12 CASE STUDY
surrounding context,” added the architect. These varied buildings differ in scale and function, moving from the large, urban and public Market Square, through to the semi-public Landscape Court, among the multiple other courts. Throughout these spaces area are passages “mediated” between them, providing a more intimate sense of scale.
MATERIAL COHESION There are a range of typologies around the site, including a wide variety of tenures and house sizes – as Gavin put it, the typologies “reflecting the aspirations of the client.”
One such aspiration was to attract inter- national and diverse workers in order to host the best available talent. In this endeavour however, it was important to consider that they are less likely to stay for as long as a standard family might occupy a household. “Our occupants are mostly post doctoral members of staff,” explained the architect. “Some of them will be there for no longer than five years.”
This meant that the design needed some differentiation from a typical house type, which would generally hope to house its occupants for many years to come, while appealing to them. “As such,” he continued, “creating a sense of community and belonging as quickly as possible was key.”
One way in which this was achieved was by placing a firm focus on fostering communal life – which the courts have achieved largely through their connection to the city, and the spaces’ own connec- tions to each other.
The courts and square have been designed as a network, creating a transi- tion from the life of the city to the heart of a new community. The spaces are inter- connected at multiple intervals in order to form the network, creating what the
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
architect called a “social landscape.” It “recalls the differentiated spaces of the traditional city and the historical colle- giate spaces of central Cambridge into the design process,” said Stanton Williams. The palette of materials used reflects this, being carefully considered to mirror the local vernacular. This includes two tonnes of brickwork and traditional cobblestones, which were used to refer- ence Cambridge’s domestic architecture. This helps to link the community to the city, ensuring that new inhabitants can see the city and the new neighbourhood as one, allowing them to settle far faster and familiarise themselves with relative ease.
RAIN OR SHINE
As mentioned previously, the project presents a highly developed water management system, which has been embedded into the development into the get-go to produce a cohesive structure which feels “as part of the landscape.” The masterplan provides for signifi-
cant rainwater harvesting, offering a 100 year storm water strategy, for example. Much of the remaining water strategy involves cobbled rills, which channel water across the site discreetly, following primary routes and terminating in atten- uation pools. It comprises an extremely successful SuDS system, and one which ‘hides in plain sight.’ Instead of frequent and often bulky drainage pipes above ground, the drains run as part of the pathways, culmi- nating in the feature swales, which provide their own focal points and green areas between the buildings. Adding to this strategy are living roofs, which both further the drainage strategy and encourage biodiversity – the latter also achieved through the facades supporting wall shrubs and fruiting climbers.
Landscaping as a whole was heavily
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
