64 PROJECT REPORT: TRANSPORT FACILITIES & PUBLIC REALM


TWO PIERS IN ONE


The pier is divided into two sections connected by a triangular viewing platform; the first section providing an open public promenade, and the second a more en- closed gangway for commuters


“contribute to the city and the riverside in terms of providing a meaningful public space.” In addition, the client was also attracted by the practice’s keenness to collaborate, including with the marine engineers on the project, Beckett Rankine. The steel, aluminium and timber structure replaces a derelict jetty with something with a great deal of architectural merit, but which also serves the practical needs of a new population of city dwellers living in Royal Wharf but commuting to other parts of the city. It has also been designed as a public space in its own right, so serving the potentially conflicting needs of lingering visitors and commuters in a rush was a key challenge for the architects.


A ‘dog leg’ In Dempsey’s words, the client’s desire was that the pier should be “distinctive, high quality and memorable,” and that’s why “they looked for the design to be a close collaboration between an architect and


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


engineer.” The key distinguishing aspect of the pier is its ‘dog leg’ structure, angling out to the east from the riverbank to a triangular public viewing platform pointing towards the Thames Barrier, then back towards the city, terminating in a floating pontoon waiting area.


This division initially came from an architectural decision to break the pier down into “more manageable distances,” says Dempsey. The pier needed to extend 130 metres to reach water deep enough for the Thames Clipper during all tides – the tidal range is high at that point of the river – but this would have made for a long, and perhaps oppressive walkway. He adds: “We didn’t want the sense of travelling down a tunnel or a long series of gangways, it was really about opening up the expansive views wherever we could.” With the decision made to separate the pier into two sections, the architects decided to design the first 40 metres as a generous “public promenade.” This is divided by a


ADF FEBRUARY 2020


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  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124