into the housing crisis, making community housing sustainable, making public space culturally equitable, making provision for disadvantaged citizens.
The Production of Heritage
Alan Chandler and Michela Pace, Routledge 2019
Heritage is defined and produced legally through international charters, codes of practice and protection frameworks under national and international law; technically through accredited training in material performance and technique; educationally via specialist programmes transferring knowledge from technical and legal agencies to interested parties – an exclusive circle. What is not defined is how social responsibility in building conservation is enabled, or how conservation decisions are actively informed by community engagement. Do practitioners and their clients who invariably steer heritage-based development understand and nurture its intangible potential or simply enact technical ‘protection’ of negotiated pieces of built fabric as part of a financial development? How easy is the generally accepted notion of history as a ‘common good’ open to exploitation for other motives? The book reflects on the meaning of ‘fabrication’ (of the city, memory, identity, value) within the neoliberal city, in particular how the retreat of centralised heritage management leaves a vacuum of custodianship that communities are increasingly having to fill – but with little support. When policymakers or communities choose to remember, do they preserve historic architectural evidence as a form of cherished redundancy, or actively participate in the physical traces of previous activity and identity? We ask if our cultural identity is founded on what we no longer do, or what we continue to achieve? The danger present here is that the role of custodian becomes adopted by agencies of development that redefine heritage in their terms, for their benefit, leaving communities to look on as their surroundings radically change, while staying strangely familiar. The guidance published on Heritage Area assessment and value building is critically dissected, the presumption in favour of development is challenged – not to challenge development per se, but to question the nature of its benefit, and for whom. Understanding how to read guidance and reveal assumptions is vital for professionals and communities alike.
“The conservation of buildings is messy and complicated. The philosophically led decisions that seemed easy to make in the office are almost always harder to implement when the project becomes a live building site. I welcome this book because it embraces those challenges and shows how a thoughtful architect can find practical solutions that remain true to the original design principles. It also demonstrates that the tenets of conservation philosophy proposed by William Morris remain valid today if we choose to care for our heritage in a way that puts people at its heart.” – Sara Crofts, CEO, Institute of Conservation In this important book, the authors unpack the theoretical and practical issues around the development of heritage sites, critically dissecting key conservation benchmarks such as the ICOMOS guidelines, BS 7913 and the RIBA Conservation Plan of Work to reveal the mechanics of heritage guidance, its advantages and conceptual limitations. Underpinned by an active understanding of the conservation philosophy of William Morris, the book presents five case studies from the UK and North and South America that speak about different facets of heritage value, such as urban identity, commodification, authenticity, materiality and heritage as an intellectual and ethical framework. Heritage is never neutral; its definition is privileged yet its influence is political. Art, landscape and archaeology all offer examples of how the operational ideas of adjacent disciplines can influence an integrated idea of heritage conservation, and how this is communicated in order to determine significance and share in its custodianship. This book provides insights into how to identify and challenge these limitations, expanding inclusion by describing tactics for changing how people can relate to and build on the past. Clearly written for all levels of readership within the conservation professions and community custodians of heritage buildings and places, the book provides strategies and tactics for understanding the heritage significance of materials, their fabrication, detail and use. The narratives that historic fabric contains can help shape the meaningful involvement of local people, providing a roadmap for those navigating the double-bind of using the past to underpin the future. the production of heritage Alan Chandler is a founding director of the architectural practice Arts Lettres Techniques with Luisa Auletta, working consistently on the interface between contemporary design and conservation since 1993, when fabric formed concrete casts weighing several tonnes were taken from the portico of Hawksmoor’s St George’s Church in Bloomsbury to create a site-specific installation while studying at the AA. His early engagement with questioning material and heritage value has persisted, with expertise in conservation accreditation and award-winning projects in the UK and Chile maintaining a focus on how politics and cultural perception connect with material and philosophical conservation. He is a reader in architecture and currently leads research in architecture, computing and engineering at the University of East London. Michela Pace is a researcher at the IUAV University of Venice with international experience in the fields michela pace alan chandler of urbanism. Her work focuses on the rising centrality of the ’heritage’ rhetoric within processes of urban financialization in Western and Eastern global cities, especially regarding real estate activities and the phenomena of land privatization and gentrification. At the same time, she deepened her understanding of community-based research, approaching notions of memory, legacy, patrimony and tradition, and collaborating with a different spectrum of partners including local communities and schools, councils and policymakers, international NGOs, charitable foundations and private clients in Italy and the UK.
ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION
ISBN 978-0-367-07800-3
Cover image: Detail of the Marble Hall, Clandon Park. Photography www.routledge.com by the authors, 2019. Courtesy: National Trust. 9 780367 078003 Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats
the production of heritage
the politicisation of architectural conservation
alan chandler michela pace
Anna Minton
Following on from Big Capital: Who is London for? (Penguin 2017), Anna Minton has continued to write about the housing crisis for academic and mainstream publications, in particular the Guardian to which she is a regular contributor. Her chapter, The Place of Housing in Modern Life, was published in Towards a Spatial Social Policy, a multi-disciplinary collection published by Policy Press in November 2019.
In October 2019, the Canadian Centre for Architecture invited her to Montreal, to take part in a discussion filmed to mark the end of their exhibition, ‘Our Happy Life. Architecture and Well-Being in the Age of Emotional Capitalism.’ Participants in the one-hour film alongside Anna include Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the CASS Business School. The Architecture Foundation invited her to write the programme notes for PUSH, the international film about the housing crisis which premiered at the Barbican in the autumn of 2019 after which she hosted the Q&A with the film’s director, Fredrik Gerten. In February 2020, she took part in a further panel discussion about the film, alongside the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Leilani Farha.
As events shifted online, she took part in a number of virtual panel discussions, speaking at the virtual launch of Bob Colenutt’s book, The Property Lobby, and took part in the Urban Vision Manifesto webinar series, in discussion with Larry Beasley, the former chief planner of Vancouver. In November 2020 she will deliver a keynote at the AHRA International Conference.
Posthuman Urbanism
Debra Shaw
In February, Debra Benita Shaw was invited to speak at Housing Matters #4 // An Alternative Urban Politics held at Open House Oxford, a public talking shop on housing and homelessness where she led a discussion on the politics of exclusion in urban discourse. In September, she was invited to present at a symposium organized by the Manchester Architecture Research Group, The Doubling and Disappearance of the Body in Architecture where she introduced the concept of ‘Vitruvian Mantology’ which is designed to expose the raced and gendered assumptions which determine functionality in housing design. These ideas develop proposals first introduced in her book Posthuman Urbanism: Mapping Bodies in Contemporary City Space, published by Rowman & Littlefield International in 2018. Posthuman Urbanism describes an orientation towards the city which questions the assumption that social structures are ‘natural’ while examining the ways that particular bodies have historically been deemed less than human and thus excluded from the public life of cities. Informed by science and technology studies and attuned to the way that contemporary digital culture confounds received ideas about corporeality and the inhabitation of space, posthuman theory offers the potential to think beyond the boundaries of existing knowledge about the relationship between bodies and their environments. Posthuman Urbanism proposes that a more egalitarian city can emerge from re-thinking architecture through revised concepts of both embodiment and inhabitation.
Urbex photography: MF01 train passing through abandoned platform of Victor Hugo station on line 2 of the Paris Metro, France.Credit Aaron Coe. Urban Fox, East London 2014. Credit Rhian Louise Vacciana.
In Black History Month 2019, UEL hosted the interdisciplinary conference, “Just Landscape? Diversity, Ethnicity and Representation”. The conference, organised by Dr Bridget Snaith CMLI, and supported by the UK Landscape Institute, raised issues of racial and ethnic equity in landscape space, and in the professions engaged in its creation. Although public spaces are often described as open resources for community interaction and social integration, urban parks, squares, and rural landscapes are not unproblematically and equally open to all. The lockdown this spring during Covid -19 has perhaps brought issues raised in the conference more sharply into focus - the value of outdoor spaces to our personal wellbeing, and also the huge inequalities that exist for many people from black Asian and ethnic minority (BAME) backgrounds, in health, and access to open space.
The first keynote, speaker Walter Hood In his paper “In Plain Sight” addressed racism directly, he related his experiences of racism in everyday and professional interactions, and in built urban spaces, places that largely deny a present that is built on a past of slavery and racial oppression. Hoods practice portfolio spans major institutions such as Cooper Hewitt Museum NY, and community projects like Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson Community Garden New York City. He is Professor of Landscape Architecture at UC Berkeley (USA). He illustrated a number of recent Hood Design Studio commissions, bringing forward representation of black lives and histories. One project, the ‘Double Sights’ monument, was a response to a controversial commission from Princeton University to memorialise Woodrow Wilson The experience of enforced ‘double -consciousness’, was his starting point. ‘Double Sights’ is a landmark structure of towering slabs, white supported by black, inscribed with texts that both acknowledge the previously dominant narratives of Wilson as the progressive founder of the League of Nations, and also provide counter narratives from Wilson’s writings and the voices of his contemporaries, exposing his racism and misogyny. Hood argued that rather than erasing reference to controversial figures, we should instead work to publicly expose unpleasant truths, to provide space to open the conversations we need to have.
The second keynote, Ingrid Pollard’s paper “The Importance of Si -te /-ght” included discussion of some of her well known works , her interest in landscape and countryside as places of production and labour, and of traces, erased stories, displacement, connection and belonging. Pollard is a multi-award-winning British photographer, artist and researcher, with works held in major collections, and exhibited nationally and internationally. Including: Self Evident, Wordsworth’s Heritage, Belonging in Britain, Heritage Stories, and Oceans Apart.
She shared experience and works from recent commissions and residencies in the north of England and in rural France, accompanied by her beautiful, complex photographs, exploring portraiture, the body, landscape, dress and connections to other times and places.
The third Keynote presentation was given by Vron Ware Professor of Sociology & Gender Studies at Kingston University. Ware’s books include “Beyond the Pale: White Women, Racism & History”; “Out of Whiteness: Colour, Politics & Culture” (with Les Back); and “Who Cares about Britishness?”. Her paper “Nothing natural: landscape at the heart of identity.” was wide ranging, exploring how landscape and nature are commodified in advertising, marketed to sell housing developments; how nature is portrayed as located in a place elsewhere, rather than being the environment that surrounds us; about values of nature in the contemporary life of ethnically diverse communities. Her paper launched the final session of the day, Landscape & Representation. A list of speakers and papers presented and at the conference is below.
Keynotes Walter Hood: “In Plain SIght” Ingrid Pollard: “The Importance of Si -te /-ght” Vron Ware: “Nothing natural: landscape at the heart of identity.”
Strand 1 Diversity & Inclusion in the Urban Landscape Clare Rishbeth, Dominika Blachnicka-Ciacekb and Jonathan Darling, UK : “Participation and wellbeing in urban greenspace: ‘curating sociability’ for refugees and asylum seekers.” Hildy Steinacker, UK: “‘Desirable green’: Informing design guidelines for inclusive restoration in small urban green spaces.”
Strand 2 Increasing Diversity in Landscape & Built Environment Professions Diana Chrouch, UK, Chair Diversity-Worshipful Company of Constructors: “Disempowerment in the Built Environment? It’s time for change.”
L Mhari, Elinor Scar, UK: “A landscape of one’s own? Feminism in the field of Landscape Architecture.”
Invited Panel Discussion: “Supporting Diversity in Landscape & Built Environment professions.” Akash Wadhawan, David Ubaka, Diana Chrouch, Elinor Scar, L.Mhari, Chair, Sam Perry, Landscape Institute Diversity & Inclusion Group
Strand 3 Landscape & Representation H. Ela Alanyalı Aral, Deniz Altay Kaya and Reem Chariff, Turkey/UK: “Visibility of Migrant Communities in Urban Spaces: Önder Neighbourhood, Ankara.” Maxwell Ayamba and Maxine Greaves, UK: “Contested Landscapes: Race and countryside spaces - Black Men Walking.”
Newham Research Projects and Live Design Projects
by Dr Heba Elsharkawy
Dr. Heba Elsharkawy, Reader in Architecture, Cluster Leader for Architecture and Design and Programme Leader for BSc (Hons) Architecture has been working in collaboration with Newham Council since 2016 on several research and live design projects. This collaborative work resulted in publishing two journal articles in high impact journals (Energy and Buildings, and Buildings and Environment) as well as publishing and presenting at various national and international conferences; PLEA 2018, SDBE 2017, BSO 2018, SDBE 2018, and BEYOND 2020. The research also helped Heba served as a member in the Steering Group for Newham’s Lloyds Construction Skills Centre. She has also been personally invited by the Mayor of Newham to the London Borough of Newham Community Wealth Building Strategy Launch event in January 2020 and was also invited to contribute to Newham Citizens Assembly on Climate Change held in February 2020. Project 1: Retrofit of Council Housing in Newham, London
Research led by: Heba Elsharkawy and Sahar Zahiri in collaboration with Newham Council
Recently, retrofit of tower blocks has gained momentum particularly in the UK social housing sector due to the increasing rate of fuel poverty coupled with deteriorating indoor living conditions. However, the process of making improvements to the thermal performance of building envelopes can significantly impact on occupants’ thermal comfort, increasing overheating risks with the changing climate and associated heat waves. The first phase of the study evaluated the building energy performance of a 1960s social housing tower block prototype in Newham, London, pre-retrofit, where the building simulation model was created and calibrated with monitored indoor data and occupants’ interviews. The second research phase, used the model to further investigate the impact of improved thermal insulation of the building envelope, based on U-values prescribed by the UK Building Regulations (Part L1B), on the potential risk of overheating. The study investigated the impact of retrofitting on occupants’ thermal comfort and building energy performance in the current and future climate scenarios (2030, 2050 and 2080). Results confirmed that improving the U-value of external walls will significantly reduce the heating energy use by 70% under future climate scenarios while the operative temperature increases by 15–17%. The study demonstrated the significance of occupancy patterns in predicting building energy performance, and hence overheating risks as well as heating energy demand. The findings showed that if thermal performance and airtightness level of the building fabric improve without considering multiple occupancy scenarios for different households, this may lead to inaccurate predictions of overheating risks, and hence retrofit interventions that may potentially cause complications in climate change scenarios.
Project 2: Improving occupants’ comfort in Newham Dockside Building
Research led by: Heba Elsharkawy and Haitham Farouk in collaboration with Newham Council
It is acknowledged that people spend almost 90 percent of their time in indoor spaces. Therefore, achieving a comfortable indoor environment that encourages productivity is crucial, particularly in office buildings. This research investigates the design and performance of a modern office building in London characterized by fully glazed facades of open plan office spaces with no natural ventilation. The purpose of the research is to investigate the correlations between the control of direct solar radiation access and the effect on occupants’ thermal comfort in the summer followed by assessing the potential effect of the application of passive solar shading on thermal comfort levels in the office spaces. The research methodology involves a survey questionnaire undertaken with employees of the office building, followed by dynamic thermal modelling of the building using Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) software. The questionnaire has been designed to understand occupants’ experiences within their office spaces and their strategies to improve the indoor environment. Furthermore, IES modelling and simulation provide in depth understanding of the building thermal performance and investigating the solar shading strategies. Overall, 66 questionnaire forms were completed where preliminary results demonstrated that most employees relied heavily on secondary cooling and heating systems to adjust the indoor air temperature for more satisfactory thermal comfort levels in their office spaces. The building modelling and simulation was used to quantify the direct solar radiation accessing the office space, the risks of overheating and the potential impact of solar control on occupants’ indoor comfort. The findings from this study demonstrated the high hours of discomfort in the summer within the office spaces mainly due to the lack of control of direct solar access through the extensive area of glazed facades. Project 3: Live design projects for BSc Architecture and BSc Architectural Design Technology
Heba has also been working closely with Newham Council since 2016 on allocating live project sites and design briefs for students to work on. In 2016/17, students worked on redesigning the Royal Docks Learning and Activity Centre in North Woolwich where they presented their design schemes to the users of the centre and received feedback with regards to their individual design schemes. In 2017/18, Newham Council team allocated Plashet Road for a Mixed Use Development of a nursery, leisure centre and 2 and 3 bedroom flats. The team facilitated the site visit and survey and introduced the project brief. The students designed the projects and presented their schemes to Newham Council team and the commissioned architect team. In 2018/19, Newham Council team provided a challenging site in Eastham (Hathaway Crescent) for an affordable housing scheme, where the students took into consideration sustainable design which complies with building regulations and London Design Guidelines. This year, Newham Council team identified a site in Silvertown (surrounding the Millenium Mills) for a mixeduse design project scheme. The students were supported by Lendlease, as the site developer who facilitated an exclusive site visit and MM roof top visit, and AHMM practice, as the site architects. AHMM contributed to the project reviews and facilitated a visit to the practice for students. All design schemes were presented to the Newham Council team and architects where the students were commended for their design efforts.
Renée Tobe
Renée Tobe presented a talk entitled: What is Behind What We Take For Granted at the AHRA funded CineMuseSpace: A Cinematic Musée Imaginaire of Spatial Cultural Differences Conference in Cambridge University in September 2019.
This talk described a 3D point cloud digital scan of a very domestic space of the everyday, the suburban kitchen, complete with thermal scan of the kettle about to boil. Ordinary people do ordinary things without thinking, planning, or strategising. Why would we require a sophisticated technological map of our kitchen to find out how to make a cup of tea? We don’t think of these things with our mind; the body knows by instinct where to reach for the teapot in the cupboard, how to fill the kettle, where to find the tea canister. Point cloud scanning of the Children’s Theatre in Kazan, Russia created an ethereal place of performativity. Rather than a screen that both surveys and controls us, laser scanning allows ‘watching’ through walls, floors and ceilings. This juxtaposition of spaces not thought about reveal themselves in the thermal scan that shows the television on the other side of the wall, the pipes running beneath the floor boards, dappled light from a nearby tree, a place where someone, perhaps waiting for the kettle to boil, stood for some minutes and has now left the room but left a warm trace of human presence on the floor. We do not ‘see’ heat and thermal imagery gives insight into a familiar world. The familiar first becomes triangulated into something entirely uncanny, then, substantiated and digitalised. For example, in the reconstruction of the Glasgow School of Art, crowd sourcing was used to glean as many photos from previous students as possible, pictures that people thought were ‘everyday’ but suddenly became useful in the reconstruction. We need each fragment, or data point.
Renée is also writing the Plato for Architects book in Thinkers for Architects series published by Taylor and Francis. The aim of Plato for Architects is to continue the Thinkers for Architects series with one of Western philosophy’s most influential thinkers. Plato examines the nature of thinking itself, which is the basis for design and architectural decision-making. Plato asks what it means to know, and how we can ever communicate what we know to others. Excavation through layers of Western thinking identifies two distinct paths for architects and urbanists both of which trace their origins back to Plato. In the first lie buildings based on formal geometry, centrally planned ideal cities, Utopias, urban typologies, the structured language of the new order of the French Republic and the architecture of 20th century fascist regimes. The canonical texts of urban design that describe forms of communicative and community life or combinations of urban elements to enhance our existence follow the second line of thought. This book examines both these paths along with the Cave metaphor, the Divided Line and the nature of creation. It also provides suggestions for further reading about how thinkers and designers have been influenced by Plato, and how this affects our current thinking about ourselves and our cities. Many contemporary structures whether in politics, urban design or education find their origins in the Platonic dialogues. The aims of the book are to extract the points relevant to architects and the objectives are to deliver them in a manner that informs our thinking about architecture, and how we practice it.
Renée Tobe, History and Theory Coordinator, UEL
Design Emergency - Migrant Living Community Kitchen
MA Interior Design, Claudia da Palma Romao
Right to Life, freedom, security, equality, justice and privacy are amongst the basic Human rights articulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration (www.humanrights.com). While these concepts are easier to define for a long-term member of society, they are more complicated for new minorities who are forced into displacement because of conflict, war, climate change, economy, etc. There are more than 65 million displaced people worldwide, more than two-thirds of these people come from Syria, Nigeria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ivory Coast, among others (see annex 1). Whether they perceive it as permanent or temporary, refugees stay in their new home for an average of 26 years (www.unhcr. org/576408cd7.pdf), which urges the need for integration and inclusion.1
Addressing the urgent and emergent topic of migrant living, through a specific real design exercise, students were asked to explore how space and design have the social responsibility to provide opportunities for integration, participation and empowerment in individuals with different social and cultural contexts. Questioning architectures of (im)permanence, and how transient design could be a variety of things: different uses, built one day and disassembled another, or spaces that house impermanent populations or respond to temporary phenomena or needs, such as climate change, war, domestic violence, or for example the now so real, pandemics.
Working together with Southwark Day Centre for Asylum Seekers SDCAS (with the mission of supporting asylum seekers and refugees falling into destitution) we have examined the basic needs and social programmes with the larger role of promoting wellbeing, integration (post-trauma) and a more inclusive community.
Being devoid of kitchen facilities in the SDCAS accommodation centres, and with all meals provided by outside (insipid) sources (which has been a major recorded complaint) - in a reality where asylum seekers permanence could last from 1 day to a year or more - the MA Interior Design has explored the theme of “Food” as an opportunity to rethink strategies of care, nourishment and identity, through a series of design proposals for a “Community Kitchen”. The concepts of nomadism and migrant living are also applied in these community kitchens, being an entirely mobile “structure” which could travel to different places SDCAS’s sites, markets, or other public events).
This space aims to promote the celebration of “Food” as a cultural mechanism (ie. celebration of specific religious/ cultural festivities of the nationality involved), and as an experimental method for the “after asylum phase”, where in a short period of 2 weeks Refugees (new status) have to find work - and where Food could be the vehicle for their integration into the host society.2
Notes 1 Gul Kacmaz Erk (senior lecture and programme director in Architecture at Queen’s University Belfast) in his presentation introduction “Everyday Practices and Lived Spaces of Refugee Children on Youtube” at “Slices of Everyday Lives” Conference, September 2019, Cambridge University. 2 SDCAS was founded in early 1996 as a practical response from local church leaders and community activists to changes in government policy that resulted in an increase of poverty, distress and homelessness amongst asylum seekers and refugees. http:// www.sdcas.org.uk/about-us.html
UEL Volunteering Awards 2020 Platinum Award
German Design Award 2020
Carlo Cappai and Maria Alessandra Segantini
With the design of the 13,500 sqm of the Piazza del Cinema in the Lido of Venice, Carlo Cappai and Maria Alessandra Segantini who lead MArch Unit 5 have won the German Design Award 2020: bit.ly/ADYearbook-GDA.
Cappai and Segantini design the new public space sewing together the three elements which create the identity of the site: the historic and listed buildings of the Casino Palace and Venice Cinema Festival Place and the non-maintained existing park. They connect them with a white, continuous stone-made public space, which aims to enhance the dimension of the former historic public domain, unifying the two buildings with the park and bringing back the memory of its original design, testimony of the splendour of the Belle Epoque.
The square is heightened from the original level to allow the view of the sea, collect the water that is then reused to water the garden. The square is entirely designed using the monochrome Apricena stone. The use of a monochrome surface for the whole public space confirms and underlines the strengths of the dimension of the public space, avoiding the fragmentation of the use of different materials and enhances the graft of the historic green spaces which were maintained.
The design of the materiality of the rolled or sanded pieces of the stone, the water drainage system and the fountain- designed as thin cuts and shadows on the white surface of the stone, the brass or varnished steel railings, the benches in reconstituted natural marble stone, the newly planted and autochthonous maritime pines and the sinuosity of the garden- which is designed as a symbol of a third building which was meant to complete the square but was never built: all these element are designed as accents in the continuity of the monochrome materiality, solid in terms of long-term maintenance.
As for the garden design we always design recognizing the principles of biodiversity through a series of different actions using plants that are local, adaptable and able to handle change, choosing plants that cover an array of unpredictable outcomes (flowers present in different seasons, fruits, etc…) combining plants that bring diversity in the outdoor space, preserving grown-up existing trees as much as possible. In this case we have replanted maritime pines, which are typical Italian coastal trees as well as hackberries, very typical in the Venice lagoon and home for some of the local bird species. Both trees are not requiring special maintenance. These principles allow the community to locate the intervention in relation to their local memories and mental maps.
The square, designed on the aim to serve the Venice Cinema Festival, is invisibly infrastructured to potentially allow the activation of events during the other months of the year, but especially to give back a free public space to the inhabitants of the Lido island: mums with prams, skaters, kids playing with the water fountain, old people relaxing under the shadow of the trees and watching the sea.
Cappai and Segantini are proud to have contributed to give back the citizens a part of the city. We strongly believe in the power of a free, well-designed public domain to be activated by people, their memories, their dreams and their experiences.
The project was published worldwide.
Cappai and Segantini win two more competitions for schools and gets planning permission
Carlo Cappai and Maria Alessandra Segantini who lead MArch Unit 5 win two international competitions for the design of two schools in Italy.
Since 1998, Cappai and Segantini have started to look into the school building typology. After sharing these ideas through conferences, symposia, publications and built work, our schools have contributed to change the Italian codes when designing school buildings.
Grafted in the beautiful and protected landscape of Villa Paglia, the new Alzano Nursery School, is a space where nature and light flow inside the light thin structures of the facades, made of steel and glass tiles.
Descending from the main street thanks to a playful ramp grafted in the garden, the kids reach a giant inner ‘salone’, filled with natural light. A space where multiple activities can happen at the same time. The salone itself is grafted by two inner glazed courtyards, which bring the light in the depth of the building.
The search for light not only happens through the courtyards. The school becomes a sort of structure for light: the facades facing the garden are defined by a series of big windows, which can be shadowed by curtains inside the facade itself. The walls of the classrooms are big windows facing the inner salone. Finally the roof is providing deep roof-sheds, enhancing the inner space, which can be considered a ‘covered piazza’ for the kids. As in all C+S schools, they have been able to erase all the inner corridors.
In Alzano nursery school, the space shapes a pedagogic idea of sharing ideas and activities among the kids, the teachers and the families to build up a sense of community.
‘We are proud to have given back to the citizens of Alzano Lombardo the possibility of playing again inside the beautiful protected park of Villa Paglia creating a space where the park can flow through so that the kids can grow in a sustainable green community. We have transformed another school into an ‘Italian piazza’!’
Ravarino Secondary school houses ten classes for a total of 250 students. The labs, the music room and the generous entrance hall are all hybrid spaces opened after the school hours. All these spaces contribute to turn the school into a centre to be activated by the community, empowering the sense of belonging and identity of the families and the kids.
Both schools have obtained the planning permission and are presently under construction.
Anachoresis
Venice Architecture Biennale Cyprus Pavilion 2020 at the 17th International Architecture Exhibition
Curators: Nasios Varnava (UEL), Era Savvides, Marina Christodoulidou, Evagoras Vanezis Organisers: Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Youth – Cyprus Architects Association Commissioner: Petros Dymiotis Deputy Commissioner: Angela Skordi
Living-Together, especially idiorrhythmic LivingTogether, implies an ethics (or a physics) of distance between cohabiting subjects.
—Roland Barthes, How To Live Together
Anachoresis addresses distances as a point of reference through which to approach architectural and cultural paradigms, which give rise to new socialities. The negotiation of distances and rhythms necessary for living-together has all at once taken on new dimensions. What is the vocabulary that emerges, and what are the spatial experiences that occur through this process? Taking Roland Barthes’s elaboration of the notion of anachoresis as a starting point, and looking past the negative connotations of notions like distancing and alienation, the idea of anachoresis is proposed here as an alternative. Being an abrupt jolt of departure, anachoresis is seen here as an act that takes up space at the threshold between the outdoor–public and the indoor–private space. The indoor (interior) space becomes a structural challenge that acts as a bridge between one’s inner self (interiority) and the everyday spatial experience. Anachoresis proposes a horizontal site-specific installation, scaling-up the unifying agent and most social object of interior living, the table. Given a modular and quasi-monumental form that is inspired by the differing scales that we come across during a walk in the city, it becomes in itself an archive of scales. It adapts to a seductive reversibility between the outside and the inside, and—by suggesting a micro-urbanism of cooperation—puts our daily acts and typical behaviours into question.
Through the addition, subtraction, staging and restaging of everyday objects on the table, the latter is transformed into a substructure that enables one to comment, re-interpret and re-pose the question of how a gathering space is constructed. The installation design incorporates local architectural idioms and materialities, exploring how a multiauthorial approach can empower architecture to produce novel forms of locality. Furthermore, the incorporation of movement (dance-as-design) and sound (broadcasting platform), idiorrhythmic temporalities within the “proportions of a fantasized community”, produces tools for the design of spatial protocols for (communal) interiors to come.
