PROJECT REPORT: SPORTS & LEISURE FACILITIES 39
well as the needs assessment. This was soon refined during continuous engagement with the key stakeholders, with frequent ‘vision workshops’ and meetings to ensure that all parties were satisfied with progress. Something that was clear among all
parties, says Coyle, and a factor which “glued the team together,” was the opportunity that the site provided, plus the vision of an “aspirational leisure destination in a sensitive setting that encourages a connection to nature, outdoor active design, and a link back to indoor facilities.”As is common in sports and leisure however, achieving this would not be easy, and in fact multiple challenges awaited the design team through all the phases of the project.
Collaborating on site constraints One of the largest barriers the team faced were the constraints of the site itself, in fact caused by its abundant biodiversity, which also meant issues to address around the site’s infrastructure. One of the most prominent of these issues was the Grace Dieu Brook which runs around the site perimeter, which naturally constrained movement and created an obstacle that had to be retained.
Alongside this constraint, a pre-existing underground sewer was running diagonally across the site, with overhead power cables also running across this axis. Both of these would require relocating, with the power
ADF SEPTEMBER 2023
cables needing to be buried underground around the site perimeter, avoiding the mature trees while traversing challenging topography and restricting site access around the brook.
The architects were well-equipped for the challenge however, as Coyle explains, with the key to the remediation of these constraints lying in the strong collaboration between all parties in the project, including the design team, planning, the operator (Everyone Active) and the project’s ultimate client, NWLDC.
According to the architect, the practice fostered “an honest and open relationship throughout the process, with regular communication enabling deadlines to be met and design and site issues remediated at pace.” The team had a “really positive relationship,” he enthuses. With this collaboration at the core, the architect says that the project programme was “appropriately” set out based around these sites and building complexities, with the risks each proposed being considered constantly. One key risk to be mitigated was delays, given the possibility of further increases in the costs of materials in the current economic context. Via regular reviews of the programme, key project milestones began to be hit ahead of time, one of the earliest being the groundworks, which in turn allowed the structural package to be coordinated,
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Another example of context-responsive design is a “rhythm of engineered timber elements across the main facade,” designed to respond to the forest surrounding the building
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
