search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
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
12 INSIGHTS


White Ink Architects PRACTICE PROFILE


James Parker spoke to a Belfast practice founded at the start of the 21st century, which expanded to specialise in “difficult” mixed use schemes, and is now the first in Northern Ireland to be completely employee owned


W


hite Ink Architects was founded in Belfast in 2001 by three architects, Sean Tunney, Claude Maguire and Joan McCoy. Initially called Maguire Tunney McCoy, it was


rebranded as White Ink in 2003. The firm began as a partnership, but converted into a limited company in 2005, and took the plunge to full employee ownership earlier this year. Tunney, Maguire and McCoy remain directors, but the company is now owned by a trust that holds shares on behalf of the employees, without individual risk being placed on them. This new ownership structure also benefits clients by further motivating staff, “as every employee has a vested interest in the success of the practice.” says McCoy. As well as sharing in the financial success of the business, staff “get to influence its future.”


The three founding partners had all come from studios working on multi-million-pound projects, and McCoy admits it was “quite a change to be working on smaller projects initially,” although the scale of jobs quickly grew. The first UK project White Ink was commissioned to design was an office fit-out in Manchester in 2005, and its reach has grown steadily across the country. From taking on its first admin assistant in 2003, the Belfast office now houses 32 staff, including over 20 architects.


Ethos


A key part of the practice’s ethos is to “bridge the gap between design and delivery” – i.e. “to be interested in both, where architecture realised is the aim – not simply designs on paper.” McCoy says that one of the firm’s points of difference is that it is “genuinely interested in construction and getting things built.” In addition, she says, White Ink “see every problem as a design problem – with a solution to be designed – whether it is planning a layout or working out a procurement strategy.” Another important phrase that runs through the firm is ‘people


first,’ considering everyone’s needs, from within the practice through to clients and external collaborators, contractors and building users. White Ink claim their designs are inherently informed by this, such as in residential projects, where “every single apartment is considered related to the needs of the occupants who will live in it for the next 70-100 years.”


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK Growing


As the practice grew, responsibility was delegated to individual team members, which now include an office manager, business support manager (covering finance, practice and IT), and a freelance IT consultant. Different team members hold responsibilities including Quality, Environment and Sustainability, Principal Designer, Specification and Marketing. Alongside the three directors are five associates, but aside from


this, the management structure is “quite flat,” says McCoy, as well as being meritocratic. “Anyone can be a project lead – if they show aptitude, responsibility, and talent.” As projects have increased in size, the practice has naturally had to formalise roles and responsibilities within project teams – including defining the project lead and specific responsibilities. While their key expertise is in “complex and difficult” mixed use urban developments, they have also carried out refurbishments, industrial work, and university schemes.


Brentford Lock West Phase 2, delivered by White Ink Architects, concept design architect: Mae © Simon Kennedy


ADF DECEMBER 2021


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