Context

This case study describes the Melbourne School of Design (MSD) at the University of Melbourne campus in Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.

The building provides approximately 16,000 sqm of useable area. It was handed over by the builders, Brookfield Multiplex, to the university in August 2014, completed in 15 months – four months early – and for an average construction cost that is 5% below the average cost of 26 comparable buildings in Australia constructed in the previous three years. The project has been published extensively⁴⁶ and readers who wish to view plans and details are referred in particular to the journal The Plan.⁴⁷ Within 18 months of its completion, the building had been recognised by over 15 awards for architecture and campus context, the interiors, its use of materials and the structural design, as well as its environmental performance.

A replacement building had been an aspiration of the faculty for many years. It had been accommodated primarily in two adjacent structures, a custom-built concrete frame structure from 1964 and a smaller load-bearing brick building erected to support a neoclassical Bank of New South Wales façade built in 1856 that had been relocated from the city in 1936. Since moving into the custom facility at that time, the academic users had grown from 350 students in a single academic programme to over 3,000 students, comprising over 1,000 in six streams of a graduate school, including a doctoral programme and over 2,000 in a broad undergraduate programme that prepared students for four different graduate schools on campus.

Academic staff numbers had also increased, though not commensurately, as had professional (administrative) staff reflecting the operating model at Melbourne in which faculties and graduate schools are responsible for successful delivery of their operations.

Figure 4.29Exterior north

The capital funding context in which the building was delivered was challenging. As is the case in many countries, the funding model for higher education in Australia no longer provides capital explicitly for campus infrastructure, including buildings. These costs must be met from the general income stream, of which approximately 20% is provided directly by the national government based on domestic student numbers and the balance from competitive sources, fee income or other sources. As the building stock ages and, in particular, the inventory constructed in a time of lesser construction quality needs to be replaced (for us, that is the period of the 1960s), a case must be made for a broader value of construction investment than simply providing academic offices and teaching spaces.

Briefing (A Case for Construction)

The case for the Melbourne School of Design building was written to frame the project as a research opportunity for many disciplines, both in the delivery phase and onwards into occupation and use. The opportunity was there, too, to recast the role of an academic building to work not only for its occupants but also to contribute to the academic vision of the University in promoting multidisciplinary collaborations and to provide campus users, students, staff and visitors the opportunity for insights into other bodies of knowledge.

The faculty had been accommodated primarily in a purpose-built structure completed in 1964, originally designed for some 600 students but accommodating over 1,300 by early 2007. Constructed with an inadequate budget, the structure was failing. Metal cladding had been added in the 1980s to enclose the external concrete that was spalling; other extreme failures were experienced in servicing and fittings. An adjacent 1936 building provided additional office space. Overall, the site was serving the campus poorly.

Planning for the building gained focus in late 2007. The faculty embarked on the preparation of the project brief; this coincided with the introduction of the Melbourne Curriculum (popularly known as the Melbourne Model), entailing a thorough reworking of all teaching and the establishment of a graduate school in which six professional degree programmes are taught, together with changing expectations in research and engagement performance. These academic aspirations underpinned the brief and guided development of the design and construction through the protracted period it took to secure financing to deliver the building.

The brief was written after an extensive analysis of needs that included engaging the users in exploring changed modes of working and learning. Space was approved to accommodate over 1,800 students and 130 staff; by the time the building was completed, the population being served had risen to over 2,600 students and 140 staff, illustrating further how difficult it is in a dynamic academic context to plan with certainty.

When completed, the brief comprised over 800 pages of aspirations, detailed space requirements and performance expectations. These pages were summarised in four statements that the project should explore:

• 1. Research into the future of academic workplace.
• 2. A study in the future of studio learning.
• 3. A living building.
• 4. A pedagogical building.

The site is in the centre of the main campus for the university, located adjacent to the principal administrative building (and location of the Vice Chancellor’s office) and opposite the Student Union, with the hard surface Student Union Lawn an active centre of campus life. With this central location not directly approached by a main road, site access posed challenges and it was strongly suggested that the new accommodation could be better provided on a site off the main campus. The MSD argued for remaining on the more difficult site as the building offered an opportunity to reinvigorate the centre of campus and demonstrate therefore the new academic vision. The decision further challenged the budget but provided considerable campus value.

Design

An open competition was run in 2008 in which architecture practices were asked to submit responses to the four statements – that is, not to provide a design proposition as a singular response to a schedule of needs – and 134 entries were received.⁴⁸ In a two-stage process, the selection was made of a design consultant team that had demonstrated an ability to engage in the project as a research exploration on these four questions. While most submissions repeated the usual architectural positioning (‘I studied architecture so I know exactly how to design a school of architecture’), the shortlisted teams all demonstrated an understanding of the potential for exploring the four questions posed. This first appointment set the precedent of bringing to the project those firms, consultants and the main contractor who could engage with the research potential of the project.

A central ambition for this project was to reinvigorate the core of the campus and provide a place of community for all students and staff. An audacious goal for a single building, this demanded that the design rejected the closed nature of the typical campus building. Instead, the strategy was to provide ready access from the primary transport hub to the Student Union building and to invite everyone to walk through.

Construction

The building is characterised by its careful and close detailing throughout. All vertical concrete elements (columns, walls, stairs and lift towers) were manufactured off-site as were the timber roof elements, steel stairs and other fittings. This enabled the building to be constructed in 15 months after a five-month contract for site clearance and remediation.

Some elements of the building were made on site, in particular the wishbone beams that cover the basement bookstack of the library, above which is the south-facing sloped lawn and the curvaceous glazed wall. The careful formwork, taking six weeks to prepare, was possible as the basement level stacks lay outside the critical path. As an example of construction reference material, the level of finish achieved here reflects the care of cabinetry rather than typical formwork.

In demonstrating the process of design, the building highlights the opportunity for an academic project to be undertaken as a research project. In this case, the project team set aside approximately 1% of the construction budget (that is, AU$1 million) for innovation at the start of design. This sum was to be allocated to building elements with the agreement of all of the consultant team to support innovative features that would further the goals of the project. As the project passed through its several budget reviews and value management exercises, this budget provision ensured that key aspects of the design survived. One example of this was the use of structural timber for the atrium roof, important in extending the pedagogical purposes of the building, achieving a 6 Star outcome and creating a visually engaging workspace.

A Platform for Research and Teaching

Throughout the design and construction period, students and academic staff participated in the process of delivery. Consultants worked with students in classes to examine aspects of the design, explaining decisions made and exploring options. Several research projects were framed to examine aspects of the delivery.

The construction team not only delivered the building four months early but conducted over 100 site tours to enable students to observe progress regularly. The team also taught regularly scheduled classes in which they shared decisions they were making, as well as having students work through challenges.

Spaces in Use

The result is a building that welcomes all visitors, demonstrates the outcomes of good design and construction in a legible manner, with materials used in multiple and innovative ways and provides a variety of workplace formats to support the different user communities.

A building in the round conceptualised with four primary façades, the building creates places for casual gathering on all sides. A generous passage runs across the ground floor, inviting all to flow from the city access on the east through to the Student Union and centre of campus on the west. Organised along this axis are three primary activities: the library, extensive workshops and two exhibition galleries. Visitors to the building enter to observe readily the two primary modes of working in the faculty – a scholarly one of publication and study that is complemented by the active use of models and assembly through which materials and performance are experienced. These visually lively (and often messy) spaces convey a sense of how design is engaged and encourages students from other disciplines to linger and viscerally experience the knowledge explored in the faculty.

Complementing this is a large atrium one floor up, itself a public plaza though protected from the weather, surrounded with workplaces for research and teaching. An opening in the floor above near the entry-level workshop offers a glimpse of the atrium above and extends the invitation to explore the building.

Modelling their future professional experience, students in the graduate programmes in the Melbourne School of Design are expected to engage substantively across the six professional streams, both formally by taking elective subjects in the other streams but also casually by working alongside and with students enrolled in those streams. The building reflects this expectation.

Academic workspaces are provided in a variety of configurations. While approximately 40% of academics are provided with cellular offices with glazed walls, the Dean’s workplace sets the tone for the rest – the faculty executive works together without walls and doors. The best views across campus and the city beyond are to be seen from the lounge and kitchen area accessible to staff and doctoral students, a generous space on the top level adjacent to a large and generously planted roof terrace.

Recognising that circulation routes are a purposeful transit, as well as an opportunity for serendipitous encounters, they ring the atrium void with a timber-lined staircase to the west end, encouraging occupants to walk rather than use the lifts. The landings on these Y-shaped stairs or glimpses of colleagues walking along the balconies often lead to impromptu conversations. The configuration enables staff and students to see one another.

The atrium level is a primary teaching space as well as the location of the Dean’s office. The atrium floor is flanked to the south by five studios that are enclosed by two doors and a centrally pivoted wall, thus able to open up completely. This enables us to celebrate one of the distinctive aspects of design teaching, the review or ‘crit’, inviting students across the programmes to drop in and participate in this essential experience, and it creates a very large exhibition space to be used for end-of-year shows. To the north of the atrium are digital support facilities – computer labs for casual use when not timetabled for teaching, and printing facilities and additional classrooms.

In the atrium, a long fixed table runs east to west across most of the 60m length, providing a workspace with power and network sockets, as well as a robust wireless signal. Moveable furniture fills the rest of the floor, with tables small and large. The variety of work areas allows for a breadth of function, from sole study through private meetings to more casual collaborations. The space responds to commentary that tertiary study can be an isolating experience, even though much of it takes place with large audiences. For many, the campus experience is limited to timetabled and programmed spaces that do not facilitate more casual encounters and discussions.

An unexpected feature is the timber-finished atrium space with three levels of classrooms suspended from exposed laminated veneer timber beams. This large (20m x 60m x 15m) volume is filled with workplaces and ringed upper levels with more diverse workplaces. The atrium is enclosed by a 1500 sqm stainless steel mesh surface that is tensioned across steel tube fixing restraints. These tubes pull the mesh into a faceted and sculptured surface that provides appropriate safety barriers while allowing the atrium to be experienced without visual, acoustic and airflow separation.

Figure 4.30 Interior atrium

On busy days, there can be over 200 people working in this open volume across four levels. The acoustics are remarkable and the many conversations make for a quiet hum (rather like a cathedral experience) that encourages conversation while supporting quiet working. The acoustic outcomes have been achieved by deploying sound-absorbent wall linings that also act as presentation and pin-up spaces along the passageways, and have been used behind perforated timber linings of doors and the suspended structure.

Figure 4.31 Interior staircase and timber coffered roof

Figure 4.32 West-facing heritage façade

The building reveals itself in unexpected places throughout. A glazed wall in the library bookstacks reveals the machine room, positioning building operations as reference material. Likewise, the foundations are revealed in the lobby area outside the basement lecture halls. The undersides of the primary Y-stairs have not been clad, showing off the large steel trusses which support stairs that are experienced when walking up them as delicate and finely finished. Thus, both the informed and casual visitor can read the building and interpret their experience of the spaces.

Cultural Value

Universities play a role in maintaining cultural patrimony and engaging heritage in future purposes. This building does so in several ways. The open and collaborative mode of working is central to the culture of peer learning, variously called studio, problem-based or project-based learning. The generous distribution and variety of informal workplaces throughout the structure demonstrates the culture to all visitors. The 1856 façade has been transformed from an item of urban wallpaper, oddly adhered to a poorly proportioned brick backdrop, into an engaged and vital theatre piece that now frames the Student Union Lawn and can be studied at close hand in the student lounge, an immediate teaching aid. A third cultural element is the restoration of a Japanese room, first installed in 1965 in the previous building to mark for the first time a cultural reengagement with Japan after the traumatic Pacific War. It was designed by Professor Shirgeru Yura, who also sourced all the construction materials and finishes from Japan.

Conclusion

On a campus in which cross-disciplinary research and learning is a central tenet, this building offers a workplace to students and staff that speaks to these ambitions. Used extensively by all, the building not only manifests the activity within but creates a variety of workplace experiences for students and staff, from intimate and quiet to collaborative and open, in support of both individual scholarship and co-working. In a school that presents design as spanning from policy writing through form making to budget allocations and operating decisions, the building illustrates all aspects of designing from briefing through budget-making to operations. While demonstrably presenting contemporary academic ambition of engagement and openness, the building supports the many facets of deep scholarship.

John Wardle Architects in collaboration with NADAA

Challenge

The overall aim of the Karolinska projects was to align all physical learning spaces with the emerging curricula in health professions education.

In 2009 it was established that physical learning spaces at Karolinska Institutet (KI) and the Karolinska University Hospital (KUH) were not aligned with current and emerging curricula for education of health professionals. There was a clear case for realignment of physical learning spaces in clinical and non-clinical settings. It was further noted that physical learning spaces in new buildings did not reflect contemporary curricular theory based on active learning and the use of new learning technologies. Instead, many new buildings still reflected ideas about teaching from the first half of the 20th century, with an emphasis on teaching as ‘transfer of information’, discipline isolation and lack of informal learning spaces.

All physical learning spaces at KI and KUH were assessed on the metrics of their suitability for enabling active learning approaches in formal and informal (social) learning environments.

The Networked Learning Landscape

Nordquist and Laing⁵¹ operationalised the networked learning landscape into four scales: classroom, building, campus and city. Each scale provides a distinctive milieu within which particular kinds of learning activities can be organised or provided. The distinction of these four scales by no means suggests that other settings for learning do not exist. They do, nevertheless, represent significantly different kinds of venues for learning experiences that are worth highlighting for the purposes of designing learning spaces in order to align with the needs of the curriculum. The networked learning landscape is an organising conceptual framework and makes it possible to see the integration of physical learning spaces on various scales.

Figure 4.33 Future learning environment concept 2009–2015

The visionary (Phase 1) brief was based on a theory-driven curriculum approach. Three major guiding principles for the performance of learning spaces on all scales were extrapolated from contemporary learning theories (such as guided discovery learning, experiential learning, social constructivism, collaborative learning and adult learning principles): dialogue; visualisation of previous experience and knowledge; and peer-to-peer learning. TEAL was also added to the visionary conversation (see page 127).

Two conceptual programmes (one for formal and one for informal learning environments) were developed by the architects during Phase 2 in close collaboration with educational experts and property developers.

Results

The conceptual programmes were then applied to four major projects: one redevelopment project of all current physical learning spaces at KI and three major new development projects (among them the largest hospital project in northern Europe for the last 50 years).

Informal Learning Environments (in-between Spaces)

An initial POE was conducted in the autumn of 2014 by a group of anthropologists using an ethnographic approach. This study focused on the redevelopment of the first large informal learning environment that was opened in early 2012, which had, at the time of the study, been in use for almost two years. The overall question was: how were students using the new informal learning spaces?

The space where the new learning environment had been developed used to be empty corridors connecting different parts of a building containing classrooms and lecture theatres, a library and a restaurant. The redeveloped spaces had previously only been used for circulation and not for any stationary

Table 4.3 Scope of the initial POE carried out on the first phase of development at the Karolinska Institutet

Project	Redevelopment/ re-purposing of physical learning spaces	New learning spaces
Karolinska Institutet (campus Solna and Huddinge)	115 classrooms 15 informal learning spaces
New Karolinska University Hospital		All bookable classrooms and conference rooms Specific physical learning spaces in the clinical environments, wards, procedural rooms and in outpatient settings
Biomedicum laboratory		One 220-seat learning hall Three 40-to60-person classrooms All designed informal learning spa cesinthe building All conference rooms
Neo laboratory		One 200-seat learning hall One 80-seat learning hall All designed informal learning spaces in the building One multipurpose room (combined exams, exhibition hall and multimedia studio)

Figures 4.34 and 4.35 Future learning

Figure 4.36 Informal learning environments

Figure 4.37 A large and more comprehensive study will be initiated during 2016

activities. The educational idea with the redevelopment had been to foster peer-to-peer learning and create a space where students could collaborate outside scheduled class hours.

The study showed that the new learning spaces were used throughout the day and over the week, starting before 8.00am in the morning and lasting well after 7.00pm. Students were using the space both to study individually and to study in small groups of three to four people. Some students used the space also for formal group assignments. A few complaints were made that the space was cold during the winter but it was still used intensively despite these caveats. Many of the students told the anthropologist that they had previously been studying at home or outside Karolinska Institutet (KI) but the new environments had provided them with space to study and meet their fellow students.

A number of new informal learning environments have been opened since then and the same phenomenon can be observed: students are using them from early morning to late evening to work individually and to study together. What is interesting to observe is how tremendously popular all whiteboards have become in almost all informal learning spaces.

A large and more comprehensive study will be initiated during 2016 where all informal learning environments will be analysed in terms of when specific spaces are being used, by whom and for what purpose. The results will be analysed in relation to the educational intentions with the redevelopment, which were primarily to foster peer-to-peer learning and secondly to get students from different health professions programmes to come together.

Formal Learning Environments

The first new classrooms opened in 2013 but the vast majority (>90%) opened after the summer holidays in 2014. Because it takes time for the faculty to get used to the spaces and find ways to relate to them, a formal POE has yet to be conducted on the educational impact of the redevelopment. Data has only been collected in relation to the actual physical qualities of the spaces: how whiteboard surfaces work, the quality of the swivel chairs and the new furniture, and how technology works. This has provided substantial feedback on what to consider when selecting appropriate materials and furniture.

Small introductory half-day workshops have been conducted on the ideas behind the new spaces and how they are intended to work with the faculty. This has also provided interesting insights in how spaces are being taken into occupancy by faculty. The horseshoe format of many redeveloped classrooms and the round tables seem to be popular among faculty.

A group of explorative studies will be initiated during 2016 to more carefully analyse how faculty and students use the redeveloped spaces. Studies trying to ‘measure effects’ and causality between space and learning are methodological, very difficult to design and there will always be a problem with Hawthorne effects and lack of rigid controls. With this taken into account, the approach at KI will be to address the overall POEs from, and educational perspective by a series of explorative studies mainly using qualitative research methods with students and faculty in both formal and informal learning environments..

For further project descriptions see http://ki.se/en/medh/future-learning-environments

Lessons Learned

• 1. It is important to develop an educational vision and to extrapolate performance requirements of physical learning spaces from this vision in order to achieve curriculum alignment.
• 2. It is important to base the educational vision on underlying curriculum theory and theories of learning in higher education.
• 3. The networked learning landscape conceptual framework enabled a holistic view of physical learning spaces and integration of different kinds of environments, formal and informal.
• 4. The important collaboration of educational academic experts, real estate developers and architects is key to both a successful project framing and the implementation of specific projects.

Context: The Estates Department as Translator

In the 1980s the University of Strathclyde was typical of many universities in that it built walls around its edges to define its territory. However, less than 20 years later these walls were coming down and the boundary between city and university became intentionally blurred. This physical change was also symbolic of the government’s agenda to widen access to universities to a broader range of students but also to enter into greater partnerships with the local community, businesses and neighbouring institutions. Another key change has been in technology.

This case study outlines the important contribution the estates department can play in translating between academics and design teams. The academics should lead and appoint a champion/sponsor for the project; however, there is much the estates team can do to support.

University staff may only be involved in one building project in their career and hence estates staff can guide them on the processes and best practice. Also, estates personnel will act as a translator of acronyms and terms used by university staff and design teams.

Estates personnel should collate key university documents and highlight appropriate inter-related projects. Although much of this will be on a university’s website, it is helpful to point to the links and talk through the information.

Ownership of Space

For example, when designing learning spaces and accommodating more space per student, this need not result in an absolute increase in area if parallel measures are being taken to increase space utilisation through timetable and policy review. The Universities of Sunderland and Liverpool are good examples of this, where laboratory classes were brought together to create excellent facilities which are well used. These are featured on the S-Labs website which is a good resource for laboratory design in higher education.⁵²

This is just one of the many useful networks that exist in higher education that gather and share good practice in campus design and planning. Others examples are Society for College and University Planners, AUDE and the HEDQF.

Students do not think about who owns the space: what is important to them is that the space is fit for purpose, good quality and inspiring. It makes economic sense to share resources where possible. The senior estates personnel should be key in highlighting where there may be potential sharing opportunities. This can be difficult to facilitate for a number of factors; for example, an incompatible timetable or lack of knowledge of duplicate facilities. It also involves a culture change to see the benefits of sharing as a positive rather than as a nuisance or risk. A good example from the University of Strathclyde was when there was an immediate need for teaching space, due to a fire in one of the buildings. Time was booked in the local cinema for early morning classes. Some adjustments were required, such as additional task lighting, but overall it proved to be a cost-effective solution. The rental costs do need to be carefully weighed up and assessed but at various times the University of Strathclyde took advantage of its city centre location to use local exhibition, theatre and music venues, including recording studios.

Likewise, some university spaces may be used by the local community in the evenings and out of semester time to improve occupancy and gain income.

Figure 4.38 Central atrium, University of Strathclyde Technology and Innovation Centre designed by BDP Architects

Figure 4.39 Technology and Innovation Centre, University of Strathclyde

The University of Aberdeen has taken it a step further by being a key partner/funder with Aberdeen City Council and Sportscotland in the Aberdeen Sports Village, which collectively have enabled state-of-the-art facilities to be provided for both students and the local community. The University of Strathclyde has partnered with industry to develop the Technology and Innovation Centre based on research themes, which opened in 2015 and is estimated to have an annual economic impact of £64.5 million by 2021/22. In this building there is an intermingling of academic researchers and industrialists.⁵³

Another aspect of ownership is having shared workspace. Although widely adopted in the commercial world, this has been rare in higher education, except for some part-time staff and post-graduate students. However, a couple of estates departments (the Universities of Newcastle and Glasgow) are piloting agile working by not providing a fixed desk for every staff member and acknowledging the high percentage of time staff spend at meetings or out on campus.

Stakeholders

Once a potential project is identified, it is important to assemble the best team. Again, the estates team has a role in making recommendations and securing the right personnel and the appropriate governance arrangements and structure. It is important to harness in-house expertise for projects where appropriate but it does also need to be carefully managed.

The success of any space on campus is dependent on people, so it is important to involve the key stakeholders at the correct time and keep in touch with them to pick up post-occupancy feedback for a virtuous loop of continuous improvement. It is often debated in universities who the stakeholders are: students, staff, industry partners, employers, parents, alumni, funding bodies and so on. In reality they all are, with slightly different expectations and requirements. Often the external demands drive a cultural change from within universities. Dealing with this can be one of the hardest issues to manage, but to ignore it could risk serious failings in the project. However, estates personnel must ensure they are supporting, rather than steering, the change. This is particularly true in terms of the academic workplace where academics may consider the individual office to be the only solution to support their scholarly work. It is important not to make assumptions on this and an academic workplace tool was created to try and help facilitate this.⁵⁴ Learning and Teaching Hub, University of Glasgow designed by HLM Architects

Figures 4.40 and 4.41

With the advent of tuition fees and reduction in grants, the term ‘student as customer’ has come more to the fore. However, this is not always a useful way to describe the relationship, as students are more likely to consider themselves in a partnership rather than a simple business transaction. Hence, it is important within the client team to engage students. The University of Glasgow has successfully used student interns within their estates department on project work including student surveys to inform pilot learning spaces which in turn are informing a new Learning and Teaching Hub.

In thinking of stakeholders, we need to think of a diverse group of people with many different cultural backgrounds, beliefs and needs, and reflect these in a campus and buildings that support this rich mix of people and are inclusive to all. Within this mix, people need to feel empowered with an element of personalisation to suit different working styles. The same is true for students in learning spaces.

Outcome-Based Spaces

Allowing this element of choice within boundaries has been shown to aid productivity. This is a key outcome in supporting any space. It is essential to focus on supporting outcomes when designing. Knowing the right questions to ask is critical to inform a compelling business case. Estates personnel must lend strong support, rather than attempt to lead. Examples could include:

• • In a learning environment, it could be to accommodate greater numbers of students, support graduate attributes, achieve better engagement and attainment.
• • A learning spaces toolkit is available that is a useful resource.⁵⁵
• • In a research environment, it could be to raise research income.
• • In the workplace, it could be accommodating more staff or changes in working practices and/or improving wellbeing by looking at biophillic design.⁵⁶
• • Reducing carbon footprint.

Cutting across all of the above could be knowledge exchange and increasing collaboration opportunities. The space and technology alone will not ensure successful collaborations but it can certainly aid. (The University of Michigan has carried out some interesting research on this,⁵⁷ which showed that when researchers share a building, especially a floor, the likelihood of forming new collaborations increases dramatically.)

New Types of Space

Piloting and protoyping is best before wholesale change. Estates personnel have a role to play to ensure these opportunities are taken and proper feedback mechanisms are put in place. Many new technologies fail and do not become mainstream, so this needs to be built into a project. Innovation involves some risk of failing, so procedures need to establish manageable risks with fallback options. In the Loughborough Collaborative lecture theatre (see page 40) the fear of failure was such that full-scale mock-ups of the seating were created and even the final fit-out was designed in such a way that it could easily be removed if unsuccessful. Thankfully that has not happened and the architects involved have continued to enhance and develop their ideas at various universities.

Another way to test ideas or respond to the seasonal needs of a campus is to consider pop-ups/plug-in structures. This was something the University of Strathclyde explored with temporary structures for open days, freshers’ week, research week, graduation time, etc., to house information, projects and extra catering at these times when additional or concentrated numbers were expected on campus. Inspiration for this project was taken from the successful Merchant City festival in the year of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

As well as the importance of individual spaces, the circulation that joins them is also important. This should be open and welcoming, particularly within accessible public areas to showcase the activities beyond. There have been an increasing number of atriums in higher education but these must be designed carefully to ensure they are useful rather than wasteful spaces.

Another issue to watch, which is frequently raised by users, is flexibility. Yes, it is important to future-proof spaces but not at the expense of making a space so flexible that it fails in its main purpose and is compromised too much.

Learning from Other Sectors

In order to innovate, you often need to draw inspiration from other sectors, such as retail, hotels and museums. This seems to apply particularly at present to connecting the physical and virtual space. There was an interesting workshop at the Society for College and University Planners conference in July 2015. Some examples they highlighted were:

• • While a new Kate Spade shop was being fitted out in New York, there was a window display of product images and a machine on which these products and others could be ordered. So not only did it build up excitement before the store was opened but allowed that to be translated into revenue.
• • At a train station in Korea, a photographic touch screen display of supermarket products allowed passengers to order goods so that they arrived by the time they reached home.
• • A British Airways advert changed to show where the plane flying overhead was travelling to or from.

What could universities learn and apply from these examples?

Conclusion

A final key question to bear in mind as a check on any university project is: ‘What makes you want to come on campus and to this building?’ The reasons may be changing as technology supports a more distributed work and learning community but we are still social beings and universities need to adapt and capture the best of an on-campus experience or they will fade away. There is a useful tool available for workshops with stakeholders at the early/warm-up stage of a project that looks at experience whether at campus, building or room level from the initial enticement stage through enter, engage, exit and extend in terms of toss, keep, improve and create. The right type of spaces/work should emerge from this process.

Context

It is fair to say that ten years ago the London School of Economics (LSE) was not recognised for the quality of its estate. In fact, while most people have heard of the LSE, not very many know where it is located or can visualise its public face. Accordingly, the two main tenets of the LSE Estates Strategy are:

• • The creation of a world class estate, commensurate with its international academic reputation.
• • The establishment of a ‘University Quarter’, with associated improvements to the ground plane and public realm.

Part of the response to this strategy was the LSE opening the doors of its Saw Swee Hock Student Centre in early 2014. It had been a long and sometimes painful journey (over 500 objections to the Planning Application and the entire £1million contingency spent in the ground!) but the School definitely thought it was worth it.

This unashamedly modern and unique building was constructed on a very constrained site, to a very challenging brief. In a departure from the norm, the School used a list of adjectives to illustrate how it wanted the building to be perceived and the messages it wanted it to convey. It said it wanted it to be: Adaptable/Ambitious/AwardWinning/Beautiful/Distinctive/Fun/Innovative/Inspirational/International/Original/Participatory/Recognisable/Stimulating/Sustainable and Unique!⁵⁸

The questions for the School were:

• • Did it achieve these ambitions?
• • Was it well received by its users?
• • Did it perform well?
• • Did it add sufficient value to the LSE and its estate?

In terms of value, the building was not cheap to construct and the lofty ambitions of the brief resulted in a construction cost of over £4,000/sqm (including demolition). However, the new building at 6,000 sqm virtually doubled the floor space of the previous building on the site and it achieved a BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ rating. It generated unprecedented publicity for a university building, being featured in no fewer than 52 publications, it has so far won 15 design awards (with the LSE being named AJ 100 Client of the Year 2014), and was shortlisted for both the Stirling Prize and the Mies Van Der Rohe Award.

However, the point of designing and constructing buildings is not or should not be about PR and awards but about improving the experience and indeed utility of those who use, operate and enjoy them. But how can this be evidenced? The great modernist architect Louise Kahn opined:

The Saw had something of this: John Tuomey’s rudimentary cardboard model – all odd shapes and angles – and Sheila O’Donnell’s soft and subtle watercolours were hard to measure, but measured they eventually were by our quantity surveyor and were then brought to reality by our builder. However, in a departure from Kahn, we did indeed measure the outcome and impact of the Saw and to do this the School commissioned a vox pop film⁵⁹ to capture users’ initial reactions, together with a formal POE conducted by ZZA Responsive User Environments.⁶⁰

The POE research is explored in depth in the book, Saw Swee Hock – The Realisation of the London School of Economics Student Centre⁶¹ but the headline findings make for very interesting reading.

POE: Notable Achievements

Overall, the POE demonstrated that the Saw has been very well received by students and staff. Among the users’ extensive positive evaluations for aspects of the Saw, some findings deserve particular comment.

The stairs, such a key architectural feature of this building are evaluated as a major success in terms of ‘convenient location’ (91% positive) and ‘clarity of entrance’ (100% positive). ZZA contend the positive response to the look and feel of the stairs is in notable contrast with frequent responses in other POEs that reflect the common condition of deprioritised stairs, hidden behind fire doors which have a paucity of natural light, quality finishes, external aspect and overall investment in design.

Thermal experience is widely recognised as an area of building performance that is susceptible to negative user feedback in POEs and to be fair this was also one of my main worries, given the Saw is essentially a naturally ventilated building. However, ZZA found that office users evaluated this mostly in terms of major successes, including ‘air feels fresh’, ‘absence of draughts’, ‘humidity feels right’; and ‘Temperature in the workspace areas and elsewhere in the building is at the right level now’ and the ‘temperature in the meeting booths’ were likewise evaluated as successes.

The respondents sampled for the specialist spaces similarly evaluated all aspects of air quality in the index spaces as major successes. Against this atypically positive profile, the only issue, identified by office users, was insufficient user control.

One of the areas that gave me sleepless nights during the construction phase was the naturally ventilated gym. When one thinks of a London gym, they are normally packed full of heat-generating equipment, bodies and air-conditioning units! However, as a regular user of the new facility – which, by the way, has produced an exponential growth in gym membership – I am pleased to report that throughout the year the environmental conditions are fine. It is great to see the large wooden panels on the cool north side automatically opening via the building management system (BMS) to keep the space cool.

The Saw provides an environment for both work and play, and for those permanently based in the building the former is particularly important. ZZA found that office users identified most aspects of light as major successes, including:

• • general ambience
• • effective light level for work
• • level of natural light
• • level of artificial light
• • lighting elsewhere in the building.

The users of the specialist spaces evaluate both aspects of lighting in these settings as major successes. Given the wide range of activities for which the Saw provides spaces and the associated variation in performance requirements, ZZA say this is an admirable result. Of the office users’ two concerns recorded, one was in relation to user control, the other the lighting level in meeting booths based on inconsistent functioning and some excessive brightness. Both these issues can be addressed by monitoring, adjustment and the introduction of minor tweaks such as baffles and filters if required.

Lessons Learned

Commissioning a structured POE has enabled the LSE Estates Division to assess the value and impact of its new Student Centre. Although there were remarkably few issues arising from such a multi-functional building, it is correct to acknowledge that a small number were raised by the users. Some have already been addressed but one was not amenable to an easy fix – noise from people dropping weights in the fourth floor gym and disturbing others in the building. Unfortunately, the lowest floor where this use might have been ideally located is deployed for the Venue, with its more intensive usage for nightclub and gigs. However, this lesson has been learned and this facility will be re-located in the basement of our forthcoming building on Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Most of the issues identified by the POE involve soft factors relating to facilities management and house services. ZZA quite rightly point out:

Promoting Social Capital

This was perhaps the biggest and most positive finding of the POE. ZZA found a distinct potential benefit of both working in and using the Saw for any purpose, related to its range of facilities and amenities, as well as allowing the potential for users to engage in multiple activities. The School’s aims articulated in the Saw’s Design Competition Brief included:

• • creating a hub for student activities
• • to achieve cross promotion of Union services
• • for the centre to be ‘participatory’
• • to employ an ‘innovative design scheme which allows multi-use of space and maximizes the site’s full potential’.

The goal in the design development stage was for the Saw ‘to really contribute towards encouraging students to use it’.

The POE identifies considerable success in meeting this aspiration. Twenty-five per cent of all interviewees reported use of two or three spaces in the Saw, in addition to the space in which they were sampled, 18% reported using four to six other spaces, 20% used seven to eight other spaces, and 22% used nine to twelve other spaces. The most popular facilities in terms of reported use as places to eat, drink, and socialise and/or rest were, in descending order, The Three Tuns pub, the 6th floor café and roof terrace, and the Learning Café, all of which were reported as being used by 40% of respondents or more.

Specialist spaces, such as the Faith Centre (with reported use by 21% of interviewees), aimed at meeting the specific needs of more defined users, provided value to them, as demonstrated by frequent usage – from multiple times a day to several times weekly. The research further showed the Saw’s multi-use attributes were relevant to these users as well, with all reporting using other spaces in the Saw.

The ZZA surveyors found the multiuse and spatial contiguity contributed to enriching the users’ experience and included these comments by students:

Specialist space user, The Venue

Specialist space user, Faith Centre

Figure 4.42 - 4.44

Students’ Vox Pop - Initial Reactions

• ‘Its not conventional.’
• ‘Its not like anything I’ve seen before.’
• ‘I love the natural look of it, the bricks and wood.’
• ‘There are no right angles – that may be a myth.’
• ‘It’s great to have a new space different from all the other buildings at LSE.’
• ‘Nothing else on the campus looks like this.’
• ‘It’s incredible.’ ‘I want more of this.’
• ‘Brilliant architecture.’ ‘Artfully crafted.’
• ‘It really grabs people’s eyes when they pass by.’

Figure 4.45 - 4.49

The respondents combined, evaluated ‘the effectiveness of other spaces in the SAW’ as a major success, and 82% of the combined sample reported that their use of other spaces in the building was not impeded because they did not know how to get involved or because the spaces were ineffective. Nevertheless, ZZA found the findings indicated scope for enhancement, in respect of the design giving an informative and welcoming sense of the activities on offer and the building’s design and spaces promoting spontaneous interaction.

ZZA contend that effects relate to the SAW’s vertical stacking on a tight footprint, limiting direct sight of specific activities to the level users go to in the building, and confining spontaneous encounters to other people in the given setting and those they might meet on route. Whereas a full height atrium might have promoted sightlines, this would have been in tension with scarce usable space. Usefully, the evaluation indicates feasible supplementary action at the SAW, including spilling student activity onto the external apron across the front of the building, and providing dynamic digital displays of the interior activities menu outside and/or on lower levels.

Strategic Value to the LSE

In addition to the strong thumbs-up on the enhancement of both users’ experience and the profile of the School, ZZA’s evaluation also posited the question of whether ‘the SAW’s architecture respects and contributes to the local setting’ and this was evaluated as a success. In respect of the building’s impact on students’ own perceptions of the LSE, 69% say the SAW has changed these for the better; 31% say it makes no difference; no one said it changes it for the worse.

Reflecting on the value this building brings to the LSE, I asked a number of key individuals associated with the project what they thought about its value and was delighted to have my own judgements supported and extended.

Ziona Strelitz, founder of ZZA Responsive User Environments, who carried out the research commented:

LSE academic staff have also welcomed the value of Saw to the wider LSE experience, with Professor Ricky Burdett of the LSE Cities Programme observing:

For the School’s Chaplain and Interfaith Advisor, Reverand Jim Walters:

The Acting Head of the LSE Careers Service, Shaun Harris feels:

Conclusion: Vision–Design–Construction–POE

I suppose what you are thinking is, this all sounds too positive. Well the fact is, the LSE regards the Saw as a major success and thinks its investment in high-quality architecture has paid off. However, this did not come about by accident. Particular emphasis was put on the preparation of a project vision statement, the running of a fair and rigorous design competition (managed for us by the RIBA) and, most importantly, the involvement of the prospective users of the building. Naturally, as a student building, students were involved in all aspects of the project from initial briefing, including reference visits to other facilities, to being on the Jury Panel for the selection of the architects, to taking part in a general plebiscite on the six shortlisted designs (well, this is the LSE!) to sitting on the Project Board, attending site visits and of course being surveyed for their feedback on the completed building.

When I take people round the building I am quite often asked what I would do differently in terms of the design and my answer is absolutely nothing architecturally, but practically I would have made the BMS system less complicated and more intuitive for the staff who run it and in hindsight I would not have positioned the free weights area over the student accommodation office!

The structured POE and the more qualitative comments from built environment professionals, the students and staff operating in the building clearly suggest that the Student Centre has created significant value for the LSE and I would also contend it has achieved all of the original objectives set out in the brief, by being:

Don’t just take my word for it, come and visit and decide for yourself! I think anyone would be hard pushed to claim these have not been met.

Moreover, the building has nailed both tenets of the School’s Estates Strategy, by adding a piece of world-class architecture to the LSE estate and by enhancing the public realm and the concept of a ‘university quarter’ in this corner of London. How one places a value on this is hopefully explored in the above discourse, however, for the avoidance of doubt, if the question is: would we do it again and in the same way? The unequivocal answer is: YES absolutely!