Precedent Atlas

LEARNING FROM OTHERS PRECEDENT ATLAS

URBAN RESEARCH PROJECTS

INTERIM USES

ABOUT THIS COMMISSION

INTERIM USE A use for an interval of time between one event, process or period and another.

The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) commissioned ‘Learning from Others’ as a piece of research into local and international interim use projects, to inform an approach to delivering interim uses that successfully supports regeneration in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park The LLDC are responsible for the long-term planning, development, management and maintenance of the park and its facilities following the London 2012 Games. It is their task to transform and integrate one of the most challenged areas in the UK into world-class, sustainable and thriving neighbourhoods. In their response to this, the LLDC wish to develop projects at the forefront of current thinking on meanwhile uses and temporary urbanism, and to engage with other experts in the field.

Interim uses can have a significant role in a variety of situations and overcome challenging site conditions to enable temporary inhabitation. These uses can vary in duration, in audience and most importantly, can be instrumental in testing ideas and approaches, whilst engaging with communities and land owners, on the long term vision and aspirations for an area.

This body of work provides a platform for learning ‘how to’ and ‘how not to’ deliver interim uses. It includes five reports on a variety of themes, alongside an Atlas of Precedents which summarises the examples included in the five reports alongside additional precedents that were chosen to provide a rich catalogue of examples. The research is concluded with a Methods Manual that summarises advice from the research.

A team of six organisations have gathered examples of precedents to provide evidence and advice on the effective and successful delivery of future interim uses in and around Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Urban Research Projects, a team of designers and social scientists that promote and deliver informed urban change, has taken an overview of all of the interim use investigations, and produced an Atlas of Precedents with key details on the development, delivery and effect of these projects, alongside a Methods Manual of best practice for interim projects in general, and specifically for Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

The Architecture Foundation, an independent architecture centre that advances architecture and urbanism, has examined a selection of international and UK based case studies of creative re-use, and assembled a series of lessons learnt to inform the potential creation of a Materials Reuse Centre in East London on an interim use site.

Streetgames, a sports charity that supports a network of projects which give sport and volunteering opportunities to young people in disadvantaged communities across the UK, have investigated and reviewed community sport and leisure interim uses that could be used within the park and surrounding areas.

David Kohn Architects in collaboration with The Yard Theatre and Live Art Development Agency, three organisations that are involved in performance art, have conducted a study of five arts projects to produce a series of recommendations for the delivery of future live art and performance projects in the park.

Coda Architects and Common Capital, a collaborative design, architecture and social entrepreneurship team, have examined how a number of interim projects have been delivered, with a particular focus on finance, collaboration, business models and the commissioning and procurement challenges.

The Decorators, a London based art and architecture collective, have investigated interim uses with an emphasis on how to build local ownership and authorship of public and community spaces, and link projects with existing neighbourhood resources and networks.

PROJECT DOCUMENTS

WeBsIte

PReCedents atlas

Methods Manual

www.interimeast.org

Fifty interim use case studies from around the world.

Key lessons learnt from research and case studies, with advice and guidance for the London Legacy Development Corporation.

by urban Research Projects

Case studY RePoRts Interim use case study reports focusing on specific topics Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/ Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

by urban Research Projects

local and community based interim projects

by the decorators

Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

delivery and finance models for interim projects

by Coda architects and Common Capital Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

Material recycling and reuse projects

by the architecture Foundation Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

Community sports and fitness interim projects

by streetgames

Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

live art and performance interim projects

Free Tumbling Block Graph Paper from http://incompetech.com/graphpaper/tumblingblock/

by david Kohn architects, the Yard theatre, and live art development agency

local and Global interim projects by urban Research Projects

by urban Research Projects

CONTENTS Urban Research Projects | London 1. Storefront Library 2. Gabriels Wharf 3. NDSM Wharf 4. Folly for a Flyover 5. Mile End Floating Market 6. Atelier [Zero] 7. Proxy SF 8. The Unlimited Edition 9. Films on Fridges 10. PARK(ing) Project 11. King’s Cross Filling Station 12. Beit Yam Bienalle 13. The Albert - Kilburn 14. Sugarhouse Studios 15. 100 Union Street 16. Paris Plages 17. South Kilburn Studios 18. Leyton Food Market 19. Windows on Willesden Green 20. Vacant Lots The Decorators 21. The Peoples Supermarket 22. Espacio Artistico 23. The Opening at the Fairfield 24. Klong Toey Community Lantern 25. Ridleys 26. Dalston Mill CODA & Common Capital 27. Creative Common 28. Bristol Urban Beach 29. Caravanseri 30. Diesel Depot The Architecture Foundation 31. The Rebuilding Centre 32. Rebienalle 33. 2012 Architecten 34. Rotor 35. Urban Ore 36. Industri[us] Streetgames 37. Pensioners Playground - Hyde Park 38. Pensioners Playground - Manchester 39. Sports Barn - Blackpool 40. Sports Barn - Trafford 41. Table Tennis Ecosystem 42. Triathlon Live 43. Beach Court - Westminster 44. Frontside Gardens 45. Bouldering David Kohn Architects & LADA 46. Parc de la Villette 47. Courtyard Theatre 48. A Room for London 49. The Passion in Port Talbot 50. You Me Bum Bum Train

CHINATOWN STOREFRONT LIBRARY

BOSTON STREET LAB

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary: A temporary public library that existed in a vacant shop unit within a community that had been without a library since 1956.

Site Details & Ownership: Vacant shop unit owned by Archstone who donated the space for use by the project.

Location:

640 Washington St. Boston, MA. USA

Programme: Lending Library Internet Access Computers & WiFi Space for Homework & Children’s Area

A range of community programmes

Initiator: Boston Street Lab Project Duration: 3 months. Extended into by a month into 2010 (Oct 2009-Jan 2010) Lead in Time:

6 months

Site Area: 280m2 Client Team:

Street Lab and Community of Chinatown

Project Team:

Street Lab, with support from 2 paid staff and 40 volunteers from the community.

Funding Sources: Individuals, organizations. Many in-kind donations of services, goods and materials from a variety of sources, including publishers and building material firms.

Project Costs - Build: Construction Labour Construction Materials Moving Equipment and IT Space Prep Permissions 5000+ Books

£12,000 (paid by student fellowships) £8,600 (£5,000 donated in-kind) £300 (supplemented by volunteers) £4000 (computers borrowed) £300 (decoration by property owner) £75 £0 (donated)

Project Costs - Operation (4 mos.): Staffing £4000 Internet £350 Rent/Utilities £0 (donated by property owner) Event Insurance £400 Program Supplies £450 Printing £75 Permissions / Permits

Local Links: Publicity/advertising

Temporary Use permit from city Special Event permit from city.

All dependent on having insurance.

Links with local community both adult and children.

Local advertising, Community outreach programme prior to launch.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The target audience was the local Chinatown community, as well as those who shopped/worked in Chinatown and simply walked by. The project became a destination for people from outside Chinatown through partnerships with organizations such as the Boston Children’s Museum. All program partners were eager to have the opportunity to highlight their existing programmes in a new, highly visible space, reaching new populations, while also supporting this new cultural space Feedback from users / staff: “What they artfully did was create a facility to fill an intellectual need, or a cultural need, and that’s what’s so exciting about the complex thinking of the group that they pulled together.”

Boston Public Library President Amy Ryan, 2009

What next?

The project gained a lot of support from the local community, with over 500 library cards issued and 1374 books loaned during it’s open period, 54% of which were in Chinese.

The 5000 books of the library were donated to the Friends of Chinatown Library advocacy group who expanded their programme to include a community reading room. Boston Street Lab helped set this up by cataloguing and delivering the books. The library website continued to provide information on the advocacy groups efforts.

The furniture of the library, designed and built by Harvard GSD students was donated to neighbourhood facilities for young people (schools and day care centres).

Boston Street Lab produced a detailed report on the library project which informed subsequent programmes.

In April 2012 residents of Chinatown celebrated the opening of a permanent local library in the Chinatown Lantern Cultural and Educational Centre, the books of the Storefront library have now become part of the permanent collection of the permanent library.

Complementary Programmes: Cafe, Project Website / Further Info: www.storefrontlibrary.org / www.bostonstreetlab.org

April 2010

March 2010

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

May 2009

April 2009

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal Follow up

dy

GABRIEL’S WHARF

Shingle FW

URBAN SPACE MANAGEMENT

Old Bargehouse

FS

Mud

Pier

Stairs

Mud

Und

Th e Q

k 's Wal ue en

h Wa Mean Hig Sep 87

ter

Park

16

11

Un d

22

BAR

GE

De f

7

13

d Un

12

CR st B Co n Bo ro

Prince's Wharf

Gabriel's Wharf l 2 a to

2

1

The London Television Centre

dy

3

FB

TCBs

58

72

73

Park

1

to 60

79 4.0m

2

87 PH

RE ST

91

ND

Y

93

OU

CH

GR

DU ET

R PE

11 17

R ST

1 to 24 97a 97

97d

T

84

Coin Street Community Builders

Project Team:

Urban Space Management

Funding Sources: Funding Type:

Urban Space Management £78k Investor Capital

Project Costs (Build):

Unknown due to age of project

Project Costs (Operation): Unknown due to age of project Profitability/Loss:

Profit

Permissions / Permits

Full planning permission

Local Links:

Coin Street Community Builders as well as the land owner represent and are owned by the local community.

Publicity/advertising

Local advertising, Press, PR

26 22to

77 79

Client Team:

65 67

Site Area: 1850m2

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The biggest challenge was activating a site which at the time had very little activity, the mural along the large blank wall to the west of the site was a key device in declaring the space as something different. The mural was supported by an active and varied programme, 3 hot food venues from the start and the retail offer supported by craft workspaces (these were very cheap to build due to less demanding regulations of the time).

Feedback from users / staff: On the mural: “At the time (I worked round the corner and cycled over Blackfriars bridge every day), there was nothing at all in he area really. Weekend TV studios were a silo and the South Bank promenade a dream. This was probably the first project to open up the area with something different. The mural did just that. Marked out the site as a different place and gave it a lovely feel.”

John Burton - Urban Space Management

What next?

The project had an original target of turning a profit within 4 years yet over 25 years later the interim programme is still as popular as ever and has in many ways become an integral part of the south bank in its own right.

Coin Street Community Builders now runs the site but the programme hasn’t changed dramatically from its initial concept.

The site remains in the Lambeth DPD and is a major development opportunity site. The preferred use at ground floor level is, in words at least, similar to the current Gabriel’s Wharf use, likely due to the continued success and popularity of the current interim use.

Complementary Programmes: The mix of retail and workshop space has provided a dynamic mix for over 25 years.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.coinstreet.org/developments/gabrielswharf.html

ET

Lead in Time: 3 months

RE ST

4 years

Y

Project Duration:

i

CH

Urban Space Management

Car Park

0 10 2 10

DU

29

Initiator:

63

86

27

Restaurants, Shops, Markets

4.7m

EE

14

15

IN

Programme:

66 70

Site Details & Ownership: in 1988 the site was a vacant Thames side site overshadowed by a large blank facade of the adjacent Princes wharf building. The site was and remains owned by Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB) and whilst the interim use still exists over 25 years later the site remains earmarked as a development site in the local plan.

Site 94: Gabriel's Wharf and Prince's Wharf Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: This mapproject is based upon Ordnance material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.a The wasSurvey aimed at making a profit inof 4 years by bringing © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Lambeth 100019338 2004. diverse demographic to the site. The varied programme of the site sought to support the case for a similarly programmed permanent development also owned by CSCB at the nearby OXO tower development.

57

Location: Lambeth, London

LB

12

95h

11

64

68

62

Project summary A market, shops restaurants and performance space as a long term interim use on an underutilised site.

2

Project Evaluation:

CO

Project Evaluation:

3

3.9m

95a

76

1o

7

1

UP

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

NDSM WHARF

KINETIC NORTH

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary The site is what was until the late 80s Amsterdam’s main docks. As the dock became derelict it became occupied (illegally) by artists and creatives. In 1999 the site was opened up to a competition to propose development on it by the council. The winner of this competition was a collective called Kinetisch Noord (Kinetic North) who sought to work with the illegal temporary programmes that had filled the gap to develop a flexible master-plan for the area.

Site Details & Ownership: The site contains a 20,000m2 hall that is divided into thematic zones (ArtTown, SkatePark, Exhibitions, Cafés and Galleries) The site also contains a huge outdoor performance area as well as a number of apartments.

Location: Northern IJ embankment, Amsterdam Programme: Widely varied but with a cultural and artistic core including: Skate Park, Café, Flea Markets and other events.

Initiator:

City of Amsterdam

Project Duration: 13 yrs, subsequently ext. to 25 yrs Lead in Time:

12 months

Site Area: 270,000m2 Client Team: City of Amsterdam Project Team: Kinetic North Board of 7 members, A “service desk” organisation between the board and “The Society” which consists of all the tenants who are responsible for their own building works.

Funding Sources: City of Amsterdam £8.5m

Loans £4.2m User Funding £8.5m Project Costs:

Unknown - varies by tenant

Profitability/Loss: Loss making. The project is still subsidised by the council. The project has found that vacant buildings are much easier to fill than vacant space.

Support of the public authority enabled the creative subversion of its own strict policies on land use and zoning (e.g. Housing is ‘temporary’ bypassing zoning restrictions) Local Links: The scale of the project is so large that it is a community in its own right, supporting over 250 jobs.

Permissions / Permits

Publicity/advertising

Council lobbied for a passenger ferry across the Ij river to attract people from Amsterdam.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The target audience was the whole of Amsterdam, the NDSM site offered something different and with a Ferry connection from the south was easily accessible. Over its long existence the site has attracted many thousands of people from all parts of the city and beyond.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The site is huge, whilst the large internal spaces have been successfully re-activated, some of the larger outdoor sites have proved harder to programme successfully on a temporary or budget limited basis. Events like festivals are successful, but building structures to last longer term has proved prohibitively expensive.

Feedback from users / staff: (none gathered) What next?

It is estimated that a further £4.2m is needed in order to complete the project. As the initial project had a lease of 13 years there was some doubt over its future and ability to deliver on this. However the initial lease has now been replaced by a 25 year lease securing the future of the development.

In addition, whilst the area remains dominated by temporary creative interventions the success of the NDSM Wharf is beginning to attract more traditional development, with MTV moving its Dutch HQ to the area to capitalise on the creative capital and ‘authenticity’ that exists there. The advent of traditional development may enable the project to eventually break even and turn a profit, though this may be at the expense of the cheap rents that have lead to the areas creative character.

Complementary Programmes: Many varied programmes exist on site, the scale of the community would support its own community facilities Project Website / Further Info: www.ndsm.nl

2022

2020

2018

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER

ASSEMBLE CIC

.5m

16

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A 6 week timber stage set with outdoor seating and cafe built beneath a road bridge over the Lea Navigation.

Site Details & Ownership: Canal side under-croft of A12 road bridge over River Lea Navigation, land owned by LB Hackney. Site accessible by vehicles from Eastway for deliveries, pedestrian access primarily via canal towpath owned separately by British Waterways.

Location:

Hackney, London, UK

Programme: Café Film Screenings

Boating on the Lea Navigation Daytime workshops Initiator:

Cultural Olympiad / CREATE festival

Project Duration:

6 weeks (Opened 24th June 2011)

Lead in Time: 7 months (2 on site construction prior to opening) Site Area: 200m2 project build site + canal for boating Client Team:

Architecture Foundation, Barbican

Project Team: Lead by approximately 5 people from design and architecture collective, Assemble CIC who oversaw design and operation. Construction labour by around 200 volunteers Funding Sources: CREATE 2011 £40k Funding Type:

Grant

Project Costs (Build): unknown Project Costs (Operation): unknown Profitability/Loss:

Approx £500 profit

Permissions / Permits Permission to use site from LB Temporary Event Licence

Short term commercial waterways licence (for boat hire) Local Links: Café food supplied by local companies including Mr Bagels, Essex Flour & Grain and Formans smoked salmon.

Publicity/advertising

Website, festival

local

advertising,

CREATE

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging the local community through cinema and food the project attracted approximately 20,000 total visitors, with over 3,500 tickets sold to film screenings and the remainder visiting workshops or simply stopping in the cafe.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Provision of power and water to a previously undeveloped site.

The requirements of power were a major problem of the build.

The legacy of the project is that the site has now had the utilities provision made permanent to enable future temporary projects to take place on the site.

Boat licensing required from British Waterways, worked with BW directly to arrange required permits and licences.

Feedback from users / staff: “The feeling of watching TRON in that setting with the music echoing around you as cars drove overhead was strange, made even stranger still when people arrived to watch the film on canoes and a home made motorised catamaran.

If you get a chance to go to a Folly For a Flyover event this summer do it and don’t miss out, you would be in for a magical evening” http://www.frontrowreviews.co.uk

What next?

The project materials have subsequently been used in a number of other temporary projects by Assemble in the Olympic Fringe, these have included: • Wooden Bricks forming planters at Gainsborough School • Wooden Bricks, cinema seats and equipment at Sugarhouse Studios • Terrazzo has been donated to the Essex Flour & Grain Co (who supplied food) to be used to improve their waterside space for staff.

• The site of the Folly itself has subsequently been provided with permanent utilities connections and a terrazzo slab to enable the site to be readily reused for events in future.

• Assemble have since been commissioned by LLDC to operate Sugarhouse Studios which provides a similar programme of films and community workshops on a larger scale over a longer period of time.

Complementary Programmes: Café, Library Project Website / Further Info: http://www.follyforaflyover.co.uk

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

MILE END FLOATING MARKET

CANAL & RIVER TRUST

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A temporary floating market during the Olympics, on the Regent’s canal with 20+ trading boats.

Site Details & Ownership: 600m stretch of canal between Victoria Park and Mile End, the towpath linked the live site at Victoria Park and high Street 2012 at Mile End. The entire section of towpath is backed on to by Mile end Park.

Location:

Mile End, London, UK

Programme: Assorted trading boats selling food, clothes and other things.

Initiator: Canal & River Trust (Formerly British Waterways) Project Duration:

4 weeks (20th July - 16 August)

Lead in Time:

6 months

Site Area:

600m stretch of canal towpath.

Client Team:

Canal & River Trust

Project Team:

Canal & River Trust London Region, Administrative supported by IWA volunteers

Funding Sources:

Internal Budgets

Project Costs (Build): None Project Costs (Operation): Service Boat ÂŁ(unknown) (Fuel water etc.)

Staffing: Volunteers

Profitability/Loss: Profit Permissions / Permits

None

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Olympic visitors, Londoners of all ages. Showcasing the variety of innovative boat based businesses that exist on the canal network.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Installation of facilities for boaters (e.g. additional water taps) and the provision of a regular service boat service proved difficult.

This was likely due at least in part to heightened security and the challenges of operating on the canal in the immediate vicinity of the Olympic park.

The provision of water was remedied by negotiation between IWA volunteers and Queen Mary University (on the far side of the canal) to allow use of their private water supply for the four week period.

Feedback from users / staff: Stumbled across the floating market whilst riding my bike on a Friday evening. Really enjoyed the atmosphere, al fresco drinking with free barges providing free entertainment. 10 - 15 barges vending anything from food to alternative medicine, library to a sweet shop. My advice is the weather permits, take a bottle of wine and unwind in the hippie atmosphere.

User feedback (via Time Out)

What next?

Following the floating market at Mile End the market subsequently continued with a number of the same boats in Paddington and Little Venice on the other side of London from 20th August to 2nd September. Little Venice is traditionally very popular with tourists in general rather than being more Olympic focused.

Local Links: The market stalls were all existing trading boats, some were and remain based in the London area whilst others travelled especially from further afield.

The move to Paddington after four weeks was necessitated by the requirements of the boats to not trade in one place for more than 4 weeks at a time.

Website, online, press, managed by CRT press team.

Complementary Programmes: The floating market would work well as a temporary addition to many canalside businesses or venues.

Publicity/advertising

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.floatingmarket.co.uk

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open -

ATELIER [ZERO]

MANCHESTER SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE / OFFICE FOR SUBVERSIVE ARCHITECTURE

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A collaborative installation exploring the boundary between sport and play in the form of “Manchester’s Olympic Village”

Site Details & Ownership: The site, owned by Town Centre Securities, consisted of an open grass area with the topography of a small mound with a towpath edging a small basin. Adjacent site uses are regenerated residential building and sport, leisure and retail. On one edge there was a brick wall bounding a higher level road, and on the other sides there were footpaths and towpaths.

Location: Piccadilly Basin, Rochdale Canal Programme:

Thirteen adapted garden sheds, five boats, five giant swing balls A layered collection of sporting line markings.

Initiator:

Professor Tom Jefferies & Jane Anderson in response to Cultural Olympiad.

Project Duration:

22nd June until 2nd September 2012

Lead in Time:

The project was built over twelve days and spent the following seventy seven days in situ under the supervision of two attendants and five volunteers.

Site Area: 1405m2 land, 1070m2 water Client Team: Town Centre Securities [Land Owner] and CityCo [City Centre Management and Marketing].

Project Team:

Manchester School of Architecture, Office for Subversive Architecture, École Spéciale d’Architecture, Curated by Jane Anderson.

Funding Sources: Arts Council Grant: £50,000.

Manchester School of Architecture, École Spéciale d’Architecture and various others.

Total Cost: £138,000 Project Costs (Build):

Material Costs: Artists and Other Fees:

Project Costs (Operation): Attendant Costs:

Profitability/Loss: Nil. Not for profit.

£25,000 £30,000 £3000

Permission sought from the Arts Council, Inspire, Town Centre Securities, CityCo, MSA Legal and Insurance, Local Residents and Waterways.

Local Links: Local Artists, Rochdale Canal Festival, Buddleia, Lomography.

Publicity/advertising As part of Canal Festivals Permissions / Permits

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project aimed to raise the profile of the Piccadilly Basin by targeting the wider community of Manchester and beyond. One thing documented on site was that the audience for the project was much wider than anticipated and included explorers, sunbathers, ballgamers, artists and fishermen. The project reached 162,292 people on Facebook and was subject to only 4 incidents of anti social behaviour. Upon completion the project was dispersed to 6 locations across Manchester.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Internal negotiations were key to the success of the project by encouraging a collaborative working environment with 605 kilometres between Manchester and Paris.

Negotiating permission to run a boating lake was far from straightforward. Jacksons Basin is owned by Town Centre Securities but the water itself is owned by Waterways so permission was required from both parties in addition to relevant Insurance.

Key to the project was the relationship with the site. Manchester was observed as the starting point for the project and the topic most associated with the context of Manchester was the rain.

During the twelve day construction on site it rained for eight and continued to rain throughout the majority of July.

Feedback from users / staff: Both physical and virtual feedback was collected from visitors in the form of boat handover forms and a visitors book on site as well as Facebook and Twitter. The project was also published in a number of local and national publications and alongside a cluster of projects in the Basin over the summer generated an estimated PR value of £450,000. One of the most poignant comments was written in the guest book by a seven year old girl who said that ‘It is good because it is unexpected’ after asking her dad how to spell unexpected.

What next?

Atelier [zero] was relocated to six places in four categories, garden, gallery, school and office. Sheds are now being documented at Moss Side Community Allotments, Hulme Community Garden, Manchester Garden Cities, The Lionel Dobie Project and Manchester School of Architecture. A boat sits on the roof of the London HQ of the Office for Subversive Architecture.

Project Website / Further Info: See conference paper ‘Atelier [zero] Negotiated Dialogues’ on the subject of the dialogues of project

January 2013

November 2012

September 2012

July 2012

May 2012

March 2012

January 2012

November 2011

September 2011

July 2011

May 2011

March 2011

January 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PROXY SF

ENVELOPE A+D

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: A temporary project on a two block vacant lot containing a flexible mix of food, art, culture, and retail units.

Location:

Octavia St, San Francisco

Programme: Biergarten, Ice Cream Parlour

Coffee Shop, Bike Tours, Butchers Shop +more.

Initiator:

San Francisco Mayors Office

Project Duration:

Approximately 4 years (ongoing)

Lead in Time: 4 months from site acquisition Site Area: 200m2 Client Team:

SF Mayors Office, Envelope A+D

Project Team: Envelope A+D, Funding Sources:

Self Funded? Development Partners.

Project Costs:

Proxy is broken down by phase which includes building & operation costs:

Phase 1: Phase 2, 3, 4:

£125,500 £188,000 each

Profitability/Loss:

Unknown - Ongoing

Permissions / Permits

A full plan was submitted as for a permanent building. Because Proxy is continuing to evolve in its design, any change to the site must be reviewed by the city/neighbourhood beforehand.

Proxy as a whole does not currently hold a liquor permit, only biergarten does.

Local Links:

Proxy was delivered using local contractors and the initial businesses are locally based, as the project grows it is intended that businesses from a wider area will participate alongside local ones.

Publicity/advertising

Website, local publicity

Site Details & Ownership: The site is a two block section of vacant land, previously used as a freeway until the structure failed in an earthquake and had to be demolished. The land was owned by CalTrans who subsequently transferred it to the city. The Mayor’s office then issued a call for housing proposals for all the blocks along the highway route.

However the housing market crashed and the Mayor subsequently came to Envelope A+D and asked what they could do if they had the site for just 4 years.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project has a lifespan of around 4 years and intends to both engage with the existing communities but also to activate a site that would otherwise be dormant and use this to inform future development.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The idea of a temporary project that lasts 4 years didn’t fit with the existing definition of temporary from a planning perspective (<90 days) as a result the permissions required were the same as those for a permanent building and not suited to a project like Proxy.

Envelope A+D worked with the mayors office to streamline some of the planning processes etc.. and have achieved a result that works.

Feedback from users / staff: “Everyone has been extremely supportive, and because we’ve had such support from the City it’s helped us navigate uncharted waters.”

“In the neighbourhood people really understand what it’s doing to what used to be a parking lot – how this starts to activate areas that used to be vacant.”

“We get a ton of inquiries. Multiple inquiries a day, people that are interested in being a part of the project. We’re really curating the site and we’re not interested in having redundant program.”

LIZZIE WALLACK, PROXY PROJECT ARCHITECT

What next?

The project is ongoing with Phases 3 and 4 currently under construction, it is anticipated that after the scheduled end date the economic conditions will favour the original programme of housing better.

Complementary Programmes: There are a number of programmes within the Proxy development, these programmes are designed to work together but be ever changing, potentially any public programme could be a part of the proposal.

Project Website / Further Info: http://proxysf.net/

January 2016

June 2015

January 2015

June 2014

January 2014

June 2013

January 2013

June 2012

January 2012

June 2011

January 2011

Lead In Construction Open Removal

June 2010

January 2010

Timeline:

From 2005

THE UNLIMITED EDITION

WE MADE THAT

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A short run of three newspapers celebrating the local community and environment of the area between the city and the Olympic Park

Site Details & Ownership: The site was a loose area including the communities along the A12 from Aldgate to Stratford. The High Street 2012 route and the communities it passes through were the focus of the newspaper.

The ownership of the paper content remains with the editors (We Made That)

Location:

High Street 2012, London, UK

Programme:

Newspaper

Initiator:

High Street 2012 Initiative

Project Duration:

2 months (late summer 2011)

Lead in Time:

3 months

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The newspaper was distributed along High Street 2012 from special newspaper stands and had a distribution run of 2000 copies per issue. The target audience was primarily the local communities along High Street 2012 who were affected by the changes brought about by the games.

Feedback from users / staff: Even the explanation of what High Street 2012 actually is: ‘Areabased initiatives… respond to specific spaces… coherent thread’ Client Team: We Made That curating assorted Urban proves hard work for those not down with Urbanism-speak.

Designers, Artists and guest writers But, maybe that’s ungenerous: perhaps for every 10 of these publications shoved in the bin by baffled punters, one is enjoyed by Project Team: We Made That - Editorial and curation an interested amateur, acting a little like the local history section of

Andrew & Stephen Osman - Graphic the Tower Hamlets free-sheet, East End Life, albeit a more rarefied Design version, without the council house adverts and council messages in Urdu.

Funding Sources: LB Tower Hamlets James Pallister (Architects Journal) Heritage Lottery Fund English Heritage What next?

The run of three papers as part of the project will be supplemented Project Costs: Labour by a fourth edition which will combine the previous three issues Printing into one larger document that forms a lasting record of the area.

Distribution Site Area: N/A

Profitability/Loss: Entirely loss making, distributed freely.

Permissions / Permits

newspapers

None specifically, individual rights clearance as part of standard editorial process.

Local Links: Distribution was focussed on the immediate locality featured in the newspaper. Writers and artists featured in the paper mostly work or live in the local area.

Publicity/advertising

Website, festival

local

advertising,

CREATE

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.wemadethat.co.uk

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Preparation Published

FILMS ON FRIDGES

SCOUT LTD

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A temporary cinema constructed from fridge doors, echoing the fridge mountain that was present in the vicinity prior to the Olympics.

Site Details & Ownership: Canal side site overlooking the Olympic Stadium (and in the direction of the site of the fridge mountain that is now the aquatic centre) Site fully owned by H Forman & Sons Ltd with access through the car park of their adjacent factory.

Location:

Hackney Wick, London, UK

Programme:

Bar & Cinema

Initiator: Scout Ltd Project Duration:

18 days (July 27th - August 13th 2011)

Lead in Time:

6 months (5days on site construction prior to opening, 2day take down at the end)

Site Area: 3600m2 total project site Client Team:

Scout Ltd

Project Team:

2 founding members of Scout and 1 architect as the core organisation team, 4 additional key members, over 80 volunteers.

Funding Sources:

Kickstarter Campaign

£4500

Project Costs (Build): Labour (volunteers) £ N/A Construction Materials: Porta-loos

Permissions & Services: Project Costs (Operation): Film Licensing:

Beer: (donated by Tiger) £ N/A Staffing: Profitability/Loss:

Approximately Nil.

Permissions / Permits

28 day permission and event licences.

Hazardous Waste Storage Permit

Local Links: • Forman’s: hot food • Hackney Picturehouse: Equipment, staff, drinks etc. at trade • The Floating Cinema: Collaboration for Finisterre screening • Hackney Bike Workshop: Free servicing before bike based film The Good Gym: Construction Volunteers, Local artists Publicity/advertising

Twitter and social media handled by the project team.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The target audience was 20-30 year olds with no under 18s to avoid film licensing issues and risks associated with serving alcohol. The attending audience was much broader than expected coming from a wide range of places geographically and with a much broader age range than anticipated.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: • Due to the hazardous chemicals in the fridge doors Scout was required to apply to the Environment Agency for Hazardous Waste Storage Facility status known as S2 waste exemption.

Additionally the safe disposal of the fridges had to be arranged following the project.

• The London Riots happened over the second weekend and contributed to some concern from the audiences. The screenings went ahead as planned, and no shows were resold.

• The strict time limit of the project strongly influenced the design. Where possible flat pack kits were created with assembly handbooks so that the large group of construction volunteers could build elements to a high standard with minimal guidance. The use of existing quick assembly elements such as the seating also accelerated the construction process.

• Limited budget was a major issue and influenced many aspects of the project.

Feedback from users / staff: Feedback was very positive. All the shows were sold out and fully (sometimes over) staffed. There was a strong trend of people returning both to attend screenings and volunteer. There was a general involved and positive attitude towards the project from all involved this undoubtedly resulted in a relaxed enjoyable project for volunteer and film-goers alike.

The team have since received many emails with very positive feedback and up to a year later get queries from people wanting to be involved in and come to future projects.

What next?

The project site has been used for a number of temporary projects, notably Formans Fish Island Riviera during the Olympic games.

Though the site is intended for permanent development in the future the temporary projects on the site maximise the sites income for the owner in the short term.

Complementary Programmes: cafe, sports activities Project Website / Further Info: http://www.filmsonfridges.com

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PARK(ING) PROJECT

REBAR

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A two hour installation of a park within a metered parking space.

Site Details & Ownership: City of San Francisco, metered payment for parking.

Location:

1st and Mission Streets, San Francisco

Programme:

Bench, Tree & Green Space

Initiator: Rebar Group Project Duration:

The number of people who connected directly with the initial project was low in comparison, though not insignificant itself.

2 Hours

Lead in Time: 1 month Site Area: One kerbside metered parking space.

Approximately 18.5m2 Client Team:

Self initiated project

Project Team: Rebar Funding Sources: Self Funded £500 Funding Type:

Initiators own capital

Project Costs (Build):

Labour (volunteers)

Project Costs (Operation): Parking Meter

£ N/A £1

None

Local Links: Publicity/advertising

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Logistics of doing something new. The principle of putting a park in a parking space has the potential to provoke surprised reaction from authorities, Rebar negotiated this through dialogue, emphasising the benefits of their actions.

Feedback from users / staff: In recent years, participants have built free health clinics, planted temporary urban farms, produced ecology demonstrations, held political seminars, built art installations, opened free bike repair shops and even held a wedding ceremony! All this in the context of this most modest urban territory – the metered parking space. http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/

Profitability/Loss: Non commercial Total cost approximately £550 Permissions / Permits

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project reached a global audience, though this wasn’t planned for. The image of the pocket park sitting between cars on the street went viral on the internet and received a global interest.

None up front but subsequent viral marketing of project via single image on the internet.

What next?

The project only lasted two hours in a single car park space in downtown San Francisco however the idea caught the interest of the media and blossomed into an international event called Park(ing) Day. Rather than follow up on requests to repeat their park across the globe Rebar made the Park(ing) Day project essentially open source, with each pop-up park being funded and implemented locally by individuals.

Rebar maintains the website (www.parkingday.org) which hosts a list of the Park(ing) Day interventions and also provides a how to guide.

Complementary Programmes: Café, Library Project Website / Further Info: http://rebargroup.org/parking-day

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

KING’S CROSS FILLING STATION

CARMODY GROARKE

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: Temporary Restaurant in former petrol station with a brief to develop a high profile activity driven destination to publicise the King’s Cross Masterplan.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: There was no specific audience targeted in the application though the site brief was to create a destination that would draw people to the area and promote the King’s Cross Masterplan

Location: King’s Cross, London, UK Programme: Restaurant, Event Space, Marketing Suite

Problems Encountered / Overcome: [Information not supplied]

Initiator: Argent Project Duration:

Up to 3 years from spring 2012

Lead in Time:

9 months

Site Area: 185m2 courtyard

+

140m2

covered

Client Team: Argent - client developer:

Bistrotheque - restaurateur: brief for method and manner or restaurant bar space.

Project Team:

Argent - client developer.

Bistrotheque - restaurateur Carmody Groarke - architect Carrilion - contractor

Funding Sources:

Argent (confidential)

Project Costs (Build):

Information Withheld

Project Costs (Operation): Information Withheld Profitability/Loss:

Information Withheld

Permissions / Permits

Planning Permission Building Control approval Liqueur license Change of use

Local Links: None specific, working within the larger masterplan with its own local connections.

Publicity/advertising

Site Details & Ownership: The site is owned by Argent as part of the King’s Cross Central Partnership.

High profile national press launch.

Feedback from users / staff: “It has been great to work with Office of Change, and Carmody Groarke, an innovative and young practice, to bring this part of the development to life. We were keen to find an imaginative interim use for the petrol station site and the extraordinary design they have produced has surpassed our expectations alongside a really interesting programme for the building. The King’s Cross Filling Station is sure to become a great food destination as well as an exciting cultural and social space for the next two years, and will make a big contribution to the new piece of the city which we are creating here.”

David Partridge, King’s Cross Central Partnership

What next?

The restaurant is scheduled to remain in place for 2-3 years, at which point the site will be demolished to make way for residential development on the site as part of the masterplan.

If is unlikely that the restaurant will continue to exist on site in place of the masterplan, though subject to economic conditions development speed may change.

Complementary Programmes: Canal activities, sports activities Project Website / Further Info: http://kxfs.co.uk

May 2015

January 2015

September 2014

May 2014

January 2014

September 2013

May 2013

January 2013

September 2012

May 2012

January 2012

September 2011

May 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

BAT YAM BIENALLE / 72 HOUR URBAN ACTION

VARIOUS

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: Real-time architecture competition, 10 teams had 3 days and 3 nights to design and build projects in public space.

Location: Tel Aviv, Israel Programme: Various Initiator:

The project was part of the 2010 Bat Yam Bienalle., Founder and CoDirector: Kerem Halbrecht Co-Director: Gilly Karjevsky

Project Duration: 72 hours with interventions remaining Lead in Time: 4 months Site Area: 10 sites of approx 200m2 Client Team:

Bat Yam municipality, as part of the Bat Yam Bienalle of Landscape Urbanism.

Roll of Bienalle team: community liaison, practical support Roll of Municipality: funding, planning coordination

Project Team: Lead Architect/Director (1 person)

Content Manager/Director (1 person)

Production Manager (1 person)

Architectural Assistant (1 person)

Coordinator (1 person) Funding Sources: Bat Yam Municipallity, Funding as part of the Street Development Programme Project Costs (Build):

Each of the competition team had a budget of 10,000 shekels (ÂŁ1600) for materials.

Project Costs (Operation): Non Profit Profitability/Loss: N/A Temporary planning consent.

Winning proposals- full planning consent granted by Mayor.

Local Links: All building supplies were provided by a local building merchant (on the same street). They formed an integral part of the project.

Publicity/advertising Website and local publicity Permissions / Permits

Site Details & Ownership: Bat Yam Municipality, or semi private land with shared ownership (eg gardens of shared housing blocks) Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Visitors of the Bat Yam Bienalle over 3 days. This event took place in conjunction with another festival in the city - the Bat Yam festival from Street Theatre.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Feedback from users / staff: Participants in the competition loved every minute and were very inspired. One team formed a similar event in Australia. Another team collaborated with the directors on another 72HUA which happened one year later in Stuttgart.

The municipality feedback was very positive.

Residents feedback- most residents were involved and participated with the team during the 72 hours. Some of the proposals were adopted by residents after the competition.

What next?

Some of the proposals were dismantled, materials either disposed or reused by Bat Yam municipality.

The project instigated several other 72HUA events (next one this summer in Ireland, Londonderry) as well as lectures and education programmes Complementary Programmes: Various Project Website / Further Info:

September 2013

August 2013

July 2013

June 2013

May 2013

April 2013

March 2013

February 2013

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

THE ALBERT

THE ALBERT spaces to play with

WHAT IF? PROJECTS

Loca

THE 1-5 South Lond NW6

be

sbur Salu

tu Park ens Que

ks trac train

ad y Ro

no.5

s trac k train

N

no.1

R ert Alb

oad

The A

Draw Scale Date: Revis

Key Facts: Project summary

Location:

Project Evaluation:

Scale: 1:1250

A former British Legion building and Mental Health Day Care Centre becomes community centre for a year before development begins. Artists and performers are invited to inhabit the space in return for putting on locally directed programme, opening up their practice to those who would not normally have such access..

Kilburn, London, UK

Programme: Arts, Sports, Socialising, Food, Music & Performance Initiator: LB Brent Project Duration:

Initially 6 months, currently extended to 12 months - ongoing.

Lead in Time: 3 months (with work starting on site immediately) Site Area: 6000m2 Client Team:

What if : Projects

Project Team: 2 directors, 1 project manager on site, part-time production manager and cleaners, and volunteer labour managed by What if: projects Ltd

Site Details & Ownership: A Royal British Legion and Mental Health Day Care Centre buildings owned by LB Brent. Bought as part of ongoing redevelopment strategy in the South Kilburn neighbourhood.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: South Kilburn neighbourhood regeneration area and Queens Park Ward.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Limited lead-in time, access to site and budget as well as shifting time-frames. Need to create revenue clashed with resident artist requirements.

Feedback from users / staff: When buildings around them are being knocked down and the area starts to feel more like a building site, meanwhile projects help keep a sense of community and bring so many opportunities to those who live near them.

Lead Member of Regeneration and Major Project Cllr George Crane

What next?

The current community programme has an anticipated duration of 12 months. LB Brent’s intention is to sell the site with the developer expressing a wish to continue the project until it chooses to demolish. This will be followed by the demolition of the building to make way for the further development of the area in line with the masterplan.

Complementary Programmes: Cafe, restaurant, sports programmes

Funding Sources: LB Brent, Catalyst Housing, Ward Working, South Kilburn Project Website / Further Info: http://www.thealbert.org.uk// Neighbourhood Trust Project Costs (Build): £45,000 Project Costs (Operation): £15,000 (+revenue and further grants) Profitability/Loss: tbc - ongoing project Permissions / Permits Full Planning Application Advertising Consent Asbestos inspection Water inspection Fire inspection

Full alcohol on/off license x2

Performance and music license x2 TEN’s Local Links:

Working with a number of local arts and cultural organisations to provide the full programme of events within the space

Publicity/advertising

Website, local advertising,

Wha 39 Cr ulrike t. 020 www

September 2013

August 2013

July 2013

June 2013

May 2013

April 2013

March 2013

February 2013

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

SUGARHOUSE STUDIOS

ASSEMBLE CIC

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A temporary workshop, cinema and events space in an industrial building marked for demolition.

Site Details & Ownership: Former sign-writing factory building to be demolished in 2013 as part of the Sugarhouse Lane masterplan redevelopment by LandProp

Location:

Sugarhouse Lane, Bow, London, UK

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project aimed at creating a space in an area in the face of rapid transition. The interim space was commissioned by the OPLC (now LLDC) in order to spread the effect of the Olympic park into the surrounding communities through arts and culture.

Programme: Bar / Pizzeria Film Screenings Events Initiator:

Assemble / OPLC

Project Duration:

Approximately 1 year

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The site was and remains difficult to get to, sitting between Bow and Stratford. The space suffered from a lack of walk-in visitors, though when there was an evening event people made the effort to attend and the space was regularly busy.

Lead in Time: 9 months Site Area: 1575m2 Client Team:

OPLC/LLDC

Project Team: Design and architecture Assemble CIC

collective,

Funding Sources: OPLC £49k Project Costs (Build): unknown Project Costs (Operation): unknown Profitability/Loss:

unknown

Permissions / Permits Change of use Alcohol licence Local Links:

Reuse of materials from Folly for a Flyover

Publicity/advertising

Website, local advertising, press

Feedback from users / staff: The space is sparse: it’s cold, it’s grey and, yes, it’s effortlessly cool.

The warehouse-like ceiling sits high above the concrete floors, covered in industrial venting and metallic lighting. The simple wooden tables are dull, surrounded by rickety chairs, and crisscross lattice work across the windows give the room an almost prison-like aesthetic. However, the organisers have worked hard to breathe some life into this drab, ‘to be demolished’ building.

Colourful, vibrant flowers and green plants cover the space and sit on some of the tables alongside muted candles, casting a soft light on the harsh surfaces. There’s a cinema area for art-house films, a ping pong table and even a small garden area with a terrace for alfresco drinking when the weather allows. They did good.

View London Review

What next?

The building is to be handed to LandProp for demolition and redevelopment from January 2013, the short term future for the venue in this transition period remains in question at the time of writing.

Complementary Programmes: Art Gallery, Bookshop, Library Project Website / Further Info: http://www.sugarhousestudios.co.uk

May 2013

March 2013

January 2013

November 2012

September 2012

July 2012

May 2012

March 2012

January 2012

November 2011

September 2011

July 2011

May 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

100 UNION STREET

LAKE ESTATES / SOLIDSPACE / EXYZT / WAYWARD PLANTS

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: A number of interim use projects on a derelict site in Southwark.

Location: 100 Union Street, Southwark, London, UK Programme: Lido, Orchard, Physic Garden, Public House Initiator:

Project Duration:

The Architecture Foundation (The AF) first commissioned the Southwark Lido on this site working with EXYZT in 2008. In 2010 The AF worked with Wayward plants and others to create the Union Street Urban Orchard. In 2011 the Urban Physics Garden was created and in 2012 EXYZT returned to the site with The Reunion Project that saw a public house and inn take shape.

Southwark Lido (4 weeks), Union Street Urban Orchard (4 months), Urban Physics Garden (3 months) ReUnion (2 months)

Lead in Time: Variable (< 6 months) Site Area: 800m2 Client Team:

The Architecture Foundation (Southwark Lido and Union Street Urban Orchard) , Lake Estates (Urban Physics Garden and ReUnion)

Project Team:

Variable including The AF, Wayward Plant Registry, EXYZT, BOST, LivingARK

Funding Sources: Variable, land sponsored by Lake Estates each time.

Project Costs (Build):

Variable from £15k - £50k

Profitability/Loss:

Not for profit

Permissions / Permits

Temporary Licence

Local Links:

All projects worked very closely with the local community.

Publicity/advertising

Press, website, flyers, social media, publications

Event

Licence,

Alcohol

Site Details & Ownership: The site is owned by Lake Estates who have consent for a residential led development on the site. The development was stalled for some years and during this period Lake Estates worked with The Architecture Foundation to commission emerging designers to activate the site. The first two projects were the Southwark Lido and the Union Street Urban Orchard and then in 2011 Lake Estates commissioned the Urban Physics Garden and in 2012 the ReUnion as a result of the previously successful projects. The land is situated on a residential street and has very attractive features such as the railway arches. Works on site have now [2012] begun.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The target audience for the projects varied but at their heart an engagement with the surrounding community, both as users but also as volunteers in the build processes. The Union Street Urban Orchard allowed for a lasting legacy with all 85 fruit trees being planted on existing community gardens and estates in the local area when the project came to an end.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Securing funding and in-kind support for all projects was one of the major challenges though they all managed to be produced with the help of volunteers and a huge amount of enthusiasm. As the site sits in a residential area a lot of public consultation and engagement was necessary in order to communicate exactly how each project could benefit them as locals. Building these relationships took time and some small pockets of resistance needed to be overcome.

Feedback from users / staff: “Above all, I sensed that the community had been given as big a boost of life as the once barren land beneath...The Architecture Foundation together with Heather Ring of the Wayward Plant Registry, had given leadership to the project, but my sense was that the community had joined in, and augmented it with enthusiasm” Jon Snow, Journalist and Presenter on the Union Street Urban Orchard.

What next?

The site is currently being developed so the future of interim uses on the site is unclear at present.

Complementary Programmes: Cafe, disco,shop, public programmes of workshops, events and film screenings Project Website / Further Info: http://www.unionstreetorchard.org.uk/, http://www.physicgarden. org.uk/, http://the-reunion.org.uk/, http://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk, http://www.lakeestates. co.uk/

January 2013

July 2012

January 2012

July 2011

January 2011

July 2010

January 2010

July 2009

January 2009

July 2008

January 2008

July 2007

January 2007

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PARIS PLAGES

MAYOR OF PARIS

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

During the summer the road beside the Seine is closed to traffic and converted into an urban beach

Site Details & Ownership: The site is ordinarily a busy road along the banks of the Seine. The road is owned by the city who close it for this event annually.

Location:

Georges Pompidou Expressway, Paris, France

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The original aim of the Plage was to provide a summer beach location in Paris for citizens who were unable to afford a summer vacation to the coast. The beaches and venues have become extremely popular with all Parisians though, attracting around 3 million visitors annually.

Programme: Beach, Sunbathing, Swimming Pool, Massage etc..

Initiator:

Betrand Delanoë (Mayor of Paris)

Project Duration: The beach exists for four weeks in summer Lead in Time: Variable (some new elements e.g. floating pool whilst others are reused annually) Site Area: Varies Client Team:

£2.2 Million

Project Costs (Operation): Varies - programme alters each year.

Profitability/Loss: Unknown - initially entirely loss making, subsequent developments have had some small revenue streams.

Permissions / Permits

Road Closure

Local Links: Publicity/advertising:

In the latest incarnation of the beach has seen a small number of homeless people have pitched tents on the banks of the Seine close to the beach. City Hall has resisted the temptation to evict the squatters, whose tents were provided by their protectors, the group Doctors of the World.

Mayor of Paris

Project Team: Department for transport

Funding Sources: City of Paris,

Corporate Sponsors (approx. 60%) Project Costs (Build):

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Logistically closing a dual-carriageway for a month is challenging, however as the event has returned annually, diversions have improved and vehicle owners are less frustrated.

Posters, Web, Press

Feedback from users / staff: “This is a very well organised ‘beach’ experience organised every summer along the banks of the river Seine during Paris’ hottest period (mid-July to mid-August). You can’t go swimming in the river obviously and you’ll probably not find a deck chair to sit on as they’re all taken up very early by locals and early-riser tourists.

However it does make for a lovely stroll along the river, grab an ice cream and meander under the cool, vapour-sprays that are set up along the route. Plus there are clean toilet facilities there too which is always so useful for tourists who sometimes end up paying for a coffee just to use bathroom facilities. Bravo Paris!”

2012 visitor comment

What next?

Though the month long road closure was initially unpopular visitor numbers have grown year on year and the event seems likely to continue, growing organically as it has done to date.

Complementary Programmes: The programme grows year on year, the concept of urban beach has the potential to work alongside any number of summer leisure activities.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.paris.fr/parisplages

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

SOUTH KILBURN STUDIOS

PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

Transformation of a disused building in studio spaces given to start up creative businesses free of rent in return for them taking on a training a local young person in their profession

Location:

South Kilburn, London

Programme:

Studio spaces, public programme of workshops, traineeships

Initiator:

The Architecture Foundation with Practice Architecture supported by the South Kilburn Neighbourhood Trust and Brent Council

Project Duration:

Launch April 2011 - currently still running

Lead in Time:

6 months

Site Area:

Portacabin building

Client Team: South Kilburn Neighbourhood Trust and Brent Council Practice Architecture and The Architecture Foundation

Funding Sources: South Kilburn Neighbourhood Trust

and currently Brent Council Project Team:

Project Costs (Build):

Site Details & Ownership: The site is a disused portacabin building that formerly had been the New Deal for Community’s offices until the programme came to an end with the new government. The site was earmarked to become a healthy living centre and these plans remain though development has been stalled. The project was initially commissioned for a six month period but is currently still running and is reaching its second year. The building was run down and part of the work carried out of the renovation of both the inside and outside of the portacabin.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project offers free traineeships to local young people living in the Borough of Brent. In addition the studios run weekly workshops and monthly open studios that are open to all and are targeted at both a local and London-wide audience. The tenants that take up residency at the Studios generally come from the creative industries. To become a tenant or a trainee a short application form is required.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The project was realised in a very tight time-frame (from inception to completion was six months with a build of around 5 weeks.)

In that time tenants needed to be recruited, trainees engaged with, the building transformed and launch events and opening workshops coordinated. The project was intense and required a lot of commitment from the project teams at Practice and at The Architecture Foundation. Due to this short lead in time there were some challenges in ensuring the outreach required to local organisations and job suppliers was done to the standard required to attract trainees. This has subsequently been built upon though more local publicity when the project was being set up would have been desirable.

Circa £30,000

Project Costs (Operation): £53,000 Profitability/Loss:

Not for profit

Permissions / Permits

Advertising consent for the light box

Local Links:

Close links forged with the local job centre and youth centres. 40% of tenants from Brent and 100% of trainees from Brent.

Publicity/advertising:

Posters, flyers, project website, press

Feedback from users / staff: Working with a trainee has been challenging at times but what has stuck us is that you become invested in that persons’ future not just professionally but personally too. This makes the project extremely rewarding - Tenant South Kilburn Studios What next?

A publication on the Studios was launched in 2012. The project continues and has funding until March 2013. There are recently been a review of the project by strategic partners and some developments to the way the studios work will be implemented.

Complementary Programmes: Weekly workshops, monthly open studios, space hire and South Kilburn Studios publication.

Project Website / Further Info: http://southkilburnstudios.org/

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

WINDOWS ON WILLESDEN GREEN

MEANWHILE SPACE

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

Outer London Fund Project to revitalise Willesden Green High Road working with existing businesses and empty units.

Location:

Willesden Green, Brent, London

Programme:

Advent calendar of shop-front improvements, the creation of Queens Parade with the activation of eight new retail outlets, workshops and events

Initiator:

Mayor of London / LB Brent with The Architecture Foundation, Meanwhile Space and Blue Consulting.

Project Duration:

6months

Lead in Time: Approximately 3 months Site Area: Varied Client Team:

LB Brent, Design for London

Project Team: The Architecture Foundation, Meanwhile Space and Blue Consulting

Funding Sources: Outer London Fund (GLA) Project Costs (Build): Shop-front improvements £100k

Vacant unit improvement £50k Project Costs (Operation): Local business skills

Publicity & Marketing

Events & Workshops

£40k £18k £6.5k

Profitability/Loss: Not for profit - though shop-front improvements may have led to profits for individual businesses on the High Street.

Permissions / Permits

Signage consent required for some parts of the project.

Local Links:

The project worked extensively with existing local businesses, local start ups were given opportunities at Queens Parade and local trainees were involved in the project

Publicity/advertising:

Web and print media (30+ nationally covered articles), Launch event and local advertising.

Site Details & Ownership: The project was delivered in two phases, the first making improvements to existing shops along the High Road pairing 25 independently owned shopkeepers with emerging designers to produce an advent calendar of shop-front transformations; The second involved securing a lease on an eight unit parade that had been empty for over 6 months and was on a strategically located site on the High Road. The empty parade was transformed and start up businesses were given the chance to test their ideas in public facing unit. The first phase involved mixed ownership and the second phase the lease was owned by Meanwhile Space in order to provide facilities as part of the project.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The project was aimed at the local community and to revitalise the high street. The launch event for new shops attracted 300+ people and the Christmas events attracted over 5,000.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Shop owners in the initial shop revamp phase were a little apprehensive to work with designers to create the alterations to their businesses, despite them being paid for by the project.

However once the initial shop fronts had been refurbished other shop owners were eager to also get involved in the project.

The project was delivered in a very short time-frame (6 months) and so some more lead in time would have ensured more engagement with shopkeepers.

Feedback from users / staff: The Willesden Green initiative is superb. It is well judged, uplifting and bold. It is part of the great blossoming of projects that are helping to reinvigorate high streets across London.

Mark Brearley, Design for London

Thanks for bringing a sparkle back to Willesden Local Resident

What next?

Though project funding from the Outer London Fund came to an end after 6 months the project is still continuing. The local stakeholders have begun the formation of the Willesden Green Town Team in order to continue the project over a longer term. Queens Parade is still open and operating.

Complementary Programmes: Workshops, Library Lab by Architecture OO;/, Architecture Foundation Urban Pioneers education programme Project Website / Further Info: http://willesdenwindows.com

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July 2011

June 2011

May 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

VACANT LOTS

WHAT IF? PROJECTS

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

Reactivation of underused and vacant spaces by the installation of low cost allotments and growing spaces.

Location:

19+ sites across London

Programme:

Allotments

Initiator:

What if Projects Ltd

Project Duration:

Ongoing (initial site May 2007)

Lead in Time:

Variable - initial project

Site Area:

Combined total area to date: 8000m2

Client Team: LB Hackney, Camden & Islington and local residents Project Team: Lead by What-If with Groundwork Funding Sources: Big Lottery, Islington Community Chest and Housing Associations working in the three boroughs Project Costs (Build): Unavailable Project Costs (Operation): Unavailable Profitability/Loss:

Not for Profit

Permissions / Permits

Spaces used with permission of landowners (either LA or Housing Association)

Local Links:

Crops from the allotments go to the local community

Publicity/advertising

Local posters

Site Details & Ownership: Sites vary dramatically but all are underused spaces on housing estates, the owners are the local authority or housing association and the projects are delivered in partnership with them and the local residents Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging with the local community and to provide a place for education and healthy food.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Provision of power and water to a previously undeveloped site.

The requirements of power were a major problem of the build.

The legacy of the project is that the site has now had the utilities provision made permanent to enable future temporary projects to take place on the site.

Boat licensing required from British Waterways, worked with BW directly to arrange required permits and licences.

Feedback from users / staff: The first Vacant Lot allotment on a housing estate in Hoxton was realised as a temporary intervention featuring bulk bags as growing containers and has since through considerable media attention inspired many similar low budget communal projects. Since June 2007, this formerly inaccessible piece of land continues to be used as an allotment by the local community. Residents are carefully tending a spectacular array of vegetables, salads, fruit and flowers and in addition insects and birds have moved in and thrive in this new natural habitat. VACANT LOT has become a place for meeting neighbours, BBQsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, sitting in the sun, playing and gardening.

What If Projects

What next?

After the first vacant lot in 2007 What If projects formed a partnership and submitted a successful Big Lottery funding bid with match funding from 6 social housing landlords, this bid includes a 3 year programme of new vacant lot sites up to 2013.

In addition to the What-If projects spaces the simple but effective idea has been copied by a number of other residents associations.

Complementary Programmes: Teaching and training spaces, cookery skills Project Website / Further Info: http://www.what-if.info/Vacant_Lot_allotment_programme.html

Timeline:

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Lead In Construction Open Removal

STUDIO EAST DINING

CARMODY GROARKE

le sca

m

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A dining room overlooking the Olympic park.

From 16 June 2010, for a 3 week period, 2000 guests visited Carmody Groarke’s pop-up pavilion as it hosted Studio East Dining

by Bistrotheque. Built within a live construction site, 35m atop Westfield Stratford City development, the pavilion provided the first views across London’s Olympic Stadium, and Zaha Hadid’s 2012 Aquatics Centre, forming a commanding presence on London’s skyline.

Location:

Westfield London.

Stratford

City,

Newham,

Programme: Dining room restaurant Film Screenings Kitchen Bar Gallery / Events space Initiator: Westfield Stratford City / Bistrotheque’ Project Duration:

Opened 16 June 2010, for a 3 week period

Lead in Time:

12 weeks conception and construction

Site Area:

200m2 project build site

Client Team: Westfield Stratford City / Bistrotheque’ Project Team:

Publicity/advertising:

Architect: Carmody Groarke: client: Westfield Stratford City; client initiative: Studio East; restaurateur: Bistrotheque; main contractor: Benchmark Scaffolding; services contractor: Imtech Meica; cladding contractor: SCA; decoration: E Poole; kitchen units: PKL. Mandi’s Basement, (Mandi Lennard), Yellow Door, Westfield.

A fast build with a life span of just 3 weeks, the primary structure, weighing 70 tons, was constructed from hired materials borrowed from the existing construction site, including: 2000 scaffolding boards, 3500 scaffolding poles, and reclaimed timber, used to create the walls and floors of the 800 square metre dining space. The cladding material which encased the roof, was a semi-translucent membrane, using industrial grade heat retractable polyethylene which was 100% recycled after use; as with the other materials, all were returned to the site afterwards and recycled without any waste.

Through close collaboration with Bistrotheque, Carmody Groarke have evolved a form and internal arrangement that works for both the experience of front of house and the pragmatic requirements of running a kitchen and service back of house. The large dining room, capable of seating 120 guests, is broken into a cluster of timber rooms lined in scaffolding planks, proportioned to the scale of each of the dining room tables, allowing everyone to connect in a communal dining experience.

Due to the location on top of a building site, signifigant costs were required for security to surround the project whilst the public were visiting. A specially designated route through Westfield and site hordings was created to direct people to the site.

The marketing was pitched to promote the exclusivity of the three week project, which ensured the public were not deterred from the difficult to reach location.

Complimentary Programmes: Outdoor garden, rooftop park.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.bistrotheque.com/

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

‘ESPACIO ARTISTICO - LA CARPA’ VARUMA TEATRO AND RECETAS URBANAS

Key Facts: Project summary

Location:

Project Evaluation: “Espacio Artístico – La Carpa” is the head office of Varuma Teatro and future Andalusia School of Circus Arts. Contructed in collaboration with Recetas Urbanas (Santiago Cirugeda) and 6 other groups in an empty site cessed by the Seville Council in the outskirds of the city.

Miraflores Park, Seville, Spain

Programme: Circus, Open Performative Arts Centre and Future Circus School.

Initiator:

“Bifu” Director of Varuma Teatro

Project Duration:

Ongoing (Opened Feb 2012)

Lead in Time: 12 months (still construction)

some

areas

in

Site Area:

2250 m2

Client Team:

Self initiated project

Project Team:

Varuma teatro lead by ‘Bifu’ and Recetas Urbans lead by ‘Santiago Ciruged’ in collaboration with 7 other groups: El cuarteto Maravilla, ElGatoconMoscas, La Jarapa, El cuarteto Maravilla, ConceptuArte, Straddle3 and many voluteers.

Funding Sources: £6k

Crowd sourcing and in - kind

Funding Type:

Crowd sourcing and In-kind

Site Details & Ownership: Site was an unused area within the Miraflores park in Seville. After lots of negotiations with Varuma Teatro the council leased the land for free for 8 years with the possibility to extend this to 50 years.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging the local community through performing arts and circus. The programme includes weekly performances, educational programs and activities for different ages and groups.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Problems with licensing as the council found it very difficult to classify the type and conditions of this project. The council ended up levelling this project ‘singular-ism and very special’ Ongoing problems with water and electricity The site is been robbed 4 times What next?

The project opened in February with a weekly program. The school is still under construction because of lack on funding. To carry on engaging the community through self-building methods, the site is constantly under construction and improving/adding new areas and infrastructures.

The project has had a great response from people during the build as well as during the first year of the circus providing performances, courses and other activities. The aim of the project now is to establish the venue as a respectable arts and culture centre by the surrounding communities to be able to achieve the longer term aspirations.

Complementary Programmes: Bar/School/Venue/ After School activities and more Project Website / Further Info: http://www.varumateatro.com/varuma/ http://www.recetasurbanas.net

Project Costs (Build): Total £ 6000 Labour (volunteers) £ N/A Construction Materials: in kind

Water/Power connections: £ in kind

Permissions & Services: £ in kind Permissions / Permits Planing permission Building License

Opening Licence Insurance

Timeline:

THE OPENING AT THE FAIR FIELD, CROYDON

THE DECORATORS WITH KINNEAR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND CROYDON COUNCIL AREA BEHIND THE ARNHEM GATE 1:50 @ A1 STEWARD LOCATION FIRST AIDER THROUGH PLAN

EXIT TOWARDS EAST CROYDON STATION (WHITE STAIRS) STEWARDS AT TOP & BOTTOM OF STEPS CROYDON COLLEGE

MAD-ASS BBQ

DJ SET UP AFTER GAME

MUSIC AREA (ACOUSTIC)

LIGHTING HUNG ABOVE ATTACHED TO ARNHEM GATE AND CAR PARK FENCING

THE ARNHEM GATE

2.3m

FOOTBALL FENCING TERRACED SEATING

LOCATE GENERATOR INSIDE CAR PARK AS REQUESTED

Key Facts:

Project summary The Opening at The Fair Field was a project initiated by Croydon Council - a temporary/meanwhile activation as an open call to invite other meanwhile uses of the top floor of the Fairfield Multistorey Car Park and to discuss with the Croydon residents about the future of their spaces.

Location:

The Fairfield area, Croydon

Croydon Council

Project Duration: 1 day with other events planned Lead in Time:

6 months research

Site Area: 2,000 m2 Client Team: Kinnear Landscape Architects

Croydon Council Project Team:

Site Details & Ownership: Site owned by NCP so licence had to be obtained to use the site.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: 200 people Problems Encountered / Overcome: There were many issues with Health & Safety enforced by the Council. This caused the event to be postponed from June to October.

The event became a mechanism to navigate and understand the complicated structures within the council. The lessons learnt will be used to inform change within the Council to enable an easier process to allow events within the public realm of Croydon

Programme: Football Music Opening speeches Workshops Initiator:

Project Evaluation:

The Decorators, collaborated with tutor and students at Croydon College

Funding Sources: Croydon Council

Funding Type: Fees

£8k

Project Costs (Build): Labour (volunteers) Construction Materials: Permissions & Services:

£N/A £4000 £180

Project Costs (Operation): Staffing: £700

Profitability/Loss: No Profit Permissions / Permits Local Links:

Croydon College, MADASS BBQ from Surrey St Market, Fairfield Halls

Publicity/advertising

Croydon Guardian, Croydon TV

Feedback from users / staff: “This event has been great- although we haven’t been able to reach many people, it is the first time an event like this has happened in Croydon which will hopefully be the start of some changes.”

What next?

Croydon is going through many changes. There is a history of big plans in Croydon without realisation. Thus the public have become jaded by these processes. The current team within the Council are passionate about changing this cycle and have put in new systems to ensure that plans go ahead. This event was one of these changes so we hope that we will continue to work in Croydon and build on the relationships formed so that they may inform the masterplan process and take part in meanwhile activity throughout this process Complementary Programmes: Food and children’s activities Project Website / Further Info: http://www.the-decorators.net/index.php?/projects/the-openingat-the-fair-field/

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

KLONG TOEY COMMUNITY LANTERN

ASSEMBLE CIC

12m

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary The transformation of an empty lot in a dense residential area of Bangkok into a public playground, meeting and performance space.

Site Details & Ownership: Under used sites within the community of Klong Toey - a typical slum of Bangkok with a maze of narrow walkways.

Location:

Klong

Toey

Lock

1-2-3,

Bangkok,

Thailand

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Positive activation of a site which was previously under used and habituated by drug users.

Programme: Community consultation Performance Play

Initiator: Leva Urban Design Project Duration:

1 year research & build - still on site

Lead in Time:

1 year with 3 weeks build

Site Area:

14.4 m

Client Team:

Klong Toey Community

Project Team:

TYIN Tegnestue Architects Students and Community

Funding Sources:

Norwegian Architects

Funding Type:

Sponsorship

Complementary Programmes: with

Project Costs (Build): Labour (volunteers) ÂŁ N/A Construction Materials: ÂŁ3625 Project Costs (Operation): Other than sponsorship for the build all participants paid for they own accommodation and flights N/A

Permissions / Permits

No permissions needed

Local Links:

Klong Toey Community

Publicity/advertising TYIN

Feedback from users / staff: Positive response from the community where they took on ownership of the project by getting involved in the design and build from the initiation of the project What next?

Playground is still there and is managed by local community

2

Profitability/Loss:

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: A small scale intervention as a tool for the community to tackle some of the social issues in the area.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.tyinarchitects.com/projects/klong-toey-communitylantern/

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July2010

June 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

RIDLEY’S

THE DECORATORS & ATELIER CHAN - CHAN

Key Facts:

Project summary A 3 weeks temporary restaurant in Ridley Road Market that featured a food-for-food exchange mechanism on a derelict site along the market stalls.

Location:

Hackney, London, UK

Programme:

Restaurant Day time: Take - away Evenings: sit down dinner

Initiator:

The Decorators / Atelier Chan - Chan

Project Duration:

3 weeks (Opened 14th Sep 2011)

Lead in Time: 6 months (3 weeks on site construction prior to opening) Site Area: 25m2 project build site Client Team:

Self initiated project

Project Team: Led by 4 people from art and architecture collective, The Decorators.

2 people from Atelier Chan - Chan collaborated in design and production of the curtain. 1 carpenter, 1 theatrical chandelier and about 20 volunteers during the built and running the restaurant.

Funding Sources: United House £7.5k Sells £1.6k Funding Type:

Sponsorship and sells at the bar

Project Costs (Build): Total £ 9700 Labour (volunteers) £ N/A

Kitchen (PKL transport) £ 520 Construction Materials: £ 6000 Contractors £1400 Water/Power connections: £100

Permissions & Services: £280

Project Costs (Operation): Utensils: £150 Packaging £700 Food and drinks £420 Staffing: £ N/A

Profitability/Loss: £600 Loss Permissions / Permits Temporary Event Licence

Environmental Heal Insurance

Project Evaluation:

Site Details & Ownership: Site owned by Zoe Chan, founder of Atelier Chan - Chan who collaborated on the project. Site is behind the line of stalls in the market and has visibility from all sides. Site accessible by vehicles.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging the local community through food the project attracted approximately 1000 visitors including passers by.

Approximately 760 take away lunches were served and a total of 12 dinners for a total of 60 people.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Lots of problems encountered with the licensing of the project with Hackney Council (building control and environmental health).

Provision of power and water to a previously undeveloped site.

No space for toilets.

Feedback from users / staff: From visitors: “Regeneration, sustainability, community cohesion and happy vibes. Excellent food” From market traders: “It was good there…we miss you being there… you had some nice grub.’

What next?

The project opened up the discussion around Ridley Road about regeneration alternatives for the market and its future strategies.

Also: • All the wood was taken by the market traders to use in their stalls • Scaffolding was taken down and reused by United House (sponsors) • After Ridley’s Hackney Council reconsidered the idea of buying the site • The Decorators have since had lots of interest from different markets in London about how they can incorporate similar projects into their markets to to reactivate them Complementary Programmes: Bar/Coffee Shop Project Website / Further Info: http://www.ridley’s.co.uk http://www.the-decorators.net

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

THE PEOPLE’S SUPERMARKET

KATE BULL, DAVID BARRY & ARTHUR-POTTS DAWSON

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

The People’s Supermarket (TPS) is a food co-operative whose aim is to provide the local community with good cheap food that is fair to consumers and producers

Location:

Holborn, London, UK

Programme:

Members structure Supermarket

Initiator:

Kate Bull, David Barry & Arthur-Potts Dawson

Project Duration:

2 1/2 years (Opened June 2010)

Lead in Time:

2 years (research and shop preparation)

Site Area:

Shop floor area (takes £30,000 to stock)

Client Team:

The People’s Supermarket members

Site Details & Ownership: Site owned by private commercial landlord. Difficult location as there has been no negotiation of rates with Camden Council even though TPS is operating with social values.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: 1000 members (need to collect data) 400-500 footfall /week Places looking at doing a similar initiatives: International interest from Helsinki, Barcelona, Brazil, Sicily, Japan, Spain, Australia Germany UK interest from - Cornwall, Newcastle, Kent, Edinburgh/Fife, Bradford, Hampstead, Hammersmith, Loughborough, Sutton Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to high rates and rent location of Holborn, TPS have had serious financial problems which has made it difficult to fully focus on the social values and aims of the supermarket. It has been also difficult to work solely with the members structure for staffing so have needed to employ staff to keep the shop open every day.

Project Team: Initiated by 3 people with 100 members to begin. There are now just under 400 members. There is a working group which manages the overall governance structure and a working group who manage the day to day running of the shop.

Feedback from users / staff: “It has been wonderful to be part of The People’s Supermarket, it is like a community centre but one that is welcome to all at any time of the day.”

Funding Sources:

Channel 4 production team

£120k Camden Council £40K

The Esmee Fairbairn Foundation 2 years GM salary

What next?

The Peoples Supermarket is still open and considering moving to other locations in London. They have done a feasibility report to possibly open in Homerton. There has been a great response to this but they have not been able to secure a proper building

Funding Type:

Grant

Project Costs (Build):

Labour (volunteers) £ N/A

Construction Materials: £10 per sq ft.

Water/Power connections: £350/month

Initial stocking of shelves £3,000

Current cost to stock shelves £30,000 Project Costs (Operation): Shop Licensing: included in lease Staffing: 12% turn over Profitability/Loss:

Debt of £60,000

Permissions / Permits

Included in the tenancy as the building was licensed as a shop Covent Garden Fruit and Veg market Local residents associations & local businesses. Student population and Camden Volunteer council .

Channel 4 program, Website, local advertising.

Local Links:

Publicity/advertising

Complementary Programmes: Café, Library Project Website / Further Info: http://www.thepeoplessupermarket. org/

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

July2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July2010

June 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

‘THE DALSTON MILL’ EXYZT COLLECTIVE

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary As part of the Barbican Art Gallery ‘Radical Nature Exhibition’, architecture collective EXYZT created a 16 metre fully functioning Mill in a disused railway line. The installation included a 20m long wheat field and the windmill produced enough electricity to grind wheat to make flour and bake bread. The space hosted different activities and welcome various associations to use the space. The area used for the Mill is now the house of the current Eastern Curve Community Garden.

Site Details & Ownership: Half of the site is owned by LB of Hackney and the other half is owned by Kingsland Shopping Centre. Site was located in and disused railway line by Dalston Junction.

Location:

Dalston Junction , LB Hackney, London

Programme: Bar, events and workshops.

Initiator:

Barbican Art gallery

Project Duration: 28 days (July 2009) Lead in Time:

5 months (1.5 years research done by muf)

Site Area: 25m2 project build site Client Team: Barbican Art Gallery Project Team:

Architecture collective EXYZT, muf architecture/art, j&L gibbons landscape architects,

Funding Sources:

Barbican Art Gallery, Arts Council England, RSA, London Borough of Hackney.

Funding Type: Cash and in-kind Project Costs (Build): £35000

Project Costs (Operation): £65000

Profitability/Loss: £?

Permissions / Permits

Temporary event notice Not necessary to go through planning permissions.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Dalston Mill attracted 14,500 visitors over the few weeks it was installed; 75% of these visitors were from Hackney and 33% were from the immediate area.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Difficulties encountered during the negotiation of the use of the site between the Kingsland Shopping Centre, LB of Hackney and the car park owners next to the site.

Many different views were raised between different neighbours associations about the immediate use of the site and its future.

Feedback from users / staff: N/A What next?

Shortly after the Dalston Mill was over, LB of Hackney started the works for what was going to be the Eastern Dalston Curve Garden.

A community run garden located on the same site.

The garden was fully funded by LB Hackney for the first 2 years and now it’s run by a local steering group which is planing to sustain the garden by opening a small cafe and other donations.

The future of the garden its uncertain because of land lease arrangements but a strong community around the garden has been created to secure the garden remains open to the public.

Complementary Programmes: A programme of events was presented by artists and local arts organisations such as Gahu Dramatic Arts, Arcola Theatre and Artburst. The addition of a small bar encouraged people to spend time on this site.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.varumateatro.com/varuma/ http://www.recetasurbanas.net

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

May 2009

April 2009

March 2009

February 2099

January 2009

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

CREATIVE COMMON CIC

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

An events tent on a high profile site within the business district of Bristol.

To follow: Bar/restaurant and retail units.

Location: Enterprise Zone, PLOT 3, Temple meads, Bristol.

Programme: Events Bar

Initiator: Bristol City Council & HCA

Site Details & Ownership: Land under ownership of the Homes and Communities Agency.

Near railway station and adjacent to floating harbour. Relatively flat ground with public square neighbouring the site.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Engaging residents from across Bristol with a variety of programmed events. A mix of uses to be established over time on the site. Bar/ Restaurant and retail space.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Provision of power, water and foul drainage to what was previously a car park site. Lack of capacity amongst project team to deliver above ground work.

Project Duration: 6 weeks (Opened 24th June 2011) Feedback from users / staff: N/A

Lead in Time: 5/7 months Site Area: 985m2

What next?

The tent has been brought down for the winter and the site is vacant. With two years left it will be up to the project team to deliver outputs for next year.

Client Team: Bristol City Council Project Team:

Invisible Circus, Circomedia, Art Space Life Space, Coexist, Common Capital, Coda Architects.

Funding Sources: Home and Community Agency (HCA)

Funding Type: Grant Project Costs (Build):

£200,000 £280,000 £8,000

above ground works below ground works Permissions etc.

Project Costs (Operation): Unknown Profitability/Loss: N/A Permissions / Permits Local Development Order (Planning) Temporary Event Licence

Fire Plan Local Links: Arts based:- Invisible Circus, Circomedia, Art Space Life Space, Coexist, Publicity/advertising

Website, local magazine

advertising,

venue

Complementary Programmes: N/A Project Website / Further Info: http://creativecommon.co.uk/

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

BRISTOL URBAN BEACH 9.8m 00

10

20

Drawing Notes:

REDC LIFFE WA

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Y

100m

Revision Notes:

02

E THE GROV

11 14 01

19 19

03 10 17

16

SITE LOC 02 03

A

REDCLIFFE WHARF, BRISTOL FLOATING HARBOUR

B

BRISTOL URBAN BEACH

B

PROPOSED BOAT BUILDING WORKSHOP = 1250 sq. metres

D

ARCHEOLOGICAL DIG

E

CAR PARKING FOR HOUSEBOAT OWNERS

F

SITE DELIVERIES & TURNING

04

A

01 Redcliffe Way entrance / exit 02 Decked walkway 03 Sandy Beach!

04 Bordeaux Quays food outlet 05 Pieminister food outlet 06 Refresh Bar 07 Articulated lorry trailer for refridgerated storage 08 Temporary positioin of weekly 'refilling' lorry 09 Locked bin storage 10 Toilets 11 Recycled timber hoarding 'screen' 12a Raised decking to create stage when needed 12b Backstage area 13 Redcliffe Parade entrance / exit 14 Axial wind turbine for on-site power 15 Temporary beach sports 16 Cobbled 'seafront' promenade 17 Houseboats 18 Beach lookout for 'Lifeguard', DJ & Security 19 Hoarding / Advertising to screen Toilets 20 Site office / security

C

F

05

E 06

07

08 Rev

16

20

09

15

D

Notes

Do not scale fro

Site / Location p

17

12a 18 03 02

13

Graphic Scale

12b

Quantity Survey

11

C

PROPOSED BOAT BUILDING WORKSHOP = 1250 sq. metres

Building Service

Structural Engin

Client:

demos

Project

BRIST

Redcliff W carpark

Key Facts:

PROPO

00

Project Evaluation: REDCLIFFE PARADE

18.0m

Scale 1:500 Project No:

0071

Project summary A beach was created for 6 weeks with trader stands and facilities to hire deck chairs and play equipment.

Location:

Redcliffe Wharf, Bristol

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging the local community through the beach, drinks, food and events. It attracted a total of approximately 65,000 visitors.

Programme: Beach

Buying food and drink Deck chair hire Daytime workshops Board meeting space Initiator:

Individual through Demos

Project Duration:

6 weeks (August 2007)

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Standard planning submission, Flood risk assessment, licensing, health and safety and insurances were time consuming.

Feedback from users / staff: “It’s a neighbourhood social club.” Male, 60s.

“It’s original and a bit surreal.” Male, 40s “I wish it were here all year round.” Female, 30s

Lead in Time: 9 months Site Area: 6400m2 project build site Client Team: Project Team:

Site Details & Ownership: The wharf is owned by Bristol City Council. Site accessible by vehicles from Eastway for deliveries, pedestrian access primarily via canal tow-path owned separately by British Waterways.

Bristol City Council (BCC) DEMOS, Architecture 00:/, Muf Architects, NEST Building, Skanska, Arup.

What next?

• The site of Redcliffe Wharf remains as car parking.

• Sand was reused within the construction industry

Complementary Programmes: Funding Sources: Total: £120,000 N/A

South West of England Regional Development Agency Project Website / Further Info: Bristol City Council (BCC) http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/bristolurbanbeach Hewlett Packard Converging Worlds Funding Type:

Grant

Project Costs (Build): Unknown Project Costs (Operation): Unknown Profitability/Loss:

Food/ Drink and deck chair hire turnover of £122, 000

Permissions / Permits Permission to use site from BCC Temporary Event Licence Local Links: Café food supplied by Bar Wars, Bordeaux Quay, Richmond Events, Community Waste, Pieminister, Bristol wireless.

Publicity/advertising

BLOG, GWR, Proteus

Bristol

Evening

Post,

@

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

January 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

CARAVANSERAI

ASH SAKULA ARCHITECTS

Bug Hotel The Mint Tea Terrace

sandpit making space & secure plant nursery

Long Table The Flying Carpet Theatre The Cube

A

A Café & Terrace

North Gate

info wc

Kiosks

manhole

South Gate

Silvertown Way CANNING TOWN CARAVANSERAI

PLAN Making space at the Caravanserai

Key Facts:

Scale 1/250 @ A3, 1/125 @ A1

Project Evaluation:

ASH SAKULA ARCHITECTS 020 7831 0195 ashsak.com

REVISION B

Project summary

It is a new public square enclosed by units used by local community groups, artists and traders; food stalls and cafés. It was built with young people through apprenticeships and included a programme of gardening, performances, workshops and skills exchanges.

Location: Silvertown Way, Canning Town, N e w h a m , London, E16 1EA, UK Programme: Learning school Retail street Cafe Daytime workshops Community Garden Children’s play space Exhibition Space Initiator: Newham Council Project Duration:

2011 - 2017

Project Team: ASH SAKULA ARCHITECTS & CANNING TOWN CARAVANSERAI LTD Funding Sources: Newham Council £ 2 5 0 , L o n d o n Community Foundation, Development Trust Authority, British Council Youth in Action Trust L&Q Foundation Neighbourhood Investment Fund, Newham Go For It Grants, etc.

Grants, capital and volunteer funding

Local Links: Anchor House, Community Links, East London Small Businesses, Newham Visual Artists Network, Core Arts, Arch1, Shipman Youth Centre, The Good Gym, St Lukes, Ground Work, University of East London, London Trade School, etc.

Publicity/advertising Local press, social media, local flyering and door to door conversations, event partner’s publicity

Feedback from users / staff: Blog, http://caravanserai.org.uk/blog/site/

What next? £10,000 from the National Lottery. The site still does not have mains electricity, a toilet, or a dedicated coordinator. The project team are also improving their business support offer and event frequency; recruiting traders, artists and facilitators; establishing mechanisms for democratic community-led delivery and oversight; and working towards a self-sustaining income.

£ Project Website / Further Info: www.caravanserai.org.uk

Project Costs (Operation): Total: £6000 Profitability/Loss:

N/A

Permissions / Permits

LB Newham

204

Problems Encountered / Overcome: No power, water or foul drainage on site to tap into. Lack of capacity, finance and footfall. The facilities and events were only just starting to bring in a regular crowd in Dec 2012.

Newham Council,

Project Costs (Build): Labour (volunteers) N/A Construction Materials: £6500

Permissions & Services: £1250 Fine for billboard: £80 Licensing fees: £89 Materials Invested £6500 (portacabins etc.)

CTC/

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Caravanserai is a new public space: a tactical start in creating a physical place. Shared experiences through making things together and through exchanges between people from different backgrounds and disciplines.

Site Area: 5060m2

Funding Type:

22 August 2012

Site Details & Ownership: The site is owned by Newham Council. It sits along side the historic Silk Road, Canning Town. Silk Road runs parallel to Silvertown Way, connecting the existing temporary allotments, the Caravanserai and the Children’s City to the south.

Lead in Time: 1 year

Client Team:

October 2012

B

January 2013

November 2012

September 2012

July 2012

May 2012

March 2012

January 2012

November 2011

September 2011

July 2011

May 2011

March 2011

January 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

DIESEL DEPOT

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: The Severn Project CIC is a social integration project set up in 2010 to provide services to socially excluded individuals through the initiation of ethical businesses providing education, training and employment.

Location: Enterprise Zone, Diesel Depot, Bristol Programme:

Growing - On this site we will grow between 200 and 400 kgs of organic, mineral rich speciality salad per week giving the Severn Project a weekly income of between £1,500 and £3,000.

Initiator:

Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)

Project Duration:

2 years (Opened Sept 2012)

Lead in Time:

6 weeks

Site Area:

3 acres

Client Team:

Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and Bristol City Council

Project Team: The Severn Project CIC Funding Sources:

HCA

Funding Type:

Grant

Site Details & Ownership: The site is on the former Bath Road diesel depot next to Bristol Temple Meads Station. Formally owned by the RDA now under the control of HCA. The site is valued at approximately £100 million.

And has been ear-marked for an arena for several years. The site was contaminated by previous uses. Silver mine, gas storage depot, diesel depot and the Local Authority spent £36 million decontaminating the site. Risk assessments suggest that the ground is still contaminated to a large degree.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: N/A Problems Encountered / Overcome: The stream for grant funding was a challenge and ultimately was channelled through the Safer Bristol Partnership from whom we won a contract to provide social re-integration for those suffering from the effects of substance misuse. Contaminated soil was an issue that was overcome by providing non permeable membrane below 100mm gravel (for drainage) then terram (geotextile membrane), then 400mm imported soil. Access is a problem but has been overcome by emailing all visitors to explain about the dangers relating to the access and suggesting solutions i.e. don’t turn across the traffic etc.

Feedback from users / staff: Delivery is easier, central location helps with delivering to other sites What next?

Consolidate, social franchising, fundraising, adult apprenticeship programmes

Project Costs (Build): Labour (inc. volunteers) £17,000 Construction Materials: £35,000 Complementary Programmes: N/A Water/Power connections: £000

Permissions & Services: £000 Project Website / Further Info: www.thesevernproject.org Project Costs (Operation): Staffing: £52,000 per annum Construction Materials: £35,000 Profitability/Loss:

Companies House website

Permissions / Permits

Local Development Order

Local Links: N/A Publicity/advertising

Facebook and Twitter

Timeline:

REBUILDING CENTER

INTERVIEW WITH: SHANE ENDICOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Key Facts:

Project summary

A building materials reuse warehouse and retail store, run by a communitybased non profit

Location: Portland, Oregon, USA Programme: Retail warehouse, Woodshop, Storage, Refind Furniture that constructs furniture from salvaged materials, Workshops, Deconstruction service that sensitively dissembles buildings on contract

Project Evaluation:

Site Details & Ownership: Site located in North Portland on North Mississippi Avenue near Interstate 5. Site accessible by vehicles, bikes and pedestrians for donations and collections from south side (primary for vehicles) and east side (primary for pedestrians). Both land and building owned by Our United Villages.

Funding Sources (For initial, temporary site): Initial start up loan against a volunteer’s credit card: £10,000 Municipal waste diversion grant for capital costs: £20,500

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The ReBuilding Center processes the Portland-Seatle-Vancouver region’s largest volume of used building and remodelling materials.

It provides resources that make DIY home repairs affordable to everyone, with the goal of promoting the reuse of salvaged and reclaimed materials. Three hundred people visit the ReBuilding Center every day to browse the ever-changing inventory. Our United Villages’ stated mission is “To inspire people to value and discover existing resources to strengthen the social and environmental vitality of communities.”

Within this context, the ReBuilding Center’s work is intended as a demonstration of neighbourhood building; turning things that are misperceived as waste into community assets, and through this process, building relationships among community members. The ReBuilding Center diverts almost 6 million pounds of reusable building materials from landfills every year. Environmental benefits are equivalent to preventing c. 104,000 pounds of greenhouse gas each year. The RBC creates about 40 “green collar” jobs; for example, DeConstruction Services creates 4 to 6 jobs compared with one job in traditional demolition. Staff are paid a living wage with full health and dental benefits (extended to their partners and dependent children) and a retirement plan. The RBC makes c. 100 donations of materials per year to non-profit and community groups, valued at c. £13,000.

Funding Sources (For permanent site): Federal loan for create jobs in under-served communities: £450,000 Meyer Memorial Trust (locally-based private foundation): £125,000 Donation of land by landlord: £205,000

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The organisation was founded at great speed, and with no initial capital and requires a high level of staff commitment (particularly long hours worked in start-up mode). However the narrative from senior leadership is one of positive progress rather than of “challenges met”.

Initiator:

Our United Villages (local 501c3 nonprofit)

Project Duration: On-going (opened on current site in 1999, spent previous year on a temporary site) Lead in Time: Seven months elapsed between Our United Villages’ incorporation and the ReBuilding Center’s first opening on temporary site.

Site Area:

c. 42,000 ft2 (3,900 m2)

Client Team:

Our United Villages

Profitability/Loss: c. £1.9mil annual turnover, of which c. £80k profit.

Local Links: Profits from Our United Villages constituent businesses fund initiatives by their Community Outreach department, which is a key means by which the non-profit fulfils its charitable mission to strengthen local community bonds. 80% of staff live locally, a result of a positive recruitment policy.

Publicity/advertising

Website, business cards, newsletter, bumper stickers and t-shirts, limited print advertising

Project Website/Further Info: http://rebuildingcenter.org; http://ouvcommunityoutreach.org/

Feedback from users / staff: The ReBuilding Center’s slogan is “I Love That Place”, which neatly sums up the sentiments of both visitors and staff. In terms of more formal acclaim, the Rebuilding Center is the winner of the Oregon Ethics in Business Award, the Oregon Entrepreneurs Forum Award, and The City of Portland’s “BEST Business Award”.

What next?

The ReBuilding Center has a very local mission, so does not plan to expand outside of North Portland, but is very happy to act as an exemplar project.

Complementary Programmes: Free collection service. Subsidiary demolition service, from which materials are salvaged for the ReBuilding Center. Subsidiary service that makes high-end furniture from re-purposed materials. On-site workshops and community outreach activities.

REBIENNALE

INTERVIEW WITH: GIULIO GRILLO

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

Rebiennale is a collective of architects operating in Venice to reuse and reclaim the left over materials from both the art and architecture biennales that take place in the city each year.

Location:

Venice, Italy

Programme: Reuse of materials from the biennale in order to aid socially engaged projects in Venice.

A collective of citizens, political and environmental activists, architects and architecture students.

Project Duration: Conceived in 2008 and is ongoing Initiator:

Client Team:

There is no client for the project though they hope to work more formally with the Biennale itself in the future.

Project Team: Gilulio Grillo and strong network of others.

Funding Sources: No monetary exchange takes place though Rebiennale runs a squat that puts on club nights that return a profit.

Funding Type:

Self-funded

Profitability/Loss: The project runs on volunteer time and energy. The group owns a boat that uses to transport materials. No money has been made from the concept as yet.

Permissions / Permits

Permissions to enter the site required from the Biennale and contact with individual Pavilion Curators sought.

Local Links: Rebiennale is strongly embedded in Venetian society. The most part of the materials go towards socially orientated projects and to refurbish their main squat/venue Morion and Sale Docks.

Publicity/advertising

Website, facebook, word of mouth

Complementary Programmes: Rebiennale run club nights at Morion and exhibitions and events at Sale Docks.

Project Website / Further Info: www.rebiennale.org

Site Details & Ownership: Rebiennale operates two main sites in Venice (Morion and Sale Docks) and also have a warehouse space on the main land. Both Morion and Sale Docks started as squats and have subsequently been formally handed over to Rebiennale to run – both spaces are free from any rental charges. Sale Docks and the additional warehouse space act as storage for materials. However storage space is tight and they prefer to select materials for a specific ‘second life’ as they call it rather than take all materials from the Biennale site.

Morion is a squat but can also act as a social hostel for paying guests and as a venue for club nights, which it runs on a weekly basis. Sale Docks is an arts and culture venue run by Rebiennale and a group of students. The space hosts exhibitions and events.

Both venues were restored using materials from the biennale.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Rebiennale’s main aim is to reuse materials from the Biennale in social and community orientated projects. Their key collaborators are the Curators of the individual pavilions and hopefully in the future the Biennale will become its official ‘client’. Rebiennale has a strong network in Venice and also work closely with architecture students and volunteers.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: The two main problems encountered to date are establishing a good working relationship with the Biennale itself and storage.

The project was initiated through a series of conversations in 2008 that included organisations such as 2012Architecten. Since then Rebiennale has been trying to establish a more formal relationship with the Biennale but has up until now been forced to make contact with individual pavilion curators to try and work with them to reuse their materials. This ad-hoc way of working has taken up a lot of time and energy on the part of Rebiennale and has limited its reach. Only now in 2012 has the Biennale asked Rebiennale to work with more formally in 2013. Rebiennale has always worked in a voluntary way and as such has relied on its network and the willingness of people to get involved. Rebiennale owns just one boat to transfer materials and limited storage space. In order for the project to continue and expand it seems that additional space and transportation would be of benefit. It would also be useful if Rebiennale was ‘employed’ as an alternative waste management contractor.

What next?

Rebiennale is looking to formally work with the Biennale in 2013 – the results of which remain to be seen. Rebiennale remains committed to working with the materials from the Biennale for the benefit of community and socially orientated projects. In addition the collective is trying to raise awareness of the high vacancy rate of buildings in Venice and also actively protesting against Venice becoming purely a town to serve tourists.

Timeline:

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Rebiennale concept established Ad hoc working with Curators Collaboration with EXYZT and British Council at Morion Continued reuse of Biennale materials Sale Docks Thomas Klipper Installation Potential formal collaboration with the Biennale

2012 ARCHITECTEN

INTERVIEW WITH: JAN JONGERT

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary: 2012Architecten is a privately run architecture practice based in the Netherlands whose work is based upon the creative reuse of materials. From small scale installations to larger scale private housing commissions 2012Architecten believes in creating projects from recycled and reclaimed materials. Working in a highly site specific way each project will involve a survey of its area to find the most effective material waste streams. Also interested in disseminating knowledge and information relating to Reuse, 2012Architecten has set up the SuperUse website that allows you to view case study reuse projects and the practice is currently working on a reuse site for the Netherlands that will allow people to trade in unwanted materials. The site will be interactive allowing people to upload a profile and publicise materials they have to sell or give away.

Site Details & Ownership: 2012Architecten is located in a previously disused building in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It rents the space together with a number of other businesses including an IT consultant and cleaning company. It used to have storage space for materials but has moved away from this model as space became too expensive.

They currently have a ‘materials library’ that showcases the types of materials they know they could source for different projects.

Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Programme: Architecture, Design and Research Initiator: Founding partners,

Césare Peeren and Jan Jongert Project Duration: Founded in 1997

Problems Encountered / Overcome: One of the major issues encountered was the cost of storage – this has resulted in the fact that 2012Architecten no longer takes on storage space and prefers to use an online model to promote reuse.

In addition 2012Architecten has encountered some issues with liability surrounding the reuse of materials ensuring that they are safe for their new purpose. The effort needed to prepare materials for their new use can also be very labour intensive and can be costly and time consuming. Building with reused materials can therefore become more expensive rather than less expensive and the challenge is to find clients that are happy to take that expense on.

Client Team: Various clients government

from

private

to

Funding Sources: Private clients and research grants (roughly 20%).

Initial start up grant from the Dutch Government.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: 2012Architecten works with a broad range of clients on projects of varying scales from private residential, to office fit-outs to playspaces. It works in a highly site-specific way creating harvest maps for the locations in which they work. It aims to raise awareness of the reuse of materials to a general audience..

Permissions / Permits

Certain permissions required in order to manage waste; this applies predominantly to electrical items.

Local Links:

All projects are approached in a highly site specific way and survey of the area is carried out.

What next?

2012Architecten has been awarded funding to create an online platform that enables reuse. The website will act as a cross between e-bay and facebook allowing users to create profiles, publicise materials they have available and make connections. Visitors to the site will be able to browse the materials available but will have to pay a subscription should they wish to make contact with the person in possession of the materials. Some materials will be free and others will be for sale. The site will cater for the Netherlands only.

Publicity/advertising

Website, e-shots, word of mouth, social media, films (superUse by E2), magazines

2012Architecten will continue to work with reused materials in future projects and promote reuse as a viable alternative to building new.

Complementary Programmes: Consultancy set up to help animate vacant properties. Superuse website promoting interesting projects created using reused materials.

2012Architecten has also recently expanded their strategy to examine other flows; beyond the conventional material flows 2012Architecten is now looking at food, air, money, energy, water, users etc. They are researching new forms of architecture and relating programme that turn these flows into new profitable business models. It has currently collected some 100 case studies on www.cyclifier.org.

Profitability/Loss: Approx £400,000 (annual turn over)

Project Website / Further Info: www.2012architecten..nl; www.superuse.org; www.insidflows.org; www.cyclifier.org.

Timeline:

2012

2009

2008

2007

2006

1997

2012Architecten Founded Villa Welpeloo Project completed *K Project completed Wikado Recycled Playground Development of online reuse platform

ROTOR

INTERVIEW WITH: MAARTEN GIELEN

Key Facts: Project summary

Location:

Project Evaluation:

Rotor is a not for profit organisation of architects and designers working with reused materials in large and small scale projects. In addition Rotor carries out research and produce both online and print publications relating to progressive waste management ideas.

Brussels, Belgium

Programme: Architecture, design relating to reuse Initiator:

and

research

Maarten Gielen and Tristan Boniver.

Currently run as a not for profit with a board of trustees, lead coordinators, project staff and interns.

Project Duration: Founded in 2005 Client Team: Various clients Funding Sources: Depends on the project but it does receive some grant funding from the government for certain research projects.

Site Details & Ownership: Rotor is based in a shop unit in Brussels. It has a team of around eight people working in the space of about 75 square metres. It fitted out their office using reused and found materials.

When it first started out it worked closely with the Zinneke Parade (annual celebration in Brussels) who asked Rotor to supply all the materials for the Festival from waste streams or reused materials; this included costumes and stage constructions. Rotor initially set up a warehouse for the materials it acquired and even trialled selling the items not used for the Festival. It found however that this model did not work due to the high cost of storage space and the fact that people would come in and rather than purchase the samples on sale they would go straight to the source and get it for free.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Rotorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s audience and reach varies depending on the project they are working on. It has been responsible for projects as diverse as research publications, online reuse platforms and exhibition designs and masterplans. Its work has a clear focus on sustainable reuse but their remit and output varies greatly.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Storage was cited as a major issue and an overhead that they could not afford. Because of this Rotor no longer stores materials but sources them on a project by project basis.

Profitability/Loss: Not for Profit Permissions / Permits

Certain permissions required for electrical goods but they do not often deal with these materials.

Local Links:

Rotor naturally has strong links in Brussels and are is working on a number of interesting mapping projects allowing for open source reuse in Belgium. It does however work internationally most notably curating the OMA show at the Barbican.

Publicity/advertising

Website, publications, press, word of mouth

The quality of materials available for reuse can vary a lot and you have to be wary of taking on large quantities where just a few items are useful with the rest of the material ending up as waste.

Electronics were not seen as worth investing in and challenges were noted of making standard construction materials desirable to the reuse market. Chipboard for example can often be cheaper new than reused.

What next?

Rotor has just opened Grindbakken, a masterplan for the docks of Ghent. It has also just launched Opalis is an online inventory of second hand building material traders with commissioners, architects and building contractors as a target group.

Complementary Programmes: Publications and online platforms.

Project Website / Further Info: www.rotordb.org; www.opalis.be

Timeline:

2015

2014

2013

Launch of Opalis.be

2012

OMA Progress Exhibition

2011

Venice Pavilion Commission

2010

2009

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2008

Work with Zinneke Parade

Lead In Construction Open Removal

URBAN ORE

INTERVIEW WITH: DANIEL KNAPP, PRESIDENT

MURRAY STREET

PEDESTRIANS

SASH WINDOWS & CASEMENTS

MARBLE & GRANITE

TILE

FENCING & GATES BRICKS & CERAMICS

OFFICES

ARTS & MEDIA

THE GALLERY HOUSE WARES

FURNITURE CHAIRS

SPORTS

OPERABLE WINDOWS

$ STOVES

BATHTUBS, SINKS, & TOILETS

DOORS

CABINETS

GARDEN AREA

PIPE

LUMBER

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

EXTRA DOORS TRASH & STORAGE (Staff Only)

LAST CHANCE DISCOUNT AREA

Processing (Staff Only)

HARDWARE HARDWARE

BUILDING MATERIALS RECEIVING

REST ROOMS

$

GENERAL STORE RECEIVING

FOLGER STREET

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: A for-profit business with the mission “to end the age of waste”, selling a wide range of salvaged goods (from building materials through to clothing and electronics) to the general public.

Location: Berkeley, California, USA Programme: General store; Building Materials Exchange, Collection service 0Initiator:

Three partners including Dr. Daniel Knapp, current President

Project Duration: On-going (opened on current site in 1999, spent previous year on a temporary site) Lead in Time: Set up 1980; Moved site twice in 1981 and 1983; 1982 City of Berkeley incubates Urban Ore and offers them rent free site until they brought in more than £7,000; 1989 it voluntarily vacated the City property to let another green business expand; Urban Ore found its current location in 1999 and moved the Building Materials and the Salvaging and Recycling departments in 2000; In May 2009 Urban Ore was able to purchase its current property with assistance.

Site Area:

3-acre facility

Client Team: Founder Dan Knapp and Board members Mary Lou Van Deventer and Michael Casady Funding Sources: Now entirely self-reliant through sales. At one of its earliest sites, the City of Berkeley didn’t charge rent until they exceeded an income threshold of £7k (c. £20k in 2012 terms), after which rent was charged as a percentage of income over that amount. Current sales - 15% income from recycled doors and 10% is from windows.

Project Costs (Build): The most recent large build out required about £650,000 in contracts and materials, including innovative uses of recycled materials.

Profitability/Loss: c. £1.7mil annual turnover Local Links: Use of local architects and tradespeople Publicity/advertising:

Website, Twitter, Facebook, eBay

Project Website/Further Info: http://urbanore.com

Site Details & Ownership: Site located in West Berkeley on Murray Street and 9th Avenue near Highway 80. Site accessible by vehicles, bikes, public bus and pedestrians. Both land and building owned by Urban Ore. Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Urban Ore has two operational faces. It is a disposal service so people can let go of unwanted but still-useful goods without wasting them, and a retail store where other people can find things they want at a low price. It serves the San Francisco Bay Area – or as far as customers are willing to drive, which is sometimes a hundred miles or even more. It is also a consultant who design Zero Waste resource-recovery facilities both domestically and abroad. Urban Ore sells about 7,000 tons of reused and recycled goods per year, sending only 120 tons (c. 2% of inventory) to landfill each year.

People in the community bring in about 75% of the merchandise; the other 25% of merchandise is collected by the Outside Trader Department, which makes pick-ups in response to calls. Urban Ore operates a drop-off/buyback facility with two specialized receiving areas for BMX and the General Store.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: In its early years, Urban Ore’s founders had to contend with considerable political opposition, including those who advocated for landfill or for waste-to-heat incinerators instead of recycling facilities. They have also had to relocate sites six times since their foundation. In their own assessment: “Moving early, often, and sometimes in forced circumstances has influenced Urban Ore’s development in three major ways: 1. Much of Urban Ore’s equipment and trade fixtures are portable.

The company can modify its site plan and layout in response to changing conditions.

2. Staff viewed each move as a chance to create a better, more effective layout by correcting mistakes and finding better ways to serve both supply and demand customers.

3. With the outright purchase of the largest piece of the current site in May 2009, the company is confident that it will not have to move again anytime soon. But staff are still engaged in site modifications to handle more incoming materials more efficiently.”

Complementary Programmes: Throughout its history, Urban Ore has been active in the politics of recycling by participating in countless activist and advocacy actions.

They have helped write several influential pieces of legislation that have become law through policy-maker and voter approval.

What next?: Urban Ore is also interested in helping people develop salvaging and scavenging as an essential part of any Zero Waste operation on any scale anywhere in the world, and offer consultancy at competitive rates. They have completed over two dozen Zero Waste resource recovery park designs around the world. The average cost for a schematic runs about £9,500.

2020

2018

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

INDUSTRI[US]

FLUID ARCHITECTS

AS BUILT PLAN CLARKESON

ROAD

KEY

OUTDOOR EVENTS SPACE

BACK OF HOUSE GROUNDWORK SITE HQ

MAKE/SHIFT MARKET & STAGE vehicular access

SQUARE with art wall

FOOD COURT picnic area

PUBLIC SQUARE

N

with cycle parking SILVER

TOWN

WAY

project: INDUSTRI[US] drawing title: As-built plan purpose of drawing: Information revision:

dwg no: scale: 1:200 @ A1 drawn by: KD

1:400 @ A3

date: 05.11.12 checked by: CN

FLUID

148 curtain road london EC2A 3AR t: 020 7729 0770 / f: 020 7729 0778 e: mail@fluidoffice.com This drawing and the details contained therein are copyright and are not to be reproduced without the permission of Fluid Design Ltd. All dimensions relating to actual site conditions are to be checked on site prior to any works being commissioned or executed. Contractors are not to scale from this drawing and should refer any query in respect of dimension to the Architects.

CANNING TOWN STATION

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project involving the upcycling of goods on a disused site in Canning Town. Winner of the Meanwhile London Competition Location: Canning Town, London, UK

Site Details & Ownership: The initial proposal was awarded a site in the Royals Business Park but was later given a site opposite Canning Town Underground Station when another project pulled out. The site is owned by LB Newham and was loaned free of rent for a period of up to 16 months. The site is 5,500 square metres, and though hoarded, required security in the final stages of construction and once open to the public. No funding or monetary support was offered by the instigators of the Meanwhile London competition. Located on an Olympic Walking Route, high footfall past the site was predicted during the 6 weeks of the London 2012 Olympic Games. The predicted footfall did however not materialise once the project was up and running, resulting in a loss of trade and traders and revenue from market stall rent.

Project summary

Programme:

Training programmes, upcycling market, exhibition space, events and workshops.

Initiator:

Fluid in collaboration with Dare, branding and marketing; Buro Happold, engineers; social venture advisor David Barrie, green economy expert John Thackara, and artist Michael Pinsky

Project Duration:

March 2011 - 6 August 2012

Site Area:

Client Team:

0.55 hectares Self-initiated project with Borough of Newham and Development Agency (now London Authority) as advisory

London London Greater board

Funding Sources: Site given for free for 16 months; Large amount of in-kind support; rest self funded by Fluid.

Profitability/Loss:

Estimated at £150,000 in total.

Permissions / Permits Licence for use of site from LB Newham; Full planning permission for ‘Canning Town Giant’ sculpture; Full planning permission for construction works on whole site; Compliance with Building Regulations (certified);Temporary Event Licences (covering sale of goods, food and alcohol and live music) Local Links: Project developed and realised in collaboration with Anchor House (life skills centre for homeless people), Caramel Rock (youth fashion and outreach programme), Peacock Academy (youth enterprise programme), Rosetta Arts (arts and outreach programme), Sustainability Research Institute at University of East London, Markets Manager and other LB Newham officers, Newham Wombles (local waste recycling initiative) Waste materials came from a variety of local sources, as well as other sources within London.

Publicity/advertising

Website, e-shots, word of mouth, local flyering for events and social media

Project Website / Further Info: www.industri-us.org; www.fluidarchitecture.co.uk

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Festival of Upcycling was aimed at engaging the local community and visitors. A broad audience was sought from those with an interest in re-use and design, to those who wished to buy their lunch from the street food market. A number of gig nights were staged which attracted large audiences to the site from the local area and further afield.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Confirmation on the site location was given at quite a late stage in the process and made realising the project a real challenge, particularly fundraising, publicity and on-site delivery. Though the site was loaned free of charge, the 2012 Games placed some significant financial constraints on the project. Licences required that additional security be employed; specifically CCTV and nighttime surveillance, and its location opposite Canning Town Station did not attract the number of visitors that had been promised by the ODA. There were also a number of thefts that took place on site so insurance was an important consideration. The lack of startup funding meant that Fluid had to cover many upfront costs of the project. In addition, working with contractors on an in-kind basis meant that schedules and time-scales were hard to stick to. In the future, Industri[us] would seek to put a Memorandum of Understanding in place so delivery partners are clearer on what they are committed to. Timing was a major challenge, with confirmation on the site given quite late in the day it was felt that this didn’t allow sufficient time for fundraising, publicity and onsite delivery.

What next?

Fluid remain committed and interested in developing the Industri[us] concept further. Industri[us] is a registered company limited by guarantee, is still active and is able to trade and operate should they wish to embark on further projects in the future. The site is being dismantled and materials are being relocated and reused.

The large robot built on site is still looking for a new home.

Complementary Programmes: Street-food market, gig nights, market of up-cycling, ping pong.

January 2013

November 2012

September 2012

July 2012

May 2012

March 2012

January 2012

November 2011

September 2011

July 2011

May 2011

March 2011

January 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PENSIONERS PLAYGROUND - MANCHESTER

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary Playground targeting residents aged 60+

Site Details & Ownership: Situated at Damhead Park, Blackley, North Manchester. Site ownership – Manchester City Council.

Location: Damhead Park, Blackley, North Manchester.

Programme:

Exercise / play equipment, designed around the needs of the elderly.

Each station is supported by signage outlining how the equipment should be used and benefits that performing the exercises should achieve. Many of these benefits are tailored to the target market, for example that use of the bench stepper will reduce the risk of falling.

Initiator: Damhead Residents Association Project Duration: Opened January 2008. Expected lifespan circa 10 – 15 years Lead in Time: 12 month preparation and development phase Site Area: Small area approximately 0.02ha (200m2) Client Team: Manchester City Council Manchester City Council. Groundwork and installation carried out by the City Council Parks team. Equipment was supplied by two suppliers - : Playworld Systems and Wicksteed.

Funding Sources: Northwards Housing Association £15k Funding Type: Internal Budgets Project Costs (Build): Materials: £15k Project Costs (Operation): Maintained as part of MCC play area budget. Circa £2k - £3k per annum.

Profitability/Loss: n/a Permissions / Permits Planning Permission for the facility was not sought as there was no change of use. As landowner, Manchester City Council installed the equipment.

Local Links: Damhead Park also houses a children’s play area, multi-use games area and football goals for casual kick-about.

Publicity/advertising There was significant international, national and local publicity as the first such scheme in the UK. Awareness was therefore high amongst residents. The facility is referenced on the Council website Project Team:

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Due to the characteristics of the park and the catchment area that it serves, the facility is viewed very much as a local resource for residents in the immediate vicinity of the site and not as a facility that was designed to attract visitors from further afield.

The target age group was 65+ and equipment and facility location was designed with this in mind.

The facility has always been free to access and most users of the facility are thought to be in groups of no more than two and to use the facility informally (usage is not formally monitored).

There are no known organised groups that use the facility.

The only real efforts to encourage use of the site have been through word of mouth. These include Northwards Housing Trust highlighting the availability of the facility to tenants, and reference to the facility at Ward Committee Meetings. The City Council suggest that this is perhaps one of the missed opportunities with the facility.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: No specific problems encountered. However, the following points should be noted: • Implications for health and safety. Liability implications of encouraging older residents who are perhaps more vulnerable to injury to use the exercise equipment.

Therefore, relevant signage and disclaimers are particularly important.

• Use of facility by no target groups needs to be considered and the impact on target users.

In addition, while the facility is well used, it is felt that opportunities to maximise the benefits have perhaps been missed. Alongside the new facility at Ladybarn Park, where a walking circuit has been provided. This sets markers around the park every 200m to encourage walking alongside use of the new facility. A park ‘Fit and Fun’ day was held by the Ladybarn Friends Group which as well as being a fun day with stalls and entertainment, introduced people to the new opportunities in the park.

Early indications suggest that this is proving to be very popular and is particularly meeting the needs of the local Asian population.

The City Council indicates that they intend to ensure that any future facilities are provided in partnership with other agencies to enhance the value of the facility. They highlight strong links for example with the PCT, who promote physical activity and suggest that organised activities, perhaps linked with health walks etc.

Timeline:

would maximise usage. Early indications of the Ladybarn Park facility suggest to them that this would be even more successful.

Feedback from users / staff: The Pensioners Playground has now been in-situ for over four years and overall, the City Council consider it to be a success, specifically: • It has proved to be an effective way of targeting and activating people in an age range that is increasing in number, but where there has been limited focus in previous years.

• The facility is believed to be well used (although no monitoring of usage takes place) by the target market. It encourages residents who would not otherwise have done so to participate in light exercise.

• The value of the park to the local community has increased and the site now seems to function as a focal point for all ages and not just young people.

• In comparison to other facilities, and even with the adjacent playground, there has been limited vandalism and there is evidently respect for the facility. This is attributed to the process of developing the facility, which was stimulated from local community demand rather than through Council identification of need. There is thought to be a sense of ownership of the facility by local residents and the site has benefited from this. The creation of this site in conjunction with the local community has also proven a successful way of building capacity within the community • The location of the facility is also thought to have contributed to the success with natural surveillance being particularly important.

• Furthermore, the equipment chosen and the design of the space was with hindsight effective. The Council has identified that equipment that can be used as seating (particularly where there is also shelter) is far more likely to be misused.

What next?

Reflecting the perceived success of the facility, Manchester City Council has recently created a second similar facility, this time in the south of the city in Ladybarn Park, Withington. The Council would recommend installing pensioners playgrounds where “there is clear demand instigated by the local community that suggests that the equipment will be used”. They would seek to improve links to other facilities (for example a circular walking route has been installed in Ladybarn Park adjacent to the new playground) to maximise benefits.

Complementary Programmes: There has not been any further activity to raise awareness of the facility or to link it with other activities or available facilities.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/ NB. Project Costs - Equipment thought to have been provided at a discounted price from supplier as this was the first of the kind in the country. Council also received a discount due to purchasing play equipment at the same time. Groundwork and installation was carried out by Manchester City Council Parks Team and is not included in this budget.

November 2008

September 2008

July 2008

May 2008

March 2008

January 2008

November 2007

September 2007

July 2007

May 2007

March 2007

January 2007

November 2006

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PENSIONERS PLAYGROUND - HYDE PARK

Key Facts: Project summary Playground targeting residents aged 60+ Location: Hyde Park, London.

Programme: The playground has been specifically designed for older people to enjoy. The facility contains six pieces of equipment to help users improve core strength, flexibility and balance. Equipment has been selected to ensure a high level of accessibility, ease of use and enjoyment.

Soon after the installation of the equipment, park sports development workers provided induction sessions for users.

Although not well attended, they were useful and were attended by those that are now using the facilities frequently.

Initiator:

Knightsbridge Residents Association

Project Duration:

Opened May 2012.

Expected lifespan circa 10 – 15 years

Lead in Time: 18 month preparation and development phase including a feasibility study Site Area: Small area approximately 0.0125ha (125m2) within bowling and tennis enclosure Client Team:

Royal Parks - developed and designed in conjunction with the Knightsbridge Residents Association. Equipment provided from Komplan.

Funding Sources: Funding Type:

£50k (excluding landscaping) Internal Budgets

Project Costs (Build): Materials: £50k Project Costs (Operation): Included within Royal Parks maintenance budget. Maintained as play area with daily, weekly and annual inspections. Revenue spend is between £32 – 65 per week (£1600 - £3300 per annum).

Profitability/Loss:

n/a

Permissions / Permits Planning permission was applied for to Westminster City Council.

Particular challenges around providing this type of facility within a historic landscape.

Local Links: The facility is adjacent to a park café and toilets and is visible from the Tennis and Bowls Centres. There are also park rangers working within the park.

Publicity/advertising There was significant international, national and local publicity like in Manchester several years previous. Since this, there has been relatively limited work undertaken on building awareness and increasing use although it is anticipated that this will be considered next year. The facility is referenced on the website.

Following early feedback, improved signage was also installed into the park and it is anticipated that this will be followed through further in 2013.

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: Situated within Hyde Park, London –located within the Bowls and Tennis Centre enclosure. Ownership – Royal Parks.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The target age group was 65+ and equipment and facility location was designed with this in mind. The aim of the facility was to cater for existing users of the Bowls and Tennis Centre and also attract new users – to encourage exercise and activity for older residents as well as providing a social experience.

While the facility was viewed as a local facility for local residents (and was provided in an attempt to encourage these groups back to the park) it was also hoped that the facility would also be used by visitors to the park.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that during summer peak period (following the official launch) between 12 -18 visitors were making use of the facility each day. Between 5-10 regular visitors are making use of the facility during winter.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: No specific problems encountered. However, the following points should be noted: There have been some issues with the need to replace parts – this has predominantly occurred due to overuse.

Signage is essential for several purposes - raising awareness of the facility, promoting correct use of equipment (and providing a disclaimer over use) – health and safety.

Also in terms of controlling the use of the facility and managing the expectations of users. Issues were experienced with use of the facility by younger children. Putting signage up outlining the target age ranges has meant that park wardens are able to control usage by referring users to the signage Key success factors highlighted include: The location of the facility is particularly important. The chosen site has been successful as it is: – • Close to the access point, (Pavilion) and its associated facilities – this has increased footfall • Close to the road and London transport networks including

Timeline:

• • • •

Knightsbridge Tube Station Close to the existing children’s play area Visible from the road and therefore natural surveillance (this also encourages new users) Natural shade provided from the trees to the south; The facility blends in well with the landscaping.

Community engagement is essential to help determine the facilities required. It is important that full interpretation of demand is carried out to make sure the facility will be used and the equipment provided suits the potential users – there are now a lot of different types of facilities with different benefits available.

The feasibility stage helped to eliminate many potential issues including the location and also provided evidence to support the planning application that the facility was likely to work. Extensive consultation was carried out The Knightsbridge Association; Representatives from the Westminster Ward; Voluntary Action Westminster; Church St Neighbourhood Management; The Management Team at The Royal Parks; Age Concern London, Age Concern Westminster; Steve Riley, Will to Win Feedback from users / staff: Feedback from the Royal Parks, managers of Hyde Park, relating to the impact of the facility is positive. It was suggested that: “It has been successful. If the facility is carefully thought out and opportunities are fully explored, it will offer residents an opportunity to get fit and to be outdoors and will be of benefit to the community”.

What next?

N/A – fixed facility Complementary Programmes: The facility’s proximity to the bowling and tennis centres seeks to provide opportunities to participate in more than one activity and some discounts have been run at the bowling centre.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.royalparks.org.uk/

September 2012

July 2012

May 2012

March 2012

January 2012

November 2011

September 2011

July 2011

May 2011

March 2011

January 2011

November 2010

September 2010

Lead In Construction Open Removal

172

1 5

9

17

29

13

38

1 15

37 38

15

21

9 13

100

1

1

70

82 82a 84

9 10

78 80

100

70 70

68

48

66

10

7

9 10

11

11

5

99

3

66 10

62 64

54

50

6

93 83

93

1

83 85

55 53 57

83

27 25

58 60

38

10

10

3

29

81

77 81

23

56

32

7

83

1

58

84

78 76

83

51 77

85 9

1 12

67

48

35

47

15

17

38

38

49

43 55 51

15

91

71

69 77

a

45

77

47

43

63

61

b

41

a

31

29

43

26

LONDON ROAD

23

37

10

39

sts

25

37

Po

39 37 41

BM 18.12m MANCHESTE

27

19

to

4

46

38

a

21

D 48

25

95

87

99

11

68

31

97

91

1

5

14

35 99

97

15

5

95

13

19

47

65

56

5 10

10

35

29

53

10

91

37 33

45

a

.90m

L VIL AN GR

16

OA ER

22

21

11

118

82

3

39

56

35 37

12

a

195

7

77

102 to 106

42

13

77

199

1

1

11 3

19

15

25

5

13

160 to 170

36

47 48

1

3

2

23

176

1 16

79 81

201

AD

18.3m

52

28

RO

49

68

62

41

.2m 19T

ILLE

BM 18.85m

65

203

1

18

59

15

82

57

64

20

43

43

.94m

67

207

13

30

73

1

1

15

46

47

17

9

17

48

35

50 52 32 46 48 30

302 a 63

42a 44a 68 to 74 44 76

306

45

58

.71m

45

72

E RE ST

NV GRA

100

43

98

63

Works

49

19

102

51

4

63

70

308

1

24

326 9

34

54 to 64

336

11

1

27

36

28

2 31

3

33

38

42 66

80 78 88 86

16

5 11 92

90

18.9m

112

19.2m

1

20.4m

116

114

53

Peters Buildings

ROAD

R TE

m BM 20.74

53

PE

ET

63

8

8

RE ST

65

AD RO

10

6

LONDON

12

11

PH

ER ROAD MANCHEST

69

0

40

38

71

ol

13

ho

8b

79

Sc

0

RY TO

70 70

79

ay

11

VIC

12

19.2m

8

BM

R TE

20.4m

nd

4

2

Works

PE

81

8

Su

8

14

88

64

BM 21.49m

95

El Sub Sta

81

orks W

10

53

40

LB

Shelter

Vicarage

14

.89m

8

40

38

1 to 65

NOR

2

ROAD

STREET CAUNCE

18.6m

8

4

' as om Th rch St Chu

2 19

56

74

17

20.1m

6

se

10 98 0 10

ou eh War

96

BM

6

ET RE ST

94

22 a

14

DEVONSHIRE

ks Wor

2 16 16 4 16

15

2

66 BM

M 74 a

69

56

se

88

CE UN CA

STREET HEALEY

49

ou areh W

86

a

4

8

82

55

a

76

72

0 12

13

80

20.7m 92

90

.97m

42

b St Su

4

to

10

96

20.7m

12

78

6a

6

206

202

200

BM 19.18m TCB

El

12 11

11

90 86 88 84 86a 82 84a a 82

17

Works

Works

LB

610 10

80

18

AD RO

74

98

U BO

56

48

18.3m

NE

AD RO

72

96

12

7

33

BM

24

N TO

UR BO

0

60

94

76

MIL

ET RE STE RN

N CRE ADDISO

Works

Sawmills Industrial Estate

Works

Works

72

58

Garage

17

Works

72

60

55

22

L SE

N FE

11

58

92

82

T

CR

Works

20

30

54

EE

24

T 18.6m E RE

Depot

Works

19.2m

to

A

R ST

D

ST

Works

Depot Works

68

CH

ES RL

39

se

E

Devonshire County Junior and Infants School

29

42 2

2

21.6m

a

27 29 23 25 37 31 33 35

AD RO

36

D OA 88

66

80

Eliz

AD

ou eh ar W

GE

1 to

RT

RID

OU

22

AD

YR 10

RO

25

19.2m

2

Warehouse

92 90

Walter Robinson Court

Garage

17.7m Club

Depot

Garage

Club

G

LAYCOCK GATE

LE CO

EC

RO

R TO

0

GE OR GE

ET RE ST

LIN

12

ON NT FE

28

VIC 84

60

.8m

82

T EE TR

70

IR

Warehouse

RG

2

16

78

S ON RT GO

88 86

82 80

19

15 17

11

5

ST

1 to 132

GEO

14

68

98

Club

17.1m

LB

4m BM 18.2

Works

ST

12

56

to

ROA CHESTER

12 14

T

44

28

11

0 19

92

st Bdy

3

Wks

Works

G OR GE

12

10

Ashw

House Devonshire

d Bdy

129 133 131

ROAD HLEY BOOT

& War

TCB Bdy Boro Const Und orth Court

Ashworth Court

19.8m

53 54

AD

32 36

Const

1 to 65

Charles Court

6

1

12

10

REE ST

2 16

Boro Con

17.7m

CR

Boro

Depot

57

20

5

T

E AC L PL

AN DM

2

HAR

1 to 7

4

REE

107

CR

101 85

53 51 a 49 51a

RO HLEY BOOT

STREET

ST NE

HIL EN GRE

Works Warehouse

WB 69

9

143 147 145 141

2

318

Tank

Depot

39

10

m

149

ET

Tank

29

to

CR

Depot

OR TH HEN

RE

WB

19 6

T EE

BM Ward Bdy

ST CIL

Road

e nshir Devo

LB 20.4m

18.27

HEALD

CE

99

ital Hosp

2 4

Depot

1 to 7 Stirling Court

17.4m

AD K RO WIC WAR

12 2

46 58

8

19.8m

18.0m

Devonshire Road Hospital

105

TCB

CASS ASSOCIATES

20.7m

OAD TR LBO TA

D R ROA CHESTE

3

153 to 155

10

SPORTS BARN - BLACKPOOL

to 12

117

Factory

20

12

Depot

30

Works

115

113

14

28

12 2

26

36 26

2a

16

2

14

12

26

R

3

14

1 10

22

14

95

37

35

5 9 10 3 10 11

1

2

93

41

27

27

25

a

24

20.1m

13

E ROAD

28

26

15

25

18

13

27

CAMBRIDGE

13

e

1

DURHAM ROA

CE PLA

ous Wareh and Offices

13

114

ET

25

RE ST

Y UR SB NE

y

5m

25

H ET

23

d Bd ar W

17.8

1

36

13

2a

AB

DA

T

BM

E

OXFORD ROAD

211

IZ

2

VILL AN AD GRRO

DEVONSHIR

11

EL

21

E RE ST 23

21

Sports Barn – constructed to include Multi-Use Games Area with rubber crumb surface, wire mesh with roof.

.9m

R

25

C N NA

R TE PE

22

14

4

18

A CH BU

19.5m

1

Project summary:

Site Details & Ownership: The Sports Barn is located within an area of high deprivation in Title: Health Village & Devonshire Rd School Blackpool. Located on Gorton Street - an urban area close to the Scale: 1:2000 Date: 15 May 2006 Printed by: North Shore, Blackpool, Lancashire. Ownership – Blackpool Council.

24

ET RE ST

R ROAD

Project Evaluation: 6

Key Facts:

24

26a

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Blackpool Borough Council 100019187, 2006.

IVE N DR

Planning & Transportation Division Tourism & Regeneration Department PO Box 17, Corporation Street, Blackpool, FY1 1LZ

planning.transportation@blackpool.gov.uk

Location: Blackpool, UK Programme:

Initiator:

Casual community sports use, for multi-sport, football, basketball, dodgeball and running. Plus some programmed community football outreach sessions for young people.

Blackpool Council

Project Duration: Opened in 2007 (expected lifespan circa 20 years)

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Sports Barn is predominantly used for informal activities/ sports and is available to use on an open access basis. Main usage is for multi-sports, football, basketball, dodgeball and running.

The facility is also used for community football outreach sessions.

The facility attracts circa 10,000 attendances per annum. The main use is by children/young people; with casual use largely by 14-16 year olds and programmed outreach sessions accessed by 8-13 year olds. The facility is mainly used by males.

Lead in Time: 18 months from funding approval

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Issues to consider/overcome include: • The need to consider the long-term financial sustainability

Site Area: Sports Barn (37m x18.5m).

•

Client Team: Blackpool Council Project Team:

Led by staff from Blackpool Council.

Bespoke design by Cass Associates

Funding Sources: Sport England – Active England £500k Funding Type: Grant Project Costs (Build):

Construction Materials:

Project Costs (Operation): Maintenance Outreach Profitability/Loss:

Permissions / Permits

£500,000

£10,000 per annum £10,000 per annum

The facility is free to use and therefore does not generate income. The costs of operating the facility are met by Blackpool Council.

Planning restrictions re use of floodlighting – use allowed until 9.30pm

Local Links: The Sports Barn is located within an area of high deprivation in Blackpool The Sports Barn was built on a CPO site together with a Children’s Centre and GP Surgery Publicity/advertising

Website, local advertising

Community ownership – the local authority was keen for the community to take ownership of the facility but this has not happened in practice yet – it is still reliant on input from the local authority. Needs more input – in terms of developing local volunteers, local capacity and involvement from other partner organisations in the sports sector.

Key success factors highlighted include: •

Location – in close proximity to housing

•

Co-location of the Children’s Centre and GP Surgery

Feedback from users / staff: The Barn has made a positive impact in terms of social inclusion/ engagement of young people within an area of very high levels of deprivation. The Sports Barn provides an important space for young people to play.

What next?

Fixed facility – lifespan of circa 20 years The Local Authority is keen for the community to take ownership of the facility. This has not happened yet and will require more input in terms of developing local volunteers, local capacity and involvement from other partner organisations in the sports sector.

Complementary Programmes: Links to other Sports facilities/programmes, clubs provided within the Blackpool via outreach work.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.sportblackpool.co.uk

May 2007

March2007

January 2007

November 2006

September 2006

July 2006

May 2006

March 2006

January 2006

November 2005

September 2005

July 2005

May 2005

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

SPORTS BARN - TRAFFORD

Key Facts: Project summary Single court sports hall with a small reception and storage area.

Profitability/Loss: The facility operates on a break-even/small deficit basis. In

Location: Trafford, Manchester, UK

2011/12 the Centre generated approximately £75,000 income resulting in a small loss of just under £5,000. Trafford Community Leisure Trust funds this from activities and initiatives in other parts of the organisation.

Programme: Casual and programmed community sports activities including aerobics, yoga, keep-fit, dance, badminton, netball, 5-aside football/futsal, basketball, indoor cricket, volleyball.

Initiator:

Trafford MBC/ Trafford Community Leisure Trust/Manchester United & Barclays Spaces for Sport

Project Duration: Opened in 2005 (expected lifespan circa 20 years) Lead in Time: 6 months from funding approval Site Area: Single court sports hall (4 badminton courts – circa 34.5 x 20.0 x 7.5 m) Client Team:

Old Trafford SRB Team, Trafford Community Leisure Trust, Manchester United facilities team, Trafford Council Asset Management Team.

Project Team:

Led by Chief Executive from Trafford Community Leisure Trust.

Designs prepared by Fairhurst Design Group.

Funding Sources: Barclays Spaces for Sport £600k Funding Type: Grant Project Costs (Build): Construction Materials: £600k N.B. It is possible to build a Sports Barn for lower cost. The costs are closely linked to finishes and location.

Project Costs (Operation): Staffing:

£55,000 per annum

(The facility is run on a day-to-day basis by 1 member of staff during the day till 4pm and then by 2 members of staff from 4pm10pm and at weekends).

Utilities £9,000

Premises £10,000 (Inc. Maintenance)

Overheads £8,000

Total £82,000

Permissions / Permits The project had to overcome planning objections, as it was built on open space, alongside a Youth Centre. The floodlights on the adjacent all weather pitch (which were secured and developed at the same time as part of further funding) have restrictions of use until 10pm.

Local Links: The Sports Barn is adjoined to a Youth Centre so that toilets and changing rooms can be shared (although few users make use of the changing facilities) and located near to a housing estate.

In addition to the Barn the site also includes a small floodlit 3G allweather pitch (2 x 7a-side football pitches) and 2 floodlit multiuse games areas (MUGAs).

Publicity/advertising

Website, local advertising

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: The Sports Barn is located within an area of high deprivation in Trafford Borough. Located off Seymour park in Old Trafford.

Ownership – Trafford MBC. Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Sports Barn has broad-spread appeal across the local community – attracting circa 40,000 attendances per annum.

In particular, the facility has been successful in attracting females.

The females use the Barn for a variety of activities including aerobics, fitness/keep-fit and dance on a casual basis. The programme at the Barn also includes a ladies only session where participants take part in a range of activities such as badminton, netball, keep fit and team games. The facility is also used by girls playing football and cricket and a variety of activities at the Friday Night ‘Urban Leisure’ sessions which are for young people.

The Barn is also being used for ‘Back to…’ and ‘Get into…’ sports sessions – such as netball.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: No specific problems encountered. However, the financial sustainability/model needs to be carefully considered so that the facility is affordable but does not generate a large deficit.

Timeline:

Key success factors highlighted include: • The recruitment of local people to staff the facility.

• Setting activity charges at a low level to enable access by local residents - as the facility is situated within an area of high deprivation.

• The provision of the 3G Pitch and MUGAs next to the sports barn have been useful for extending the range of activities.

For example Street Cricket has become really popular in the area and the MUGAs as well as the indoor facility are being used by the locals for cricket.

• The location of the sports barn in close proximity to housing.

The key success in terms of community engagement has been by delivering on promises and always listening to what the community want rather than giving them what management team think they want. As a result, the local community see the Sports Barn as their facility.

Feedback from users / staff: The Barn has played a significant part in helping reducing crime and anti-social behaviour in the area. Young people have somewhere to go and the Centre welcomes them – even giving them facilities free of charge if they are not being used – to ensure they see the Barn as theirs.

The Barn has been identified as a good practice example by the Football Foundation. A Female Participation project in the area was also seen as a model of best practice and was highlighted by the Local Government Association. The Barn was also highlighted at the recent National Culture Forum.

What next? n/a – fixed facility Complementary Programmes: Links to other Sports facilities/programmes, clubs provided within the Trafford.

Project Website / Further Info: http://www.traffordleisure.co.uk/centres/old-trafford-sports-barn/

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July2005

June 2005

May 2005

April 2005

March 2005

February 2005

January 2005

December 2004

November 2004

Lead In Construction Open Removal

TABLE TENNIS ECOSYSTEM

ETTA (ENGLISH TABLE TENNIS ASSOCIATION)

Key Facts:

.

Project summary Outdoor concrete table tennis tables which can be located singly or in a group of several tables if there is sufficient space. Some tables have small boxes underneath with cheap bats and balls or they are sold by local shops and cafés nearby.

N.B. This case study is one of the elements for the ecosystem case study.

Lead in Time:

Location:

Site Area: 8 x 8 metres with a height of at least 3 metres per table

Outdoor table tennis tables through PING! Located in various cities throughout England

Minimal lead-in time for table tennis tables. Possible need for a tarmac surface to be laid in advance otherwise installation over 2-3 days.. If artificial surface is installed this work is carried out at the same time as the installation of the tables.

Client Team: ETTA in partnership with LA Programme:

Informal use, people use the facilities

by themselves free of charge

whenever there is space.

People often organise their own

informal competitions. It can be used

for regular or one-off skills/ coaching sessions

Initiator: English Table Tennis Association (ETTA) Local authorities – typically parks sections Project Duration: Maximum of four weeks from ordering to installation.

Life expectancy of at least ten years for each element

Project Team: ETTA and representatives of the local authority, often parks or sports development team Funding Sources: Grants such as Sport England small awards grants. ETTA is willing to support grant applications Project Costs (Build): Labour

Construction Materials:

included in the installation of tables £2,345 plus VAT per table

Possible additional cost of tarmac surface or artificial matting costing £150

Project Costs (Operation): Staffing: £12 per hour for one qualified coach but optional, as minimal staffing or as much as wanted

Profitability/Loss: None as no revenue programme operating. Could involve cost of coaches if wanted Permissions / Permits None Local Links:

Link to local shop or café to buy bats and balls. Can link to local table tennis club or to local leisure centres for further playing opportunities.

Publicity/advertising

Websites, local advertising, use of media

Timeline: Lead In Construction Open Removal

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: No ownership issues as usually on park sites or open spaces owned by local authorities Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: All ages, men and women and all levels of playing ability. Seen as an accessible opportunity so attracts sporty and non-sporty people. Research has shown that it attracts one-off users but also establishes informal regular use, both individuals and informal groups of friends/ work colleagues. Easy to play table tennis, don’t need to know the rules and only need two people to play. Research shows that it removes many of the barriers to participation Problems Encountered / Overcome: Need to ensure that the location feels safe to everyone, so not in isolated locations. If in a visible location, this will make it more likely that the table will be well-used.

Location needs to be sheltered and out of the wind (so that it doesn’t affect the ball in play!) and not near trees (leaves falling on the table and on the ground) Possible removal of chewing gum and graffiti in a few locations (very little evidence of vandalism) Potential for adding a canopy or floodlighting to extend playing time during the winter evenings Feedback from users / staff: They all love it. “It’s brilliant, as soon as we saw the tables, we went off to buy some cheap bats. We’re regular players now” ‘We’ve been down every night since they were installed and sometimes you have to queue to get on. One night it was so busy we didn’t even get to play.” They love the informality of it and the fact that they don’t have to plan – no booking structure, no reception to ring.

What next?

Some Ping Pong tables were located initially in temporary locations within the major cities and have now been moved to permanent locations in parks, leisure centres and shopping centres. Some Ping tables have remained in their initial location and are well-used. Long life span with low maintenance costs.

Complementary Programmes: Some one-off drop-in coaching clinics run by clubs Project Website / Further Info: www.etta.co.uk

TRIATHLON LIVE

BRITISH TRIATHLON FEDERATION

Key Facts: Project summary The project provided opportunities for members of the public to ‘try’ the sport of triathlon (i.e. swim, cycle, run) free of charge during the London 2012 Olympic Games period.

Lead in Time:

Location:

Client Team: LOCOG / relevant Local Authorities / Wattbike / Endless pool

The 2012 Triathlon Live sites were situated within 8 cities – Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Edinburgh, Leeds, Leicester, London and Manchester.

Programme: The facilities included an Endless Pool - to swim against a current, fixed bikes for cycling and treadmills for running. The Live sites were used to promote the sport of Triathlon and promote interest in the Triathlon events at the 2012 Olympics. Usage was predominantly on a casual ‘come and try’ basis by members of the public but some slots were booked by Triathlon clubs for training purposes.

Initiator: International Triathlon Union and the British Triathlon Federation working in conjunction with LOCOG, the BBC and local authorities.

(Plus Endless Pools provided the state-of-the-art pools for the project) Project Duration: Sites were provided for 4 day periods (4-7 August 2012) with the exception of the site in Hyde Park which was in place for 3 weeks (28 July – 12 Aug). The Triathlon Live sites had previously been trialled by England Triathlon across 4 sites in 2011.

1 day set up/1 day take down

Site Area: The facilities were provided within a compact area – no bigger than half a tennis court (circa 12m x5m).

Project Team: Lead by England Triathlon.

Sites were run by one member of staff from England Triathlon and circa five volunteers per site.

Funding Sources: England Triathlon

£13k

Funding Type: internal budgets Project Costs (Build): Labour (volunteers) Equipment n/a

£ N/A

The equipment was provided free of charge during the Olympics period by England Triathlon and Endless Pools. Purchase price per unit comprise circa: £22k for Endless Pool, £1-4k for treadmills and £1-2.5k for bikes.

Project Costs (Operation): Water/Power: £13k Staffing: 1 paid Volunteers Profitability/Loss: N/A - The sites were used for marketing/ promotion purposes, to promote the sport of Triathlon and Endless Pools.

Permissions / Permits

Dependent on location/local authority – there were planning related conditions at some sites relating to noise/lighting etc..

Local Links: Links to London 2012 Olympics and related events.

Also promotion of opportunities to take part in triathlon events/clubs within the relevant local areas.

Publicity/advertising

Website, local advertising.

Timeline:

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: The Triathlon Live sites were situated within 8 cities – Bristol (Millennium Square), Cardiff (the Hayes), Coventry (Millennium Place), Edinburgh (Festival Square), Leeds (Millennium Square), Leicester (Humberstone Gate), London (Hyde Park) and Manchester (Exchange Square). Owned by the relevant local authorities.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The sites were aimed at attracting adults 16+ years. Users included both males/females and a cross section of ages from beginners to triathlon club members. In total circa 8,000 visitors used the Triathlon Live sites during the London 2012 Games.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: No specific problems encountered. However, factors to consider include: • The need for security for the facilities • Relatively high associated costs for a temporary facility Key success factors highlighted include.

• Location of the facilities on high profile sites with good footfall • The Endless Pool is a major draw (some of the Live sites used in the 2011 programme did not include pools and were found to be far less popular).

• The provision of enthusiastic staff and volunteers on site to provide general information, coaching and learning about the sport • The provision of all necessary equipment to enable members of the public to take part (e.g. swim suits/wet suits/towels.

• The need for high quality and robust equipment as it will get very heavy usage.

• A supportive local authority.

What next?

Usage was limited to over 16s to avoid the facilities being used as a ‘crèche’ and to help stimulate genuine interest in the sport and an ability to provide follow-on into local Triathlon clubs or events etc..

Complementary Programmes: n/a Project Website / Further Info: http://www.triathlon.org/olympics/ live_sites/

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

Lead In Construction Open Removal

BEACH COURT, WESTMINSTER

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

Key Facts: Project summary: Beach Court facility in Central London, built based on partnership between City of Westminster and England Volleyball, with support from LOCOG – providing a real legacy from the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Location:

Academy Sport, Westminster

Programme: The sports facilities at Academy Sport are used by Westminster Academy; the neighbouring secondary school during the day for curricular activities. In the evenings, weekends and during school holidays the facilities including the beach court are open for public and club use.

Initiator:

City of Westminster Sports Development Team in partnership with England Volleyball.

Project Duration: Beach court opened in May 2012.

Lead in Time:

4-5 months from planning to completion

Site Area: Approximately 24m x 11m (Roughly the size of a tennis court).

Client Team: City of Westminster Council Project Team:

City of Westminster Council, England Volleyball, Academy Sport, Westminster Academy.

Funding Sources: England Volleyball Sand donated by LOCOG Funding Type: England Volleyball – through Go Spike grant - £18,000 Donation - LOCOG

Project Costs (Build): £18,000 covered the development of an old tennis court into the beach court and included decking, volleyball posts, nets, transportation of the sand to the new facility and a protective cover for the sand.

Project Costs (Operation): All revenue costs are tied into the Sports Centre facility costs so the facility staff are responsible for supervising playing areas. The centre pays for local coaches to deliver a coached programme of activity. Participants pay to attend the sessions so the coaching cost is partly covered by this. Hiring out the court to clubs and for private hire generates income against the facility which in turn can be reinvested into the coached programmes.

Profitability/Loss: Usage of the beach court by clubs and programmed activities covers the cost of coaches and Academy Sport staff to check the playing area on a regular basis. The facility is designed to break even. There is an agreement between Academy Sport and City of Westminster that any loss is covered by the Local Authority.

Permissions / Permits: Planning permission wasn’t need because the area was already being used for physical activity.

Local Links: The beach facility is on a site with a number of other facilities including a purpose built parkour facility.

There are local links to clubs and organisations that use the facilities on a regular basis. The Local Authority are a partner of this facility meaning natural links are made within the local area.

Publicity/advertising: The facility has a website which is used to promote the facilities at the centre and promote the activities that take place on a regular basis.

Flyers and posters were produced to promote the new Beach Sport programme which is delivering coached and led session to the community.

The opening of the beach court received both online and print publicity.

Timeline:

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: The facility is based on the site of Westminster Academy; a secondary and sixth form school. Outside of school hours the facility is managed by Academy Sport in partnership with the Local Authority.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The court hosts a number a sports activities targeted at a range of age groups in the local community. Planned activities at the facility target two main age groups; 8-15 years and 16+ years. The Club activities bring a much wider age group of participants to the centre.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: • The facility needs to be checked on a regular basis to ensure it is safe, checking for class, needles, rubbish and animal droppings! This is managed by the staff at Academy Sport.

Covers can be purchased for this type of facility to avoid many of these issues.

• The Westminster court does not have floodlights so in the winter months activity time is shortened as the nights get darker earlier. This is something they would recommend considering with the development of a similar facility.

Feedback from users / staff: • The beach court area does not have floodlights meaning the facility cannot be used once it gets dark. The recommendation would be for future similar facilities to consider floodlights to enable usage in the evenings.

• The facility is so flexible it can be used for a large number of activities.

• There is high demand for these facilities from local people as well as National Governing Body clubs.

• Integration into a supervised site such as a school/ sports centre has been great partnership in order to get maximum usage of the facility.

• It is important to have staff available to activate activity in the early stages so uses can get the best use from the facility.

What next?

This facility will continue to be used by clubs and the community.

Complementary Programmes: Project Website / Further Info: http://westminsteracademy.net/Academy-Sport.php

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

Lead In Construction Open Removal

FRONTSIDE GARDENS

FRONTSIDE LTD

Key Facts: Project summary: Frontside Gardens chosen by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and Tower Hamlets Borough Council as the winners of a competition to make use of a temporary site in Hackney Wick. By reactivating an unused space, using reclaimed and waste materials, Frontside Gardens will become a flexible event space for family use. It will start with a skate park but the plan is to incorporate facilities for small music and film events.

Location: Hackney Wick, London Programme: The skate park facility can be used by BMX riders, scooter riders and skate boarders. The programme includes specific session times for each of the user groups as well as open sessions for all users to participate together.

Initiator: LLDC call for proposals.

Project Duration: 15th September 2012 onwards.

Lead in Time: 2 months Site Area: 1000m2 Client Team: Frontside Ltd, LLDC, LB Tower Hamlets Project Team: Frontside Ltd, their network of friends and supporting organisations.

Funding Sources: Currently no funding for the project. Hackney Wick festival provided ÂŁ950 funding for the 2 day launch event in September 2012. The launch therefore offered free coaching sessions and skate workshops.

Funding Type: Time creating and managing the park is given purely by volunteers who are offering their time in kind. Some private funding was invested by Andrew Willis through Frontside Ltd. Project Costs (Build): The materials to build the skate park were free of charge through donations and using reclaimed and recycled materials. The project used material from LOCOG which was previously used on Horse Guards Parade for the beach volleyball court facility for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Project Costs (Operation): At present the park is staffed by volunteers therefore reducing operating costs to zero. There are no costs to use the park.

Profitability/Loss:

N/A

Permissions / Permits Frontside Ltd have a temporary lease and contract for the site. It was required to apply for planning permission in order to develop the site further. It also holds a premise licence which covers it for holding events and playing music.

Local Links: Tower Hamlets BMX club who supported the launch event and Victoria Park skate park user group who set up a positive graffiti project in the facility.

Publicity/advertising

Flyers, Word of Mouth,

Project Evaluation: Site Details & Ownership: Site owned by LLDC & leased by Frontside Ltd who manages the facility.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The open day event engaged lots of people from the local community as families, groups of friends as well as individuals. The park was designed and marketed in such a way that it would attract young people from the local communities. The majority of users are aged between 15-26 years. The younger age group tend to be skateboarders while BMX activities are bringing in the older young people aged 20+ years.

Even though these activities are more attractive for males than females; a number of young women and girls attended the launch event and have since returned. A targeted women and girls programme is being considered as a way of engaging more female participants.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to there being no funding for the project it is delivered entirely by volunteers meaning the park is only open when volunteers are available to manage it. An outdoor facility will always provide challenges with the changing weather. The facility cannot be used in wet weather; skate boarders need the surfaces to be completely dry before they can take part.

Feedback from users / staff: Local people have expressed a demand for more local facilities such as this. The project has been a huge hit with young people in the area providing them with positive activities on a regular basis.

What next?

In other areas skate schools / coached sessions have been very popular and can be a good income generation method to support the facility.

Complementary Programmes: Project Website / Further Info: www.frontside.org.uk/frontside-gardens.html

April 2013

March 2013

February 2013

January 2013

Dcember 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

BOULDERING ECOSYSTEM

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary A set of nine rock boulders in a country park for use by country park users of all ages as well novice and experienced climbers.

The boulders are different shapes and sizes, some specifically for novices and some with thread belays for climbers who want to use top ropes. Route map for bouldering on the website showing different routes, the grading of routes and giving handy tips on how to get the best out of the bouldering experience.

Site Details & Ownership: Country Park owned by London Borough of Redbridge and managed by Vision, Redbridge Culture and Leisure.

Location: Fairlop Waters Country Park in the London Borough of Redbridge Informal use, intended for solo climbing.

Potential for bouldering courses to be run on the site

Initiator: London Borough of Redbridge Project Duration: Started the project in 2009 and opened in June 2010 Lead in Time: About 4-5 months to develop the project and put it out to tender, about 4-5 months to construct but includes weather delays Site Area: Various sizes on the site Client Team: London Borough of Redbridge Project Team: Development team members plus a surveyor Funding Sources: London Mayor’s Priority Parks Programme Funding Type: Grant Project Costs (Build): Construction cost of £243k incl. considerable hard landscaping beforehand, design, materials, labour and bouldering guide Project Costs (Operation): Repairs – minimal

Maintenance included in the regular park maintenance routine, daily visual inspections etc..

No dedicated staffing costs Profitability/Loss: N/A Integrated into park running costs Permissions / Permits None needed Local Links: Local outdoor activity centre 100 yards from the site, potential for instructors to support groups/ schools but little demand as they do bouldering by themselves Programme:

Publicity/advertising

Website, leaflets at climbing shops/ walls/ blogs

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Aimed at engaging visitors to the park and others interested in climbing. Attracts all kinds of people – children and young people, parents, families, walkers, scout/ guide groups, schools as well as climbers from all over London – ‘you can see them getting off the tube with their climbing mat on their back coming to the park’. Very busy in the summer, especially at weekends and in the evenings, still used during the winter. Spontaneous and organised use.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Construction delays over the winter ‘but it was better to do it during the winter as there were fewer people to climb over the boulders as they were being constructed – would have been difficult to manage during the summer’.

No safety issues.

Feedback from users / staff: Very popular, they like it, it’s on their route as they go through the park. A good outdoor bouldering experience.

What next?

The boulders have been very successful, no plans to change it.

Complementary Programmes: None needed Project Website / Further Info: 1.

2.

3.

Fairlop Waters boulder park: www.vision-rcl.org.uk/fairlop_home.html Rockworks, the company that designed and built it: www.rockworks.co.uk The concept of the bouldering park is based on bouldering at Fontainebleau: www.climb-europe.com/RockClimbingFrance/Fontainebleau. htm

May 2011

March 2011

January 2011

November 2010

September 2010

July 2010

May 2010

March 2010

January 2010

November 2009

September 2009

July 2009

May 2009

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

PARC DE LA VILLETTE

BERNARD TSCHUMI

10x10m

Key Facts: Project summary

Location:

Project Evaluation: An international competition won

by Bernard Tschumi to revitalise the abandoned and undeveloped land previously occupied by a meat market and slaughterhouses in a working class district of Paris.

19th Arrondissement, Paris, France

Programme: Restaurants Art Workshops Music Pavilions Recreation Facilities Gardens Landscape Initiator: François Barré Project Duration:

Ongoing (Opened in 1987)

Lead in Time: 5 years (3 years on site construction prior to opening) Site Area:

55 hectares

Client Team:

The French National Government

Project Team: The lead designer was Bernard Tschumi with a team of 17 people.

Funding Sources:

Funding Type:

French National Government (an initial £300m budget that later had to raise funds to cover the full cost of £900m) Public Sector

Project Costs (Build): Unknown Project Costs (Operation): Unknown Profitability/Loss:

Building Cost £575m

Permissions / Permits

Large public projects in France tend to have centralised decision making; consequently, a politician with real power does not have to get approval from a committee or governing body.

Local Links: Unclear Publicity/advertising

An international competition that garnered attention from the media

Site Details & Ownership: Located in the north-eastern part of Paris bordered by the Boulevard Peripherique, in the heart of a working class district; the 55 hectare plot of land was state owned.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: It was intended to become the new hub of activity for the Parisian north-east. It was trying to engage with the locals and with the artistic community. It has an estimated 8 million visitors yearly.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to its radical nature the public in general had a divided opinion on the proposal. A change in political parties during its construction meant that the project was stalled and almost cancelled at one point.

This political volatility would last through most of the construction.

At times the project would stop for six months before more funding could be found.

Most visitors spend less than an hour inside the park, and a a study carried out 5 years after its completion stated that 80% of visitors spend less than two hours in the park.

Feedback from users / staff: The public in general complain about the lack of greenery, the presence of dogs, the lack of signage (27% visitors complain), still a construction site, and the lack of comfort. There is also a big distinction between the park user and the visitor to the institutions on site; which rarely mix.

A survey titled : “Le Public des Espaces de Plein Air” conducted by the park in ‘93

What next?

A large number of the functionless red follies designed by Tschumi have recently been adapted to accommodate new programmes such as cafés, workshops and child care.

Complementary Programmes: Open-air Cinema Art Institutions Project Website / Further Info: http://www.villette.com/fr/

November 2012

January 2000

December 1990

January 1988

October 1987

March 1987

January 1986

December 1985

January 1984

December 1983

March 1983

December 1982

January 1982

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

RSC COURTYARD THEATRE

IAN RITCHIE ARCHITECTS

0

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: An interim theatre space that was to act as a replacement for the Royal Shakespeare Theatre while it under went improvement work

Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England Programme:

Initiator:

Theatre

Project Duration:

Ongoing (Opened in 2006)

Simon Harper (Director of the RSC)

Lead in Time: 15 months (11 on site construction prior to opening) Site Area:

1,080 square meteres (Gross internal area is 3,570 square)

Client Team:

The Royal Shakespeare Company

Project Team:

Ian Ritchie Architects

Funding Sources: Royal Shakespeare Theatre £6m

Advantage West Midlands £20m Funding Type: Private Donations & Grants

Project Costs (Build): Unknown Project Costs (Operation): unknown

Profitability/Loss: Building Cost £5,681,146 Permissions / Permits

10m

Looking at the circumstances pragmatically, it is unlikely that the building would have gained planning permission had it been intended as a permanent structure.

At the time of its construction it was meant to be demolished in 2010 and conservationists in the town were opposed to the building despite its 4-year life span.

Local Links:

The Royal Shakespeare Company and its existing workshop theatre.

Publicity/advertising

Replacing Royal Shakespeare Theatre meant that most of the original clientele visited the temporary space.

Site Details & Ownership: Located in Stratford-upon-Avon the site is owned by the Royal Shakespeare Company and it used to act as a car park for the workshop theatre.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: Shakespeare is very big business. The bard is calculated to bring millions into Warwickshire each year in tourism and tourist-related revenue. Fundamental to the whole Shakespeare experience is a visit to the home of the internationally respected Royal Shakespeare Company and the chance to see one of their productions. The target audience then is tourist, Shakespeare purists alike and locals.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to its boldness and unusual material for the region, classicists opposed its construction, but because the building had a predicted short-life span of just over 4 years, planning officials decided to approve it. Two years after its planned demolition the temporary theatre is still standing and its benefits for the region and the RSC are too great to get rid of, thus planning was extended by city officials until 2012.

Feedback from users / staff: “It’s not often that architects exceed expectations – if only because most clients’ hopes are often unreasonably high. Our hopes were exactly that – and we got more, and better, than we bargained for, on time and on budget. Watching the first public performance from the furthest seat was proof that we had achieved our aims for our audience, in a splendid and charismatic setting.”

Sir Christopher Bland, Chairman RSC

What next?

The Courtyard Theatre is in the process of applying for an indefinite extension on its permission. It also intends to add more studio spaces and workshop theatres into the programme to respond to the new needs of the community.

Complementary Programmes: Studio Spaces, Cafe and Bar Project Website / Further Info: http://www.rsc.org.uk/visit-us/ courtyard/

November 2012

October 2011

September 2010

December 2009

January 2008

December 2007

January 2007

April 2006

January 2006

December 2005

May 2005

January 2005

January 2004

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

A ROOM FOR LONDON

Notes :

0m

10m

20m

- Do not scale from

50m

DAVID KOHN ARCHITECTS WITH FIONA BANNER

S

R L

R

E

E O

E

M

T O

V

A

A

I

H

W

R

T

B R I D

W

T

I

D

E

E

A

M

C

B

H

A

Crane location

N

K

M

E

N

E

O

B

G

L

E

T

*

11.08.11 F

Rev.

Date.

C

2/0

1

QUEEN ELIZABETH HALL

23

L1

m

Room for Lond Project

Queen Elizabe Belvedere Roa London SE1 8X Project address

Living Architect Client

Context Pl Drawing title

152/L1 Drawing no.

Key Facts:

Project Evaluation:

Project summary

A temporary and mobile one-bedroom installation in the form of a riverboat on the roof of the Queen Elizabeth Hall for the 2012 Olympic Year.

Location:

The Queen Elizabeth Hall Roof, London

Programme:

Initiator:

Accommodation

Project Duration:

Ongoing (Opened in January 2012)

Living Architecture

Lead in Time: 11 months (6 weeks of off site construction, 1 day of transport and 2 days of on site works) Site Area: 52 square meters (roof: 996 m2) Client Team: Living Architecture, Artangel and the Southbank Centre Project Team:

David Kohn Banner

Funding Sources:

Funding Type:

Living Architecture (Arts Council England, Artangel International Circle, Special Angels and Company of Angels) Private donations and Grants

Project Costs (Build):

Architects

with

Fiona

Confidential

Project Costs (Operation): Confidential Profitability/Loss:

-

Permissions / Permits

The installation had to apply for full temporary planning permission because of its location inside a conservation area; because it was only meant to remain on site for a year and because it was ancillary to the arts and culture programme of the QEH, planning was granted.

Local Links:

Southbank Centre

Publicity/advertising

The location of the project generated interest from the passer by and because of the collaboration between Living Architecture, David Kohn, Fiona Banner and Artangel the project garnered the interest of critics, artists and the general public.

N

Site Details & Ownership: The Southbank Centre is the biggest arts centre in the UK and occupies a 21-acre site on the South Bank of the Thames. The Centre houses the Royal Festival Hall, Purcell Room, The Hayward Gallery and the Queen Elizabeth Hall on which the project was installed.

The proximity to the river played a major role in the design and delivery of the project.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The Southbank Centre is a collection of buildings that provide various artistic and creative environments for the public to visit.

It is a central meeting place in London, with a mix of cafés, bars, restaurants, and acts as a cultural hub, with theatres, concert halls, cinemas and art galleries. With this in mind, the project was presented to the passer by but also to the cultural visitor of the establishments. In addition, with Artangel acting as a curator, artists from around the globe became part of the project. It managed to reach a wider audience through its website which live streamed the work the artists produced on site and also projections of the performances were screened inside the QEH and the Royal Festival Hall.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to the mobile nature of the project, some design issues had to be compromised for the transportation of the structure, such as the general width of the ‘riverboat’ form.

The one-year life span of the project limited the number of occupants.

Feedback from users / staff: The Southbank Centre did not receive any public complaints regarding the design of the Room for London or any noise or light pollution as a result of the initial run period.

“What you see spread out before you as you board the art-world Roi des Belges, also known as A Room for London, is the most compelling, and gloriously wide-angled, panorama of central London, framed by the Palace of Westminster on the port side and St Paul’s to starboard.”

Jonathan Glancey, The Guardian

What next?

The project was created to be mobile, and at the end of the year it was due to be dismantled and installed somewhere else, with discussions about a trip to Hong Kong and Portugal. However because of its success , the client has now received planning permission to be kept in place for another year.

Complementary Programmes: Studio Space and Hotel Room Project Website / Further Info: http://www.aroomforlondon.co.uk

Issue:

Stage

Date:

11.08

Scale:

1:500

Drawn by:

SH

Checked by:

DK

January 2013

December 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

Febraury 2011

January 2011

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

THE PASSION

NATIONAL THEATRE OF WALES, WILDWORKS & MICHAEL SHEEN

Key Facts: Project summary

Project Evaluation: A three-day long performance piece that took place in and around Port Talbot. The cast and crew of the piece was the local community, and its stage was the actual town.

Location:

Port Talbot, England

Programme:

Initiator:

Performance Piece

Project Duration:

72 Hours

Michael Sheen

Site Details & Ownership: Port Talbot is a town in Wales with a population of around 36,000.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: The performance piece was supported by over a 1,000 community volunteers and the production was a celebration of the town and its people, bringing over 22,000 people into Port Talbot. The project was live streamed on a website, making it easy for people, who couldn’t make it to Port Talbot, be part of the experience. A film crew documented the three-day piece and has now been released as a feature length film, thus reaching a wider audience.

Problems Encountered / Overcome: TBC

Lead in Time: TBC Feedback from users / staff: “One of the outstanding theatrical events not only of this year, but of the decade”

Site Area:

The whole of Port Talbot

Client Team:

National Theatre of Wales

The Observer

Project Team:

Michael Sheen and WildWorks

“Drama at its very best – creative, ambitious, raw, passionate and relevant. Above all, it was also accessible and inclusive.”

Funding Sources: Laura Ashley Foundation, Costain and

Arts & business Cymru Funding Type: Private Donations Grant Project Costs (Build): unknown Project Costs (Operation): unknown

Profitability/Loss: TBC Permissions / Permits

TBC

Local Links:

The local community of Port Talbot

Publicity/advertising

WildWorks was very present in the town community centres in the leadin to the performance, getting locals involved via a website where people could upload their personal experience of the piece. The National Theatre of Wales managed to generate a huge amount of buzz around the piece for its creative value.

Western Mail

What next?

The project was released as a feature length film in the spring of 2012 and events commemorating ‘The Passion’ have been independently organized by the local communities of Port Talbot.

Complementary Programmes: TBC Project Website / Further Info: http://port-talbot.com/

December 2012

October 2012

July 2012

April 2012

January 2012

October 2011

July 2011

April 2011

January 2011

October 2010

July 2010

April 2010

January 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

YOU ME BUM BUM TRAIN / STRATFORD 2012

KATE BOND AND MORGAN LLOYD

0

Key Facts:

10m

Project Evaluation: An ‘immersive’ theatre experience in which there’s only one audience member that moves through a series of realistic situations. The cast and crew of the project are volunteers.

Site Details & Ownership: A disused warehouse building in Stratford East.

Location:

Stratford, London, England

Programme:

Initiator:

Performance

Problems Encountered / Overcome: Due to its volunteer based organization, the project has received criticism from the performers’ union Equity, which threatened to take legal action against the company’s artistic directors on the grounds that none of the actors and crew involved in the project get paid.

Project Duration:

3 months (although this was just an iteration of the project which has regularly changed since 2004)

Project summary

Kate Bond and Morgan Lloyd

Lead in Time: [unknown] Site Area:

450 square metres approx.

Project Reach / Visitors / Target Audience: [unknown]

Feedback from users / staff: “I came across it when I was on my gap year,” she said, “and I thought I’d do it for the experience. But even now that I’m training, I’d still do it – it’s an amazing thing to be part of, and it’s not as if anybody’s making any money out of you.”

Eboni Dixon, a performer in the 2010 version of YMBBT

Client Team:

Barbican Centre and CREATE

“Honestly YMBB was without exaggeration the most surreal and amazing experience of my life- truly inspiring and phenomenal!”

Project Team:

You Me Bum Bum Train with the help of volunteers and the Theatre Royal in Stratford

Charlie Gilkes, founder of Barts, Maggies and Bunga Bunga

Funding Sources: Arts Council England Canary Wharf Group Stratford Renaissance Partnership Funding Type: Grant Private Donations Project Costs (Build):

[unknown]

Project Costs (Operation): [unknown]

Profitability/Loss: [unknown] Permissions / Permits

[unknown]

Local Links:

The Theatre Royal Stratford East

Publicity/advertising

Print/electronic advertising/PR by the artists, Barbican, CREATE, Theatre Royal Stratford East

What next? [unknown] Complementary Programmes: N/A Project Website / Further Info: http://www.bumbumtrain.com/

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

June 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

January 2011

December 2010

January 2010

Timeline:

Lead In Construction Open Removal

LEARNING FROM OTHERS Commissioned by: London Legacy Development Corporation

Research teams: URBAN RESEARCH PROJECTS | LONDON The Architecture Foundation CODA Architects Common Capital The Decorators David Kohn Architects Live Art Development Agency The Yard Theatre

Credits: All images are either owned by the research team or permission to use them has been granted.

All data is correct to the best of our knowledge

Forty interim use sites taken from Learning From Others research project