PROJECT REPORT: TRANSPORT FACILITIES & PUBLIC REALM


47


underneath buildings, while Paddington consisted of a big open-cut box next to a Grade I listed building. According to Naybour, WW+P were on one hand liberated by the model they were working off, but on the other, subservient to Brunel’s historic station next door.


Stakeholder collaboration was a constant


feature; WW+P conducted meetings with Heritage England and head of strategic planning at the Borough of Westminster Graham King every three weeks, bringing a transparency to the design process which proved fruitful. “Whenever we were making lots of design decisions, we would present our thoughts and where we were going – that was incredibly useful,” says Naybour, “it provides a focus for both the client and the team.” Crossrail’s ‘modulation’ – which describes the scale of standardised panel sizes across a project – was consistently applied at 1500 mm, but Paddington was the exception: “The principles were the same, but we were aligning with a listed building. Brunel’s station was set up on a rigorous 10 ft module, so we adopted that.” As well as looking to the surrounding area for inspiration, the designers took an open-minded approach to embracing the visual qualities of the structural engineering


ADF OCTOBER 2018


at Paddington. The vertical columns were intended as temporary solutions, but in conversation with the design team it was decided that their appearance as well as the cost saving supported the solution of retaining them. Says Naybour: “I think it’s very important for architects to take an interdisciplinary approach with these buildings,” he continues, “you’re working with the engineering, but you’re also pushing it.”


The integration of interior lighting was one important feature distinguishing the station from its siblings across the Elizabeth line. Picking up on the 10 ft grid, large “inverted mushroom” or “lily pad” shaped light fixtures with an anodised finish are nestled into the circular recesses seemingly scooped from the coffered roof slabs. As well as maintaining a common rhythm across the entire station, these devices mitigate glare and enhance the station’s visual identity.


Like the station itself, the structural slabs were built in top-down fashion, being laid on the ground with a metre and a half of concrete poured on top of them and their steel reinforcements. Then – in a move which required archeological precision that was a challenge with a JCB – earth was carefully excavated, chiselled away from


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


The architects worked hard to spread the columns as far apart as possible to maximise openness


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100