Architecture: Professionalism Values and Ethics - Essay Example

ARCHITECTURE: PROFESSIONALISM VALUES AND ETHICS Executive summary The of Arts London building is a transformation of a historic building that comprised of the Victorian railway goods yard in King Cross and consolidated Central Saint Martins’ II buildings into a single space. The architect ensured that the new buildings provided Central Saint Martins with a considerable hub. A transformation of a historic building is very tricky since it means that it will lose its aesthetic value. Professionalism is considered while transforming a historic building whether the building is been transformed for sustainability, environmental or aesthetic purpose. This report aims at investigating how professional values and ethics are employed by the architect contracted to turn UAL Campus. The design’s main goal was to optimise connections between departments within the building, which include the movement of materials and students. The idea behind the design can be said to be the same historical reason, which comprised movement of grain around the granary using wagons. Table of content 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 4 1.1Objective of the report …………………………………………….……4 1.2 Design Vision………………………………………………………..…4 2. Overview of the Project ………………………………………………………..5 3. Legal and Contractual Frameworks of the Project……………………………..5 3.1 Contract…………………………………………………………………5 3.2 Relationship between university and the architects……………………5 3.3 Purpose of the contract…………………………………………..……5 4. Awards………………………………………………………………………….6 5. Historical background and architectural transformation…………………….…9 5.1 History………………………………………………………………….9 5.2 Values…………………………………………………………………..9 6. Site and Context………………………………………………………………..10 6.1 Planning process ……………………………………………………….10 6.2 Incorporating aesthetics in design……………………………………..11 7. Legacy………………………………………………………………………….11 8. Stakeholders…………… ……………………………………………………...13 8.1 Key Stakeholders ………………………………………………………13 8.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the stakeholders in the building team…...13 9. Architect’s Perspective…………………………………………………………13 10. Current issues in the built environment………………………………………...14 11. Sustainability……………………………………………………………………15 12. Decision making processes……………………………………………………..16 12.1 Function ………………………………………………………………16 12.1.1 Space………………………………………………..……….17 12.1.2 Location …………………………………………………….18 12.2 Form ……………………………………………………………….….18 13. Professional ethics ………………………………………………………….….19 13.1 Economical-social-political Influences………………………………..20 13.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the architect…………………………....20 13.3 Environmental issues………………………………………………….21 14. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..21 15. Reflection ………………………………………………………………………21 16. References………………………………………………………………………23 1. Introduction 1.1 Objective of the report This report will analyse comprehensively the purpose retrofitting and architectural design of University of Arts London, Kings Cross campus in the context of the build environment. The historic, economic, aesthetic and ecological context of the built environment will be evaluated in terms of professionalism, values and ethics. There are a range of factors that shape the built environment posing an architectural dilemma that need to be solved in adherence to professional values and ethics of architect. This project was considered for this paper since the building exemplifies an exemplary conversation of a derelict historic building into a glorious public space and still retain sustainable values (Harries, 1998). Some of the questions that emerged from people with regards from this case include: i. Why retrofit an old building as opposed to building a new one? ii. What are the social, historical and aesthetic issues that complicated the delivery of the project? iii. What impacts does this have to the stakeholders and users of this public space? iv. What was the role of heritage, location, size and functionality in this project? v. To what extent does the project demonstrate sustainability? 1.2 Design Vision The architects commissioned were Stanton Architects to design the campus that was estimated to cost £200 million in the Grade II listed Granary Complex. The university sought to transform the historical building into an aesthetic centre of learning which would be sustainable enough to meet the needs of the students and those of the community too. 2. Overview of the Project The University of Arts London campus project was completed in 2011. The building consolidates the Central Saint Martins’ college’s activities under one roof. It comprises of the Granary Building, Eastern Transit Shed, and there are two new four storey studio buildings. The environmental location of this project is very impressive as well as the atmosphere (Fox 2012). It is in the heart of London, which has engulfed new Kings Cross and ST. Pancras stations. Despite the magnificence of the environment, the building has some positive and negative aspects that will be addressed by this report. Analysis of any effects of the project on the people, surrounding and the environment would be very insightful (Kostof 2000). The project has a huge capacity which raised concerns on the safety of the project as well as sustainability. 3. Legal and Contractual Frameworks of the Project 3.1 Contract Stanton Architects, headed by their director of Paul William were contracted to design the University of Arts London, Kings Cross campus from the historical Granary Building. A Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Building Contracts was established between the university and the architects which set forth the duties, responsibilities and the rights of both parties. 3.2 Relationship between university and the architects University of Arts London, being the client, gave the architects the powers to make decisions regarding the designing of the building with a goal of ensuring that the building was sustainable and upheld the heritage of the King’s Cross community. From the beginning of the projects, the university set its objective and the architect’s responsibility was to ensure that the final outcome met the required specifications. Furthermore, they were required to understand the challenges of working on a derelict historic building in order to not only produce a new building that meeting the standards of a sustainable learning institution, but also preserves its unique historical aesthetics. 3.3 Purpose of the contract The contract set forth the compensation of the architects and the time frame of the project completion. It was the responsibility of the university to furnish the Stanton architects with the required insurance, accounting and legal services that were required to ensure the proper completion of the project. Nevertheless, the architects were competent enough to understand the legal requirement of the building in order to endure legal compliance to all the construction regulation such as Part L of Building Regulations and Eastern Goods Yard Environmental Sustainability Plan. The architect was also responsible for applying for relevant permits on behalf of the university. 4. Awards The project has won numerous awards since its inception from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Building Contracts as summarized in the table below; 2 YEAR 3 NAME OF THE AWARD 4 2008 5 Commended, MIPIM Architectural Review Future Projects Awards 6 2012 7 LABC National Building Excellence Awards, Best Education Development 8 2012 9 AIT Award Top Ten Education Selection 10 2012 11 World Architecture News Education Awards 12 2012 13 Mayor’s Award for Planning Excellence 14 2012 15 AIA UK Award for Design Excellence 16 2012 17 Public Building of the Year, Building Awards 18 2012 19 RICS Award, Regeneration 20 2012 21 World Architecture Festival Award, World Best Higher Education and Research Building 22 2012 23 New London Award, Education Category 24 2012 25 BCI Award, Major Building Project of The Year 26 2012 27 AJ100 Building of the Year 28 2012 29 RIBA Award 30 2012 31 Concrete Society Award, Overall Winner 32 2013 33 Nominated for the European Union Prize for Contemporary Architecture mies van der Rohe Award 34 2013 35 Civic Trust Award 36 2013 37 Best Large Development, Camden Business Awards 38 2014 39 Camden Design Awards 40 2014 41 Philippe Rotthier European Prize for Architecture, Nominated The awards conferred to this building is a clear indication that the project is a success, the awards are also evidently pointing out that the architectural professionalism values and ethics were observed in designing the building. An overview of UAL campus and the building entailed in UAL. Figure 1: Central Saint Martins’ college Source: Sturrock (2011) A Granary building B Transit sheds C Studio Buildings D Central Street E East-West link F Terrace 5. Historical background and architectural transformation 5.1 History The Granary building is very historic in England and specifically London, and is one of the six Grade II classified building. It formed part of the unified complex and was built in the year 1851. The historical complex comprised of the Granary building, Western and Eastern Transit shed, West and East Granary offices, and the Assembly shed. 5.2 Values The Granary building is one of the historical buildings in King’s Cross City with great heritage values as they were very crucial in British trade in the hub of the Victorian boom, the complex received fish from Aberdeen and Grimsby, grain from Lincolnshire, coal from Yorkshire, and potatoes from East Anglia, which gave this site an impeccable industrial heritage. Granary building, which now hosts the primary division of UAL campus, comprised a series of trap doors, chutes and loading positions which enhanced efficient transformation into an artistic institution. Fig. 2: Granary Building 1860 Fig. 3: Granary complex Source: Sturrock (2011). 6. Site and Context 6.1 Planning process Granary building is linked to the new structure, and it is estimated to be about two-thirds of the campus. The two, four storey building were supposed to replace the existing assembly sheds. The new studio buildings are unified by an internal street, and various bridges beautifies the street and creates from one building to another. The architectural design, in this case, targeted to achieve the primary aim which was to ensure that there are optimal connections between departments within the building. The planning process targeted to make sure that the internal street ensures that the art college is vast enough to host fashion shows, exhibitions and socializing spaces. Socializations of the students is enhanced in the studio spaces since students from all the departments can ‘mix’ without any hurdles. The design breaks down barriers and generates a new form of dynamic, which means that all disciplines can mingle and work together. The building is remarkable on the outside, but the inside has been left bare to make sure that the students can execute their artistic identities. Fig. 4. Internal Street UAL campus Fig. 5 Exterior of Granary building 2013 Source: Sturrock (2011). 6.2 Incorporating aesthetics in design The transformation of the building epitomises the fact that, aesthetically designed architecture can be achieved through transformation of a historic building. As such, professional values and ethics have to be applied in the case of retrofitting this historic building with reference to the heritage of the people, ecological concerns and environmental issues. It would not be in the interest of the native community if the building lost its historical value. As such, it was very imperative for the university to consider retaining some historical aspect of the building during redesigning (Spector 2001). The major professional dilemma that an architect might face in this case was whether it is done for aesthetic or sustainability purposes. The architects in this project sought to find a balance between the two by analysis of function and form as discussed later in this report. 7. Legacy One of the major question that a professional architect should ask with regard to retrofitting a historic building is why the stakeholders of a historic building would consider such an action. This historic building was retrofitted because of its location and size, functionality, heritage or aesthetic value. The stakeholders chose to retrofit the Granary building because of issues such as sustainability as it will be examined in the subsequent section. If the motives of the stakeholders are to be understood in relation to the transformation of such a historic building, it is important to consider the views of a professional architects and client. The motive behind the establishment of UAL by retrofitting the granary building is sustainability needs. The consolidation of all the building into one space is a testimony to that though other factors are to be reviewed. 8. Stakeholders 8.1 Key Stakeholders This project had several stakeholders. The major stakeholder was the University of the Arts London. This was considered the key stakeholder since the university was contracting for the development of the campus and therefore, they stood to benefit from the project. Another key stakeholder is the King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership. This stakeholder represents the King’ Cross community. The rationale for qualification as a stakeholder is based on the fact that the reconstruction of the building will have some influence on the general life of the community. The campus not only brought education close to them, but also provided jobs to most of the local community. The rest of the stakeholders were in the building team. Their coordination was essential in ensuring that the different roles of such stakeholders ensured successful completion of the project. 8.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the stakeholders in the building team Their roles are presented below: Architect: Stanton Williams, Quantity Surveyor: Davis Langdon, Main contractor: Bam Construction, Contractor’s architect: Bam Design and Weedon Partnership, Concept structural engineer: Scott Wilson, Concept environmental engineer: Atelier Ten, Concept facade consultant: Arup Facades, Concept lighting consultant: Speirs & Major, Cladding subcontractor: Mero-Schmidlin (UK), Structural steelwork subcontractor: B&K Structures, Glass supplier: Polypane 9. Architect’s Perspective The whole designing process was delegated to the architects by the university to deliver a sustainable and economical building. While designing a building, it is critical to consider the safety of the occupants in case of any calamity such as fire (Fisher 2010). The main challenge that architects face during retrofitting of a historic building like granary in UAL is the difficulty in to meeting the requirements that are set by building regulations within any historic building (Harries 1998). It is the duty and obligation of an architect to make sure that the retrofitting of the historic building allows safe means of access and escape as well as meeting the client’s brief that in most cases a fabulous structure is. Utmost professionalism was achieved by the architects in making sure that all contamination of the building was taken into perspective to provide a safe and ground (Brookhouse 2013). There was also in-depth consultation between the architects, building control authorities, fire engineers, and the London Brigade that ensured there is a vast interior structure that is safe in case of fire. The new library is found in the granary building, the main challenge is to protect the existing timber structure and cast iron columns that were to be exposed, designing of a new entrance to the structure and requirements in regards to uneven collapse providing new fire-fighting chutes. 10. Current issues in the built environment The level of investment and development around the university of arts London kings cross campus has increased significantly since the renovation of the campus. This has led to major benefits to the local people through investments. This has resulted in development of new healthy living centres, leisure centres, a new library, new public spaces centres and new employment opportunities. However, there are many current issues that are experienced in the built environment. There is need for local investment in schools and housing in order to cater for the growing population. Furthermore, the focus of the area was renewed by the campus which poses the challenge of finding jobs for the youths around the area. Another social issue is the disconnection of King’s cross from the mainstream. Connecting to the rest of London using the Europe and UK local travel has been very challenging to the local people despite the fact that the King’s Cross connected campus to the rest of the rest of London. As such, the biggest challenge is to balance the needs of the local people in terms of international and national gateway to London, tourists, residents as well as retails. Other issues faced in the built environment are inherent in the ecological aspects. The architectural structure of the campus building was built from old and derelict materials, which may have great aesthetic and heritage value, but may develop safety concerns in the future. Moreover, since the building is constructed on derelict land from ruins, architects were confronted with the challenges of how to reduce the architectural constraints in order to prevent future issues on the building (Pawlyn 2011).  11. Sustainability University of arts London kings cross campus is an exemplary project that illustrates how a huge historic architectural buildings that be modified and renovated to uphold sustainable values and emerge to be a triumphant public space (Thiébaut 2007). The whole project underwent the process of retrofitting as opposed to the employment of the increasing trend of building new structures after demolition of old buildings. The adaptation of the building was done with some changes that were specifically tailor-made to ensure higher outcome and sustainability. The university was motivated to use the existing building to provide an aesthetic and architectural designed building that would minimize the negative impacts of overexploitation of natural resources such as fossil fuels on the environment as well as provide an environmentally sensitive building (Pawlyn 2011). By choosing to consider retrofitting of the historical building, the architects were able to enhance the design in a way that maximizes natural daylight while keeping the historic and aesthetic properties of the building. The building used the sustainable energy and holistic strategy, which show that it is moving towards a BREEAM rating of ‘excellent’. This can be demonstrated by their application of photovolatic cells, sensitive double glazing of original windows, insulation and cooling the building using thermal mass. Stanton architects worked on the building targeting on achieving sustainable and rational ventilation system for the building. The architects admit to major complexities of balancing between the conflicting notions of meeting the environmental objectives and heritage conservation. In the end, a balance had to be struck to replace conventional ventilation with displacement ventilation as it supplied cleaner air and used less energy (Ryan 2011). Fig 6. Conventional ventilation Fig 7. Displacement ventilation Source: Ryan (2011). Sustainability in the building was achieved by consciously maximizing the use of natural light with a view of reducing the consumption of artificial lightening. Only minimal areas in the campus rely on artificial lightening, which is designed in compliance with the Part L of Building Regulations. The building also complies with the provisions of the Eastern Goods Yard Environmental Sustainability Plan which seeks to enhance energy conservation. All the energy considerations changes in the building had a dramatic effect of reducing the carbon impact in the future thereby making it economically and environmentally fit for such a huge institution (Liddell 2008). 12. Decision making processes The major decision making processes can be analysed by focusing on the reason why the university chose to retrofit a historic building. Was its rationale based on heritage, aesthetics, size, location, functionality or for sustainability purposes? In order to understand the decision making processes and the overall intention, two major aspects of the building need to be understood - function and form. While function involves the analysis of space and location, form entails heritage and aesthetics (Kats, Jon & Michael 2008). 12.1 Function 12.1.1 Space The Granary building provided a wonderful space for horizontal development of the campus. The six storeyed building stood at 39,000 sqm area with a depth of 31 meters and height of 55 meters. The building was situated at the nuclear of central London which was a rare place to find a huge building that will contain all the five London schools of the university at the same place. This was going to be achieved for the first time in history of the university and therefore, it was a perfect space. The flexibility of the space was also perfect for Design and Art College. 12.1.2 Location The choice of the location for a learning institution is very crucial as it forms part of the reputation and identity for the school. Central St Martins was a renowned centre as an iconic design school which had shaped great talent, creativity and success. The building was held with great prestige and heritage. As such, the building reflects the spirit of creative and talented students of arts such as fashion and music, therefore making it an ideal location for a campus and most specifically for arts (Kats, Jon & Michael 2008). The space and location consideration are illustrated in the figures below. Location space Figure 8: King’s Cross in the 67-acre (27 ha) site Figure 9: Granary Square, with bridges across Regent’s Canal. Source: Sturrock (2011) 12.2 Form Kings Cross City has a profound architectural heritage traced to over 2000 years of history. The buildings have architectural and historical significance to the heritage of the place. Its history is like its brand and, although most derelict structures have been transformed, they still look and feel as authentic as the original ones. The University of Arts London kings cross campus is therefore very fortunate to be part of that development. Furthermore, retrofitting the old building gave the university a heritage feel that could not have been achieved had the university chosen to demolish and construct it as new. For instance, the listed walls has been incorporated in the new design by using the rugged wood and the old bricks combined with steel and glass which is a complement of old and new designs that create a new and spectacular feel to the university (Kats, Jon & Michael 2008). The architects understood the significance of the aesthetic and heritage properties of the building and therefore implemented changes in design while ensuring sustainability and efficiency of the new building to cater for current and future needs. The unique design contrasted with the old one as it can be viewed in the figures below. Fig. 10 Ground floor UAL campus- Granary Building Fig. 11 Internal street UAL- Student fashion show Source: Sturrock (2011) 13. Professional Ethics Ethical considerations in architectural practice are based on both moral and legal obligations which advocate for compliance to good behaviour at all times when making decisions. Ethics foster the practice of reasoning as a way of regulating behaviour to ensure that architectural activities are acceptable to the public and do not pose harm to people and the environment. In this case, ethical issues relate to capital punishment due to violation of the provision of the law and environmental concerns. This can be illustrated by the architect’s compliance with the major building provision such as Part L of Building Regulations and Eastern Goods Yard Environmental Sustainability Plan. 13.1 Economical-social-political Influences Ethical considerations of the construction process was influenced by economical-social-political Influences given that development in King’s Cross City had been under great debate. Before any constructed is undertaken, permission has to be sought in order to ensure compliance with the regulating bodies and the law. The developmental team in charge of the designing plan point out to getting consent to undertake the construction. Since the King’s Cross city had been growing at a rapid pace, there had been a wider debate on development in the city which made the process of authorization long and comprehensive. The planning permission of the new campus of University of the Arts London’s Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design was approved by London Borough of Camden. The first batch of students was around 5000 and moved to the new campus from six different schools in London. 13.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the architect It is a professional and ethical obligation of an architect to ensure environmental protection when dealing with activities and substances that could be detrimental to the atmosphere, human health and environment. Retrofitting of the old Granary building was an approach applied to ensure that the construction process contributed positively to conservation of the environment. 13.3 Environmental issues Demolition of an old building and the consequent construction of a new one poses many environmental issues in the environment. Demolition of old buildings is a major source of dust and other innate particles that are harmful not only to the environment, but also to human health. Furthermore, the construction of new buildings is characterized by exploitation of natural resources and especially the non-renewable resource such as fossil fuels. Such energy sources have high emission content of greenhouse gases that are released during combustion (Bokalder & Maria, 2011). When they are emitted into the atmosphere, they negatively impact on the ozone layer thereby downplaying the environment. Retrofitting a building is very effective in terms of conserving the environment as it saves more than forty percent of the energy used during construction. Furthermore, it is a way of preventing wastage of natural resources and limiting greenhouses gases. As such, retrofitting is a viable green approach that is ethically applied in this building to ensure sustainability (Ryan 2011). 14. Conclusion The report demonstrates the importance of professionalism, value and ethics as a requirement for architects during retrofitting of a historical building. It is very economical to reform an existing building than to build a new one. The environment in which the building is built should be considered in great length as well as the stakeholders. Professionalism will take into consideration the current issues that surrounds the built environment. The form, function of transforming and designing an existing building should be guided by architectural ethics. Therefore, this report concludes that, when professionalism, values and ethics, are used and applied keenly in architectural design, the possibility of any liability from the stakeholders or users of that building won’t rise. 15. Reflection Writing this report was a great opportunity for me to not only explore my understanding of historic architectural designs but also critically and analytically analyze the rationale behind the retrofitting of Granary building into the present University of Arts London, Kings Cross campus. The report contains an analysis of professionalism values and ethics in the perceptive of the local community in King’s Cross city, the ecology and the environment. I have realized that there is wonderful aesthetic and heritage value in almost all the historical buildings in King’s Cross and that is why University of Arts London, Kings Cross campus was very lucky in getting such as sizeable location to transform into an exquisite building. Gathering the information for this report was not problematic as it is a recent project and fun to explore. It was interesting learning the history of the city and that of central Saint Martin in the process. It was a wonderful and interesting topic to write on. 16. References "AJ Exclusive: Finalists for Retrofit Awards." (2013), The Architects Journal. Available from Read More