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
PROJECT REPORT: COMMERCIAL & WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS


23


windows and doors had been replaced with standard white PVCu ones, and various openings, arches and skylights had been either boarded over or filled in with blockwork.


Because of the ongoing discoveries, the studio had to keep their designs and plans relatively flexible for the duration of the project, while taking a careful approach. “Prior to and during the strip-out we continuously inspected the building, and evolved the scope of works as we discovered key features that were hidden by alterations,” says Ella Riley. During the second stage they stripped out test areas, carefully removing plaster from the brick face in the main reception due to mould growth and revealed historical brick arches. So the architect “decided to remove all the plaster to celebrate this feature.”


The interventions the practice could do on the building were limited by a number of factors, not least the site’s location within the Conservation Area, and the client’s key requirements. Other than asking for the building’s heritage features to be restored, Fabrix’s other main requirement was for the buildings to be left as a fairly open shell. “The buildings were to be left open, divided


ADF OCTOBER 2021


only to allow for safe exit in the event of fire,” says Hywel-Evans. With some of the space to be used as office space post-completion, the developer wanted the building to remain a fairly blank canvas for prospective tenants. “Communal facilities were planned and connecting pipework installed, but left incomplete to allow for flexibility of letting,” explains Hywel-Evans. “We were instructed to reimagine the internal spaces as a backdrop for future tenant fit-out, with Fabrix taking a directorial role.” The practice were also asked to ‘decorate’ all communal access routes however. Achieving planning consent meant paying close attention to the site’s location, as well as the building itself. “It is a building of note within the Conservation Area, limiting the scope of new works,” Wright explains. “New additions or extensions to the envelope were not permitted; we were only permitted to complete works on the facade to enhance the original industrial character of the building.” They were also “encouraged to discard any insensitive late additions,” she continues. She gives the example of some “unsightly” plant that was on the roof, and connecting ductwork which she says dominated the roof terrace.


The loss of this previously undesignated heritage asset would have been detrimental to the whole Old Kent Road area


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