Task 3: Evaluation Report Loughborough University in collaboration with Coventry University

Jack Pennells, Josh Brooks, Ben Ormsby, Benjamin Balint, David Vede and Vladi Perta

Encapsulation

Contents Page

Executive summary 1 1.0 Design Criteria Rank Justification 2-3

1.1 Collaboration………………………………............................. 2 1.2 Space allocation……………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Al Fresco………………………………………………………………. 2 1.4 Social……………………………………………………………………. 2 1.5 Nucleus………………………………………………………………… 2 1.6 Heritage……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.7 Sustainability………………………………………………………… 2 1.8 End user………………………………………………………………. 3 1.9 Functionality………………………………………………………… 3 1.10 Acoustics…………………………………………………………… 3

2.0 Table of scoring for each design proposal 4 2.1 Hydrodynamic performance justification….…………. 4 2.2 Neoteric performance justification ……………………… 5 2.3 Encapsulated performance justification ………………. 5 3.0 Comparison of programmes between design proposals 6 4.0 Comparison of costing between design proposals 7 5.0 Final proposal Justification 8-9

Executive Summary This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current designs that have been created and put forward to the client by MEA consultants. The objective of this report is to propose a recommendation of design to the client

by evaluating the suitability of each proposal that has been put forward.

Methods of analysis include;

Quantitative Summary:

The ranking of each proposal against set criteria which allow the designs to be compared and evaluated accurately and fairly in order to produce a fair report. The scoring criterion was produced with an importance ratio of 1-10 set against each of the design criteria. The design proposals are each scored according to the set criteria with a realistic view towards how they will perform in real time. The cumulative figures of each design proposal can then be compared to enable a decision to be made into which design we will recommend.

Qualitative Summary:

Once each score has been produced we used qualitative summaries to inform the client about the design, provoking further critical discussion. The positive and negative aspects of each design criteria are discussed with a view to provide sufficient reason behind the set score.

(All scoring Data can be found in table 1 with a series of summarized discussions below.)

This report summarizes the underlining differences between each design proposals programme and costing allowing MEA to arrive at a well justified recommendation of design.

Programme Comparison Summary:

This provides the client with an inside view on how the construction process operates and the factors which can affect the change in the critical path of each of the projects. Each design proposal is examined in detail, describing the separate components of the design which add or reduce the time aspect of the construction programme. As the programme is a calculated estimate, reasoning is given to the client as to why some activities may carry a higher risk; thus potentially negatively affecting the operations of a design proposal.

Cost Comparison Summary:

This provides the client with an explanation into how the costing process was achieved in order to arrive at a price for each of the design proposals. Each proposal is then summarized in detail as to why the cost is what it is. This includes the types of materials used, methods of construction taken on and even pays attention to the effect geographical location and inflation can have upon a project.

Final Design Recommendation

The report arrives at a justified recommendation of design for the client to take into consideration. Images and concepts are included to give reason to explanation as to why the design has been chosen. This report finds that the encapsulate design has the qualities and features according to the qualitative and quantitative analysis to meet the needs and wants of the client.

Page 1

Collaborative space design requires large open areas with unique table designs

Table design to facilitate collaboration (conforms to hexagon theme)

1.0 Design Criteria

Justification of Ranking position

1.1 Collaboration

During the site visit there was a heavy emphasis on collaborative working, a key consideration closely acknowledged by the recently constructed ECB. As our design aims to take inspiration from the ECB, it should influence not just the way that the classrooms are designed, but the building layout as a whole. The current layout of SJL lends little of itself to collaborative working, with restricted work space, poor space allocation and below par facilities. Although little can be done during construction to facilitate collaboration the influence it had on many of the other design criteria has resulted in it being given the main criterion title.

1.2 Space Allocation

As the faculty stated that the aim over the next few years was to expand the civil and building department, it meant that our design had to consider all potential users of the building. Space allocations should be flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of demands of a new way of teaching. Space allocation should aim to make navigation around the building easier for all, with emphasis towards disabled users. This involves producing a logical layout, taking in to account; natural lighting, sound infiltration, grouping of activities and space priority amongst other factors. Flexibility meant being able to lecture, discuss, collaborate and socialize all in the same space, meaning high amounts of consideration was required. All of the above reasons resulted in Space allocation becoming a crucial key design criterion.

1.3 Al Fresco

The written brief expressed that there should be external spaces that relate directly to the functions of the building. One of the facilities functions is to provide social areas for collaboration, relaxing, socializing and expression. Relaxation spaces should be provided, to not only give an external space to invite students within, but also link the building with the Richard Crossman Courtyard which is also stipulated in the brief. Hence forth this is a fairly important design criterion.

Rank of Criteria (1 most important 10 least)

1. Collaboration 2. Space allocation 3. Al Fresco 4. Social 5. Nucleus 6. Heritage 7. Sustainability 8. End User 9. Functionality 10. Acoustics

Current narrow corridors

1.4 Social

Socially the SJL building is currently inadequate as it does not provide space for students to congregate outside of the learning environment. As one of the aims of the university is to provide a building that should accommodate all of the needs of the students, it should include recreational space as well learning facilities. The balance between social and learning environments should be given equal consideration in order to become the heart of student experience.

1.5 Nucleus

The Nucleus, refers to the main entrance including the atrium, this was one of the key features described on the site visit and included within the brief. The idea of a focal point for the building, is a criteria that should influence the design heavily, as it lends itself towards the iconic nature of the design. This was another statement of the design brief which did not become a Design criterion but was influential throughout the process. The nucleus is central to the workings of the building providing a central control area which all sub components are controlled from. For this building it was to be the area where room bookings are made, directions are provided and general information about the facility can be obtained.

1.6 Heritage

The theme of heritage is one that has been followed through the design of Coventry after being bombed in WW2. It was made sure that the redevelopment of Coventry would try to keep any old buildings intact, with the aim as to preserve what heritage that was left. On the redevelopment site, a mediaeval ruin is exposed outside of one of the entrances. The design should aim to keep and preserve the building not only to meet the regulations of listed buildings but as part of the culture of Coventry itself. Even though not as important as collaborative working it important and therefore makes it a relatively high design criteria.

1.7 Sustainability

Although there was not specific attention given towards the sustainability of the design of the building as a team we decided that due to the current position of the Economic and Natural climates sustainability should be a factor to consider. Due to the minor attention in the design brief, this criterion has been ranked relatively low although the strong beliefs in the group have meant it is still of particular importance.

Page 2

Current Acoustics result in noise effecting staff offices and lecture space

NOISE

1.8 End User

Throughout the site visit it was acknowledged that there was no clear identity of specific end user, with areas being scattered throughout the building. This coupled with the desire, in the design brief, and verbal request, by one of the key end users, it made the criterion become an important consideration. The aim was to group facilities based on the type of user e.g.: student, lecturer, maintenance or visitor. Limited access would be provided to certain users allowing facilities for only the desired user possible. The design of the building should think about this which could lend itself to access only floors for the intended end user. This consideration should be thought about in the design but perhaps not in the same nature as collaboration therefore is ranked considerably lower.

1.9 Functionality

The site had few limitations with an essential factor being the positioning of the Hydraulics & Structural Labs. This became an influential condition due to the consequences it had on other criteria. It is also mentioned within the brief and on a number of occasions during the site visit. However it was stated that the Labs could be repositioned off-site during construction. Although this would still have considerable influence on the overall design it became a key design consideration which was not of critical importance in comparison to other design criteria.

1.10 Acoustics

During the site visit it was noted that the current layout of rooms did not consider acoustics in their design. The noise disruption coming from the laboratories was noticeable throughout the building and therefore it became a key consideration. Having said this, it does rank lower than other items as the design of other criteria may take noise disruption in to consideration, the space allocation of these laboratories, along with functionality of rooms should aim to eliminate the clash of room types, namely laboratory work spaces and lecture rooms. Between the two, there has been a lot of analysis as to which rooms are grouped together in order to minimize the influence of noise throughout the facility.

Restricted access to Staff space

Card authorization required

Page 3

The following table shows scores allocated to each design proposal as determined by the Design team. The table is interpreted by; giving the most important criteria (Collaboration) a score of 10. Each design is then given a value from 1 to 10 in terms of how well this criterion was met. The two numbers are then multiplied to give a sub total. The sub totals of each design produce a grand total, showing which design has performed best in terms of meeting the criteria.

2.0 Table of scoring for each Proposal

Rank/Design Criteria

Importance score

Hydrodynamic Score/10

Sub-total

Neoteric Score/10

Sub-total

Encapsulated Score/10

Sub-total

1.Collaboration 10 7 70 8 80 7 70

2.Space Allocation 9 5 45 6 54 8 72

3.Al fresco 8 8 64 8 64 6 48

4.Social 7 7 49 9 63 8 56

5.Nucleus 6 9 54 7 42 6 36

6.Heritage 5 3 15 7 35 7 35

7.Sustainability 4 7 28 8 32 7 28

8.End User 3 4 12 8 24 6 18

9.Functionality 2 6 12 4 8 6 12

10.Acoustics 1 6 6 7 7 6 6

Grand Totals (Max. = 550) 355 409 381

4 storey atrium

2.1 Hydrodynamic Design Performance

The main feature of the Hydrodynamic design proposal is the 4 storey height glass atrium that enhances the overall look of the building and provides a unique space that also divides the existing building from the new extension. The overall score of the Hydrodynamic design proposal against the 10 design criteria is 325 out of a total of 550, making this design the least efficient of them all.

Collaboration is outlined as the most important design criteria. The Hydrodynamic design scored 7 points out of 10 because the existing building imposes major restrictions in terms of space allocation for efficient group works. However, the class rooms and computer rooms will provide efficient group work through the layout of the rooms, and the design offers the maximum amount of group work area possible with spaces allocated both at ground floor level as well as at first level for ease of access purposes. In terms of space allocation, this design scored 5 out of 10 because of the overall layout of the building. The corridor space is wide and facilitates access for disabled users, however a negative is the positioning of the elevator, located in the new extension wing which may restrict access for disabled users, especially at first floor level, where the connection between the two buildings is via a narrow walkway. Al Fresco criteria relates to the connection of the exterior spaces to the interior functions of the building. Hydrodynamic design does that by providing a large open plan area towards the newly redeveloped courtyard at the north side of the building that links John Laing Building to Richard Crossman building. The design incorporates a Costa/Starbucks café in that area as well this enhancing the relationship between outdoor space and indoor space connection. Socially the design meets the criteria through the allocation of open spaces for students such as the café space that connects the courtyard with the interior space, this creating the illusion of a much bigger space that in reality. This is very important because of the site and space restrictions. Also, the large glass atrium provides sufficient space for open group work or socializing. Thus, Hydrodynamic scores 7 on this criterion. Nucleus: this design reflects best this criterion because of the large four storey height atrium that serves as the main entrance with the main reception and also as a connection between the two distinct buildings. It is the focal design element that provides a natural flow to the overall aspect of the building. The Heritage aspect of this design is not as clearly emphasized as the other two proposals as it does not incorporate the ruin into de actual building. It does however connect it visually through the large glass atrium making it a focal point, thus a mark of 3 out of 10 was awarded for this criterion. Another important aspect of the design is the sustainability aspect. This building will incorporate high performance technologies such as rain water harvesting, triple glazed widows, sustainable urban drainage systems and others. By redeveloping the building, instead of completely rebuilding it saves in terms of building materials used and the CO2 produced. Locally sourced materials will be used as much as possible to enhance the sustainable aspect of the design. Hydrodynamic design scores only 4 points in terms of End user criterion because of the layout of the internal spaces. Being a redevelopment of the existing building with an extension, space restrictions apply, thus the spaces are not as clearly divided in terms of the users. Special considerations towards access for designated users have been implemented into the final design. As the brief requirement was to maintain the position of the double-height Structures laboratory, Hydrodynamic was designed around that. It scores only 6 because the Hydraulics Laboratory was moved, this creating some issues that in the end do not affect the overall viability of the project and its functionality. Acoustics is not an imperial criterion, therefore it does not weigh as much as other criteria above listed. However special considerations have been taken into consideration in terms of space allocation, by placing all laboratories at the ground level, separately from the class rooms and lecture theaters. Hydrodynamic scores 6 points out of 10 for this section.

Café opening out in to Courtyard

Atrium/Nucleus of the facility

Page 4

2.2 Neoteric Design Performance

The new build proposal, Neoteric, can easily be considered the option with the most collaborative space allocation out of the three options. As stated in the Design Criteria report, Neoteric was partly inspired by the look and feel of the Coventry University’ Engineering and Computing Building, thus focusing on effectiveness and the engineering spirit. Each floor was designed to accommodate group working spaces/ rooms both for students and members of staff alike, in order to provide a friendly and valuable experience.

Allocating the space represented a priority during the design stage due to the need of generating enough spaces both for every public building and for faculty specific need. Due to the machinery and relevant equipment needed, the lab spaces (rooms), the maintenance, reception, administration offices, cafeteria and care (first-aid) facilities were placed on the ground floor. The computer rooms, lecture spaces and group work rooms were allocated to the floors above. By preserving the ECB theme, the staff and PHD rooms/ spaces were allocated to the top floor, thus providing the needed privacy during their off- hours. The group work rooms, classes, lecture theatres and offices were designed to have the maximum amount of natural light, i.e. optimum lighting.

Being a new build, the design allowed large improvements in comparison to the existing Sir John Laing building, which included the faculty specific external spaces, such as hang-out areas and a balcony on the first floor and two on the third and the fourth floor.

Socially, Neoteric was designed to provide a space for the students where they can meet regardless of their timetable, either for working on their projects or using the time and facilities to relax and socialize. The space allocated mainly for the purpose of socializing and relaxing was designed to be placed on the ground floor around the current ruin, with an area of ~550 m2 of computer desks and sofas orbiting a Costa or Starbucks Coffee Shop.

As opposed to the current layout of the SJL building where the two entrances are both confusing and clustered in term of access space, during the redesign process, another aspect that was highly considered was the openness of the main entrance and ease of access to each of the areas. This criterion was met by providing an atrium/nucleus over a two-floor height and an area of ~350 m2 where the reception and the administrative space are.

The heritage aspect of the building was covered by the inclusion of the medieval ruin in the design with the potential of reviving the interest in art and history, thus remembering the old and bridging the gap between two different worlds.

Another important aspect considered during the design stage was the impact of the new build on the environment, social life and on its initial and maintenance costing, i.e. its sustainability. During the construction phase, the building will be developed using both old and new techniques and technologies, thus maximizing the effectiveness of the process and recycling as many materials as possible. One other aspect that Neoteric ensures is the preservation of green spaces (partly green roof, partly PVs- solar panels) and higher efficiency than the previous build.

Example of collaborative seating area located around the historical ruin

Sustainability aspect

Green Roof

Space for PV cells

Balcony space, extending internal spaces outdoors

3rd floor, utilizing internal and external glazing through open space planning

2.3 Encapsulated Design Performance

“Encapsulated” design is an overall outstanding proposal. It takes into consideration all of the design criteria set in the preliminary stage of the project.

One of the most important issues addressed by the design was the collaboration aspect. It achieved a high performance score by incorporating several student work rooms and internal glass walls for light flow. Encapsulated achieved the highest score out of all three designs in space allocation criteria. This is due to the layout of the building. Special

consideration was given to disability access as well and fluidity throughout the proposed building making good use of wide corridors. The high score can also be attributed on the account of number of study rooms, classrooms and PHD and research designated areas. The proposal incorporates two entrances offering access towards the courtyard leading to Richard Crossman building and the surveying area towards Much Park Street. The room for improvement in the al fresco criteria consists of the fact that more attention could have been given to the design of the exit towards Richard Crossman and the space adjacent to it. Recreational space for students to socialize in, outside the learning activities, is taken into careful consideration within the encapsulated design hence achieving a high performance score from a social point of view. By doing this, students would have a better feel of a more wholesome experience of university life. The atrium/nucleus that enclose the main entrance in the building, facing Much Park Street, is indeed the main feature of the building however more attention could have been given to it which is why it does not score as high as the other two proposals. This design achieved a score of 7 out of 10 for the heritage aspect in the performance section due to the fact that not only does it preserve the historical value of the medieval ruin on the site but it actually encapsulate it, turning it into an attraction point, a feature of the structure thus motivating students and visitors in developing an interest in the history of Coventry.

Encapsulate design proposal addresses the issue of sustainability by making good use of light, environmentally friendly materials, proposed modern methods of construction and low maintenance layout for the structure. Other ways by which this proposed design achieves good standard of sustainability is by providing good insulation and efficient heating system. The present design proposal scores just above average in respect to end user consideration criteria because although student and staff needs are clearly a priority (and that is shown in the spaces allocated and design style) there is room for further improvement.

Functionality of the proposal consists of the fact that structures lab is kept in its original location and only the hydraulics lab is slightly altered. That decision however was based on the idea of grouping the laboratories together for an improved practicality and functionality. Encapsulate design takes into account the acoustics criteria and propose a massively improved acoustic insulation compared to the original structure but is falling short however by comparison with the Neoteric complete redevelopment. There is also good consideration given to the location of rooms in terms of grouping those which create noise and relocating those which require quieter surroundings. A clever room layout, keeps noise producing activities close to areas which aren’t influenced by noise eg toilets and facility management.

Large central atrium, with central lift and open, easy to navigate corridors

Logical space design

LABS Toilets

LABS

Facility management rooms

Page 5

3.0 Comparisons of Programmes between concept Designs

The programmes of all the projects were an estimate at this stage and based upon estimations of the construction process and will be subject to change when the concept design is developed further. The programme has been compiled from an estimation of the working practices that will take place during the construction period of each concept. These are based on site based knowledge and the study of previous programmes. The durations are only an estimate at this stage as the internal finishes have not been approved by the client. These initial concepts show the construction process with and aim in each case for the buildings to be complete by the start of October 2014 which will be when the intake of new students arrives at the university. This should hopefully be possible for the two of the designs, however as one is a complete rebuild there it will take slightly longer but this should be complete for the second semester starting after Christmas 2014.

Hydrodynamic is a similar extension as it utilized a previously unused area of land to the south of the site, which means work should progress quickly with minimum disruption to users of the existing building. This is also the shortest programme, finishing at the start of August 2014 which should give enough time to get the staff settled into their new offices before students arrive. The atrium, at 52 days construction, is the longest activity by duration. As this activity proceeds, the work on the façade can progress parallel. Segregated work areas; one for the extension and the other for atrium erection mean that works can progress quickly, overlapping only where the concrete frame of the extension meet the steel frame of the Atrium.

Completion date

01st AUGUST 2014

Completion date

15th AUGUST 2014

The Neoteric programme is the longest of all, with the major component being the concrete frame at 100 days duration. This is based on large pour amounts and the majority of formwork being an engineered formwork method as opposed to timber. The façade system is based on the Mero Schmidlin’s design and the durations associated with its construction process. Naturally this design will take the longest to produce as there will need to be extensive ground works before the superstructure can proceed. The production rate should be quicker than the other designs as the whole building except structures lab will be demolished which means machines will be able to move around the site easier increasing production rates. This means that even though this concept is a complete rebuild it should only take around six months longer construction time.

Encapsulate aims to finish in the middle of August to give time for the facility to be tested before the new students arrive. This programme charts the same design phase length as Neoteric and Hydrodynamic. As this design concept is based on an extension to multiple sides of the building, the programme is slightly longer than Hydrodynamic. The building will remain fully functional for the majority of the build and means the internal works, at 51 days duration, is the longest activity. This is the only activity that will require the closure of the Sir John Laing Building.

Completion date

30th December 2014

Page 6

4.0 Cost Comparison between designs

The cost per m² for all the projects were calculated by using the BCIS online database which gives a price for works that have been completed on a comparative project in terms of size and specification. The prices are then rebased to give a price which accounts for the effect of inflation and geographical location throughout the country. This should give the most accurate price for our project at this concept stage. This method also allows for the shows distribution of for elements within the design.

One element where costs varied substantially was the substructure. For Neoteric at £79,275 the largest amount for foundations it accounts for piles and beams to be poured to take the loadings of the new concrete frame structure. This amount is £14,249 greater than substructure of encapsulate. Still a relatively large amount for sub structure works but this amount has to incorporate a large extension on multiple sides which makes the logistics difficult therefore increasing the cost of these works. For Hydrodynamic the substructure works are only worth £7,839 this is based upon a small amount of foundations work that will have to be completed for a small extension and steel frame atrium.

Superstructure is the other item where the cost of concept designs differs substantially. The cost of the encapsulate extension at £1,191,428, relatively low as the reinforced concrete frame is the cheapest option, but this figure also includes a large amount of glazing for the existing renovation as well as the extension superstructure work. For Hydrodynamic the price for the superstructure is £969072 and even though a considerably smaller extension the cost of a steel frame and concrete frame are both included as well as the cost for a new façade system on the existing building. The Neoteric design costs £10,075,905 a major cost but as this design accounts for a whole new structural frame that is to be exposed fair face concrete the cost per m3 for formwork increases dramatically increasing the cost. This superstructure figure also accounts for the demolition of the existing building and the specialist façade system that is to be installed on this design. Therefore even though the cost for Neoteric superstructure is greater than the others it incorporates a high quality finish and extra work specific to this design.

The total costs are as follows;

Neoteric £19,604,671 Hydrodynamic £3,143,917 Encapsulate £5,242,825

In comparison, all three options give value for money and even though there is one considerable difference in cost for Neoteric, the method of construction would be equally different. The cost of Hydrodynamic gives the best value per m2 of floor area but this concept only adds a small extension to the existing building. In contrast, Encapsulate has a higher build cost, but has to contend with multiple extensions and construct over the mediaeval structure, which explains the higher cost. This design would also protect the structural integrity of the mediaeval structure whereas hydrodynamic does not which a client can only answer as to whether the extra cost is worth it.

The cost of the project will depend upon preference of design from the client but all the concepts designs show different options of extension, with the differences in cost associated with those designs included. The ultimate decision will depend upon different factors that are yet unknown and can only be answered by the client as to how much funding is available and how the university would like to spend it.

Page 7

Extension that will house cafe and open out in to the courtyard creating a connection

5.0 Final Solution Justification Design Justification

From the entire analysis, it has been decided that, the Encapsulate concept shall be the proposal which is carried through to stage D, Design Development, of the RIBA Plan of Works. Although it did not score the highest in all areas, it is the most consistent and provides the greatest value for money. Features from both the Neoteric and Hydro-Dynamic concepts will be included in the design. Thus the final concept shall be a combination, infused to create a modified Encapsulation concept.

Justification in choosing Encapsulation, as the primary concept, comes from the design agreeing with the criteria which were ranked of greatest priority. Collaboration was a key element, met by the design through providing large communal spaces inviting users to work collaboratively. Externally the building looks to have a large mass with internal areas which may struggle to access natural light. However this is not the case due to clever space and circulation design. As can be seen from the adjacent floor plan, the majority of rooms are only ever one unit deep, thus most have windows (orange) to outside and all connecting corridors have natural light infiltration (green).

The only spaces without external windows are the toilets (red L-shape) and four group class rooms, although they still have the light coming through the open floor ruin area, due to the extensive use of glazing in this area. There has been consideration to keep the labs all located on the 1st floor with teaching, group and staff space all located on the 2nd floor, with the Architectural studio and Drawing room situated on the 3rd floor, allowing users to draw on inspiration from their elevated perspective of the surrounding location (see adjacent view).

The fluidity of the building also lends itself to follow a precedent set out within the ECB, with wide corridors and open spaces, encouraging ease of flow throughout the building. This will allow users to navigate their way around the building more easily without the need to look at signs within the building.

Landscaping will be utilized to alter how the building interacts with the surrounding facilities, with a small extension, taken from the Hydro-dynamic design, added to the design. Incorporating a café, that will have a sliding curtain-wall, opening out in to the courtyard;

will enhance the space, providing a clear link to the Richard Crossman building.

Encapsulation

KEY Circulation space

window

No light exposure

ruin

Main entrance

Elevated 3rd floor position

Fluidity provided via large corridors facilitating easy navigation of facility.

External curtain-walling

Encapsulation of ruin This design not only kept the ruin intact, but also encapsulated the structure, producing a wide communal space. By encapsulation, the ruin is preserved for the future and encourages interest in the heritage of Coventry and the university. This historical monument will potentially influence future building environment students, providing inspiration in designs and concepts. The concept shall be modified to include the curtain-walling of the Neoteric creating a recognisable link to the ECB façade. The Atrium area provides a focal point where users can arrange to congregate and use as a Landmark within the building. This aspect gives the facility a unique identity. It is important to point out, that all curtain walling shall utilize the design from the Neoteric concept, linking the entire school discipline throughout the campus.

The design matches all of specified room requirements determined by the university. The staff room and offices are allocated on the 1st floor, in close proximity to rooms/spaces used by students. By including a security access door to the staff space, it means that this area will be segregated and only authorized users may enter, this idea is taken from the success of the system utilized at Loughborough. The area outside of staff offices will allow students to interact with teaching staff in collaborative form, eliminating the confinement to individual staff offices. This should allow easier communication from teacher to student. All these features result in an enhanced experience for the end user.

Extensive insulation throughout the building means that there will be minimal loads on the heating system and improve energy efficiency. Due to the design the building will not rely on lights within the building as natural light should enable low dependency on electricity. In addition, the design shall be modified to include a green roof, feeding rain water into a grey water recycling system. This will not only meet the requirement for SUD’s for the project, but reuse rainwater to flush toilets thus reducing water consumption as well.

The acoustics for the building were addressed by logical location of the rooms where high noise levels occur. These spaces are located on the ground floor with addition acoustic panels in surrounding rooms, identical to those used in the ECB.

Potential for Green-roof with

access via 3rd floor studio

Page 8

Programme and Costing Justification

The programme of works for this design allows construction to finish at the end of August this will allow the building to be fully functional for the start of the new academic year. As this design has multiple extensions, the programme of works will be altered to only partly close areas within the building and thus should cause minimum disruption for the users of the building.

Encapsulate at £5,242,825 is not the cheapest option suggested but it does give a much larger extension than proposed in the Hydrodynamic design and a much cheaper alternative than the Neoteric design. The prices M+E for the building will change due to the use of passive stack ventilation and the use of brise soleil, which both help to provide a comfortable building without relying upon mechanical heating or cooling. Money saved on these items will account for the small extension that will house Starbuck’s as well as the green roof on the main structure of the building.

The proposed design aims to exceed the universities expectations, providing a learning facility that meets the needs of today whist keeping the requirements of the future firmly in mind.

Page 9