Feature Alternative Stirling Prize

NEUES MUSEUM

The Neues Museum is clearly something special. The panel were in awe of a project that tackled a 150-year-old building that had lain in limbo since the Second World War — the pre-construction photos even show mature trees growing out of bomb craters. And the panel praised the design approach of David Chipperfield Architects of carefully restoring the fabric while preserving the scars of the past, combined with new elements that represent the best of modern design and innovation. The project was delivered by the

Bundesamt für Bauwesen, or Federal Office for Construction, which tendered packages to multiple restoration specialists and Dressler Bau, the contractor that took responsibility for the new build elements and bespoke pre-fabricated concrete panels. Instead of tackling the

restoration sequentially, the client split the museum into

BATEMAN’S ROW

If the panel was looking for “the project that represents the construction industry at its best”, it soon became clear it was not Bateman’s Row. The project combines a new home and office for husband and wife architects Patrick Theis and Soraya Khan, combined with build-to-let commercial and residential units. As the panel agreed, Theis & Khan had

come up with a very appealing package: sleek, pared-down modernism combined with enough urban grit for its location. But beyond the first impressions, the panel felt the team hadn’t lived up to the high standards set by the visuals. First, photos of the groundworks phase

provoked expressions of pain all round — no hard hats, a dangerous-looking walkway, rebar lying all over the place. “I’d fail them on at least eight [health and safety] counts!” said Bob Heathfield. Reviews in the architectural press had highlighted the “pragmatism” of the concrete works. Realising the bespoke timber shuttering and painstaking concrete pours needed for a “National Theatre” finish on the concrete frame would be time-consuming and too costly, the solution was standard steel shuttering, laid out for regular seams. Sapiano was unconvinced by this solution: “Considering the architect is the project manager, I wouldn’t expect to read ‘we couldn’t have this’. I’d expect ‘we tried this new technology’. They should be pushing things to the boundaries, not cutting things out.” The project featured underfloor heating

16 | OCTOBER 2010 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

and a solar thermal hot water system. But Caplehorn questioned the low levels of solar shading and absence of a green roof, while everyone agreed that dropping a proposed £10,000 rainwater harvesting system due to the cost was short-sighted. And then there were those Building

Regs-busting stairs — ideal for a film set, less ideal for a family home. When CM spoke to Patrick Theis about the lack of a second handrail, his view was that this was his own home, the stairs were more secure than the photo suggested, and that many older properties have features that would never pass Building Control. Peter Caplehorn was wholly

unconvinced. “It’s highly dangerous. If architecture isn’t compliant and safe, then it isn’t really good design. In the aircraft industry, if you said ‘we had to leave off some of the equipment because it looked better’, it’s not really a tenable argument, is it? So why is it when we get to the built environment, architects seem to think they can leave stuff off?” he asked. “It’s not hard to come up with a really stunning staircase that’s safe to walk up and down.” Overall, the panel felt that Theis &

Khan had set their sights too low. Why shouldn’t a leading architect aim to promote the pinnacle of sustainable design and construction workmanship on their own shop-window? “Is this the best the industry can do?” Heathfield asked. Pros: Looks fantastic Cons: Bar set too low on construction, sustainability and safety

different areas and gave them to different refurbishment contractors. The improved co-ordination and

avoidance of delays from, say, a ceiling

“ I’d fail them on at least eight health and safety counts.” Bob Heathfield

contractor being unable to start its work because of the flooring contractor’s problem, was recognised by the panel. But the group debated whether the

length of the programme — six years in design and six in construction — undermined the overall achievement. “If you can’t work out the design and get everything just about right in six years, how long do you need?” asked Bob Heathfield.

NICK KANE (2)