102 VISITOR CENTRES
kingfisher bank. Te predominant use of timber as the construction and cladding material was a logical solution; both in its ecological and sustainable credentials; and also sympathetic to its location.’
While the authority desired a landmark building, the budget was a challenge, and for a while the unique bird-watching tower looked like a step too far, as it necessitated a steel structural frame to provide disabled lift access. Tankfully, funds were found and the curvaceous viewing area was completed. Berzins explained: ‘Randomised timber cladding of various sizes, widths and lengths was developed as a design concept reminiscent of the bark from a tree, with open joints between timbers enabling glimpses across the lake at various levels. It is not intended to be invisible, however, it should still be sympathetic to its surroundings while not disturbing nature. We believe we have designed a building that brings nature together with the human world, without ignoring differences or challenges, but tries to harmonise and integrate. Te building over time will change
We believe we have designed a building that brings nature together with the human world, without ignoring differences or challenges
Left The Viewing Tower at Sutton Hoo allows visitors to the National Trust property at Woodbridge, Suffolk, to better appreciate the unique site’s archaeology
Size: 990 sq m
Architect: Nissen Richards Studio Client: National Trust
colour, more vegetation will envelope the roof and surroundings, but it will not disappear. Its intention is to be a landmark and encourage visitors, but to do it with a sympathetic approach. Te birds and wildlife will judge.’ Another visitor centre tower has just won the RIBA East Award 2022, but this time its purpose was to view archaeology rather than wildlife. Sutton Hoo tower, designed by Nissen Richards Studio for the National Trust, was an addition to the existing 2003 visitor centre and enabled visitors to see from above, for the first time, how the famous burial mounds fit into the landscape. Director Jim Richards explained that given the sensitive nature of the setting – not only a scheduled monument but also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on the edge of an SSSI – the design approach had to consider the location of the tower, the form, massing and materiality. ‘Te tower was quite a controversial proposal in terms of the physical impact on archaeology, the potential visual impact on the wider landscape and also the need to fully respect the sensitivity of the burial ground itself,’
Project Manager / Cost Consultant: AECOM Engineer: Price & Myers
Main contractor: Vinci Construction UK Ltd
Landscape Consultant: Terra Firma Landscape Consultancy Lighting design: Arup
he says. Despite that, his company resisted the temptation to conceal the building. Instead, the raw finishes of acid-washed steel and charred larch timber slats were chosen to interact with the surrounding trees to gradually reveal the structure as visitors approached. ‘We use the term “contemporary yet complementary” a lot in our work – the understanding of the significance of an existing building or site is paramount to ensure that a balanced approach is taken. However, we like to be bold in our approach – we don’t look to “blend-in” or apologise for our architecture – but we do want to remain honest and respectful of context,’ says Richards.
At the Bosjes Estate in Western Cape, South Africa, architect Coetzee Steyn of Steyn Studios had previously created the iconic white-winged Bosjes Chapel. With the popularity that had brought to the estate, the client came back with the request for a gift shop and café, which left him with the tricky challenge of creating a building that would complement but not attempt to compete with his previous masterpiece. ‘We inadvertently created our own context,’ Steyn says. ‘Te approach in the second phase was to hand the reigns back to the landscape, but at the same time still provide a touch of interest; more like an adornment to the landscape – a piece of architectural jewellery.’
GARETH GARDNER
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125
