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: MIXED USE SCHEMES


gardens or the adjacent terrace. Much of the glazing was specified as tall but modestly scaled apertures – which just punctuate the facade – so that residents and outsiders are always at an acute angle of each other (especially towards the park), and along the northern boundary the original dairy building’s gable wall was retained to ensure that all views from that side were protected.


Gaining this balance reportedly took several months to achieve, including lots of back and forth between the project team and Camden Council’s design office.


Daylighting Of course, with such a strong emphasis on designing for privacy, consideration had to be paid to ensuring daylighting wasn’t compromised. Utilising Velfac glazing systems, the architects aimed to introduce as much natural light as possible without hampering the privacy aspects the design had achieved.


On the lower ground floor especially, Simon explains, “the idea was to maximise the amount of glazing we could get.” The interior architects specified white walls, enhancing the available light levels to the maximum. To mitigate the extensive glazing here, the original scheme had a system of adjustable louvres, but Simon tells me that Stanhope believed this to be “a bit fussy and prone to failure.” Instead, the practice specified simpler screens, as well as the angling of the glazing, which combined reportedly aid the sightline issues “significantly.” To further increase the natural l ight available where it was needed, skylights were specified. “Had we not introduced these,” Simon explains, “I think it would have been a bit on the gloomy side in places.”


He summarises: “Each level and home responds to different requirements, ensuring that no one’s missed out.”


Collaborative construction Though it wasn’t without its challenges, the construction process behind the scheme was “a collaborative success,” according to the architectural technologist. “In the beginning, we discussed various methods and materials for the structures themselves,” he continues, “we considered precast planks at one point, for example, but getting them in was going to be difficult, and we also looked at not using as much concrete, but the extra time it would take didn’t match the client’s aspirations.”


ADF DECEMBER 2020


After talking to the multiple contractors involved and deciding on the best route forwards together, the finished homes were formed with a reinforced concrete frame from the basement up to first floor level, with a steel frame over to form the pitched roof.


One structural challenge presented in this construction process was the retention of the existing north and west walls, for which the team undertook reinforced concrete underpinning. Alongside this, contiguous piling close to the south and east boundary was necessary to allow the basement works to progress with minimum disruption to the adjoining structures, which were being monitored throughout for any movement.


“If the wrong type of joint was used, or if there had been a profusion of heavy rivets, it would have killed the purity of the concept”


29


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


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