LifeBox

Coming back after Christmas and the first project was LifeBox. The LifeBox project was about producing a living space for a specifically chosen client in a 6600mm x 3600mm x 2400mm box area. Now, we are 3 weeks into second term with the LifeBox project just handed in, and all I can say is THANK GOD!!

When the project was first explained to us back in the last week of first term, the majority including myself thought that this project sounded very exciting; which combined our new knowledge from the other modules and our own creativity to produce this final project. However this project was a lot more demanding than previously expected. The decision on which architect to choose was simple; out of all the architects to pin up I chose the design which was as close to what I personally would of designed if I was doing this project.

The original design by the architect was very unique and was one reason why I chose it, however when I then started to look more in-depth into the design how it would be produced practically and this is when the problems arose. As my client (the architect) had chosen her client as Paralympic Gold Medallist Ellie Simmonds, within the design space she had included a swimming line measuring 6200mm (length) x 1005mm (width). However when looking at this at practically the swimming lane was far too small, meaning that change the design of the whole of the LifeBox, with the clients approval.

Original Design 

Final Design

I admit that I have learnt a lot of from this project (such as the use and construction of steel frames), however I have found it more stressful than fun. The transformation from the original design to the final design was very complicated; I do wish that I could have had more time to improve the final design, but then again I’m glad its over. 

Read More

Patchwork 3 - Comparison of Arkwright and Newton

Through the evolution of the architecture, cities have become richly diverse in the different styles of architecture on show. Even when buildings are grouped together, an example of that being Arkwright and Newton, it does not mean that the styles of these buildings have to be similar.

The Arkwright building is of a Gothic Revival style, which was very common in Nottingham during the time it was built in the late 19^th century (constructed 1877-1881). At this time, the building was coordinated with its surroundings, however today the evolution of modern architectural styles surrounding it has enhanced its historical context (Bagnall&Humphries, 2013). This can be directly linked with that of the Newton building; it too was built in a time when its style of Art Deco was popular in England and Nottingham itself (early-mid 19^th century). The Newton ‘Tower’ has been a standout landmark in Nottingham ever since it’s construction, still holding strong to its historical value in its growing environment (Bagnall&Humphries, 2013). These buildings used to be two neighbouring structures with no connection, yet now after a multimillion pound refurbishment they sit next to each other hand-in-hand, working together yet separately at the same time. The Arkwright building provides a sense of age and wisdom, whereas the Newton building provides a sense of a futuristic idea in way a building should be designed. In the context of the city today, these buildings produce a partnership which no other can match; the contrast between these buildings and their styles work together, making the unique connection between them stronger.

“The relationship between the object and the intervening spaces is not formal: it is always rooted in the context of a particular setting.” Dalibor Vesley (in Brooker and Stone, 2007, p. 57).

The above quotation defines that a buildings style is not directly related to that of the spaces created by it. The intervening space of the building is connected to what the context and function of the building is. These statements can be associated with that of the Newton and Arkwright buildings. As mentioned previously the two building themselves have their own dissimilar styles; Newton’s Art Deco and Arkwright’s Gothic Revival. However, since The Hopkins Architect renovation in 2010, the two central and linking spaces within and between each building has been given new life through modernisation and practicality for the working staff and students within. The renovation to these two buildings has brought the most of the original designs (photographs to be added); the spaces have had extensive work done to them, however the resulting spaces are simple (simple in terms of how comfort and practicality of the students/staff has been achieved although the space itself is very open). Physically linking these two monumental buildings together is a minimalistic corridor and courtyard; a glazed wall spanning the length of the corridor provides vast amounts of natural light in, making it seem larger and providing a panoramic view of Arkwright itself.

“The project secured the future of both historically significant Grade II* listed buildings, providing extensive renovation and modernisation to their dated, inefficient and incoherent spaces. It then utilised the residual space between the two buildings.” (HopkinsArchitects, 2009)

These building and their respected spaces are used and/or passed on a daily basis; they are both in their own right very exceptionally beautiful buildings within the landscape of Nottingham. From the outside, they both hold their own (styles) within a multi-contextual setting; however the refurbished interior provides a warm, comforting environment which caters for the social and academic aspects of university life.

Bibliography

Bagnall&Humphries, 2013. Arkwright, Patchwork One. Shaun Bagnall & Kelly Humphries, 2013.

Bagnall&Humphries, 2013. Newton, Patchwork Two. Shaun Bagnall & Kelly Humphries, 2013.

Brooker and Stone, 2007. Form and Structure [eBook]. Switzerland: AVA. Available via: Safari Books Online [18^th January 2014]

Hopkins Architects, 2009. Nottingham Trent University: Newton and Arkwright Buildings. Hopkins Architects. Available at: http://www.hopkins.co.uk/projects/2/113/ [18^th January 2014]

Read More

Sheffield Train Station

As I travel up to Sheffield often to see my girlfriend, I thought that while I was up there that I would start exploring the building and architecture which Sheffield holds. The first building which I would like to talk about is Sheffield’s train station, a building which I use each and every time I go to and from Sheffield.

Sheffield train station (also known as Midland Railway Station) is a Grade II listed Victorian building originally built in 1870 but refurbished by architect Charles Trubshaw in 1905 (Landow, 2014). Charles Trubshaw was a Midland architect, raised by a family of architects, was best known for his work as architect for the Northern Division Midland Railway Stations in 1874 (Davies, 2010).

The station itself has some interesting features such as the iron-glass roof (Fig 1) in the main atrium and refurbished front facades mirrored glass (Fig 2) and finally the walkway linking Park Hill behind the station, the platforms and Sheaf Square in front. However the station building is not what I find most interesting; for me the combination of context of the Victorian Station building and the 2010 refurbishment of Sheaf Square in front of the station. 

Fig 1. Iron-Glass Roof (Bagnall, 2014)

Fig 2. Front Facade (Bagnall 2014)

As I have only been in Sheffield over the past two years I had not seen for myself what the original square was like, however looking at photographs of the past square the refurbishment has brought new life back into the entrance of Sheffield. The square has been transformed from a flat concrete field to this guided path leading from the station, up Owen Hill into the heart of the city. 

Fig 3. Sheaf Square (Bagnall, 2014)

The new design of the square still has some of the original, open concrete areas however the addition of two large water features adds a new dynamic to Sheaf Square. On one side of the square there is a stepped flow of water leading towards the bottom of the square into a large water fountain; however I much prefer the converging metal wall with pouring water opposite. Together the water features create an elegant path up towards the city centre (Fig 4). This modern feature is very diverse compared to that of the old Victorian station building, producing a very memorable and distinctive setting.

Fig 4. Sheaf Square and Sheffield Train Station (Bagnall, 2014)

Bibliography

Fig 1. Shaun Bagnall, 2014. Iron and Glass Roof of Sheffield Station. Photograph Taken 13^th January 2014.

Fig 2. Shaun Bagnall, 2014. Station Front Façade. Photograph Taken 13^th January 2014.

Fig 3. Shaun Bagnall, 2014. Sheaf Square. Photograph Taken 13^th January 2014.           

Fig 4. Shaun Bagnall, 2014. Sheaf Square and Sheffield Railway Station. Photograph Taken 13^th January 2014.

Davies, M. (2014). Charles Trubshaw, Architect | The Midland Hotel - Bradford. [online] Bradfordmidlandhotel.com. Available at: http://www.bradfordmidlandhotel.com/charles-trubshaw-architect [Accessed 15th January. 2014].

Living Rail, (2014). Sheffield Station Gateway. [online] Available at: http://81.47.175.201/livingrail/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=665:sheffield-station-gateway&catid=29:rail-terminals&Itemid=102 [Accessed 15th January. 2014].

Landow, G. (2011). The Midland Railway Station (now East Midland) at Sheffield (1874). [online] Victorianweb.org. Available at: http://www.victorianweb.org/technology/railways/82.html [Accessed 15th January. 2014].

Read More