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
26 CASE STUDY


consented planning permission for a 140-room hotel proved unviable. As the building heights in the area


were only governed by the aviation restrictions of the nearby London City Airport, there was an opportunity to build a large tower. Residential was seen as the best option financially, and one which City Hall reportedly welcomed – but site restrictions meant this was no simple task.


SITE CONSTRAINTS While offering a range of opportunities, the site came with numerous constraints, including its position next to the listed dock, its compact size, irregular shape, and its exposure to the elements. Most important of all however were


two London Underground tunnels running directly below it. This section of the Jubilee line, in which two tunnels create a V-shape directly under the building, was reportedly a key issue from the get-go, limiting options for ground piling in the narrow space between the tunnels, thereby preventing the structural capacity to rise as high as would be otherwise desired – the latter being necessary to make the project financially viable. In order to tackle this barrier, the


team first had to establish the maximum piling capacity possible, including the prospect of working into the exclusion zones around the tunnels – agreed by Transport for London with the caveat that construction only be carried out within restricted areas and times – and with a commitment to carefully monitor the effects of the works. With the piling capacity calculated,


it became clear that even if the building were made to be lightweight to reduce the piling necessary, a traditional core loaded structure would not suffice to accommodate the neces- sary building loads. Instead, the Canary Wharf Group


THE KEY IDEA IS THAT EVERYTHING TENANTS NEED FOR LIVING – FROM SOCIALISING TO SHOPPING AND HEALTHCARE – IS WITHIN15MINUTES’ WALKING DISTANCE


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


utilised an external diagrid, which is naturally stable, transferring forces away from the tunnels. This is based on a braced steel tube system, enabling a building to resist lateral loads when designed as a hollow cantilever perpen- dicular to the ground. In effect, by using an assembly of


columns and beams – in this case in a diagrid pattern – a rigid frame is formed that amounts to a dense and strong structural wall along the exterior of the building. This exterior framing is designed to be sufficiently strong to allow the interior of the building to be simply framed for gravity loads. According to its architects, HCL, as


opposed to using a traditional core loaded building, the design resulted in


the building being 30% taller, 30% lighter, and 10% quicker to build.


A HYBRID BUILDING The rest of the above ground structure is a hybrid steel and concrete frame, which was constructed in eight-storey lifts that required tight tolerances. This core rose relatively quickly, with the diagrid structure following on closely, providing structural stability as the tower progressed. As the team moved up the building,


they utilised a number of different types of construction solutions to create the varying floor plates – all catering for the differing needs of the building’s functions. On the intermediate floors between the nodes, for example, a post tension concrete solution was utilised, which allowed for thin slabs and a reduction in the amount of reinforcement necessary and overall weight. Then, at the node floors, the team used


a steel beam solution with precast concrete slab units. This creates a deck between the buildings, which performs as a platform from which to create the next four floors of the diagrid, and separates the work above from the construction on the intermediate floors. With only four internal columns to


contend with across all these floors – all being near the building’s core – the clear- span structure allowed for large open layouts, with generous areas of uninter- rupted glazing. A further benefit introduced here, as the party walls are non structural, is that the building will permit reconfiguration at any time in the future.


A FIRST-CLASS EXPERIENCE Now completed, flats in the innovative structure have already sold well, notwith- standing the fact that with prices ascending from£1,928 pcm, the project is tailored towards the higher end of renters. The quality delivered befits this price tag however, together with the unique location and the wide-ranging amenities on offer that add desirability for thismarket. “Tenants can expect first-class amenity


spaces, designed by Johnson Naylor and dressed by David Phillips,” details Alastair Mullens, head of Vertus. “To complement these exceptional spaces, Newfoundland boasts the best uninterrupted views east, over Canary Wharf and the Docklands, or west towards the City and the rest of London,” he adds. Concluding, Mullens says the opening


of Newfoundland “marks a really exciting milestone in the evolution of the Canary Wharf estate, which many people now call home, making it a truly sustainable 24/7 city.” He adds: “It offers a truly unmatched rental lifestyle.” g


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