search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PROJECT REPORT: HEALTHCARE BUILDINGS


It also meant that on a site with a fairly constrained footprint, scanning functions could be on the same level as the treatment rooms, maximising convenience for patients and staff – who verify exactly where a tumour is, or how it’s reacting to treatment. This was particularly relevant given that proton beam therapy often requires patients to attend sessions for five days a week, over a six to eight week period.


Design theme


The outline business case for the project included a design developed by Scott Tallon Walker who also designed the UCLH proton beam therapy facility under construction in London. The contrasting concept developed by HKS, inspired by vegetation to the south-west facing front of the site, divided the building into three themes horizontally. These were ‘nature’ for the front, more public portion, ‘human care’ for what Covington describes as the “semi-private” ancillary and consulting spaces to the centre, and ‘science’ for the rear of the building, where the treatment gantries (and a proton beam research room) are located. Supported by the clinicians, this concept would extend through to finishes and artwork.


Covington explains: “We pushed waiting space to the front – that allows us to have all our public functions on one side, and gets more and more private as you get closer to the treatment bunker.” The overarching benefit of this strategy was the creation of generous, daylit waiting spaces on the front facade, including a large double-height volume on the first and second floors.


Outpatients


The client also wanted to maximise use of the site beyond proton beam therapy however, as the addition is “quite a chunk,” says Covington, “and planning stipulated we could only go up to five stories.” He adds: “The proton beam element would only take up two or three stories, so we had to think about how else to use the site.”


He says that from the outset it was clear The Christie wished to bring their outpatients function into the new building, and that was “a big challenge, because outpatients receives significantly greater volume than proton beam.” (Outpatients sees around 40,000 patients per year, versus around 650 patients for proton beam therapy).


ADF SEPTEMBER 2019 WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


37


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  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108