Introduction:
Research, conservation and education are some of the main principles that the British Museum values at its core. With these values in mind, a need for a new centre was identified: To bring together its dispersed conservation and research teams, who were currently located in restricted, limiting facilities. Secondly, to make use of areas within the museum site that were not being used to their full potential to engage with the public.
The ‘centre’, whose 2007 design competition (set by the British Museum) was entered by the likes of Bennett Associates, Stanton Williams and David Chipperfield yet ultimately won by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSH+P).
ARCHITECT:
RSH+P offices are located in Shanghai and Sydney with their headquarters based in London. Originally named Richard Rogers Partnership and founded in 1977, it was recently (2007) changed to Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners for a few reasons. Firstly, Rogers wanted to reflect the idea that architecture is ever-evolving therefore shouldn’t be named after one person: “I want to leave something to the future, it has to be able to change- but retain something of the ethos that we built up over 50 years”. Secondly, the firm also wanted to reflect the vital combination of Graham Stirk and Ivan Harbour.
The firm now has 13 partners including Richard Rogers, Graham Stirk and Ivan Harbour. They focus on various sectors including offices, residential, transport, education, culture leisure, retail, civic and health care. Thus, harnessing a wide profile of experience across various sectors. The practice strongly emphasizes sustainability, urban regeneration, social awareness, celebration of public space and the encouragement of public activities, making them an ideal candidate for designing the WCEC. Over the past four decades, they have made their name through several high profile projects across Europe, the US, Asia and Australia, including: The Pompidou Centre in Paris, Millennium Dome in London and lastly the Barajas Airport in Madrid for which they won a prestigious Stirling Prize for in 2006. Adding to this list, the WCEC was recently nominated for the RIBA Stirling Prize Award in 2017.
RSH+P is a leading firm in sustainable architecture, which was vital in their selection for a project so heavily based around conservation and that too at a time where there was a high level of interest in caring for the global environment. The practice looks to use technologies that harness passive energy sources, systems that reduce consumption and regulate harmful emissions and renewable resources. These values increased their suitability for completing the extension of the British Museum, whose likened ambitions included reducing the environmental impact of its operations. In addition, RSH+P’s rich experience in designing similar cultural spaces such as the Centre de conservation du Louvre à Liévin in France, the International Spy Museum and the Pompidou Centre, also aided their place on the competition shortlist.
BUILT PRODUCT:
The design of The British Museum has greatly progressed and evolved over the past 250 years. Its requirement for a series of adjustable spaces for storage, research, conservation work and exhibition was to be located in Bloomsbury. The WCEC was this response, built in the north-west corner of the Museum and consisting of five pavilion spaces aimed to accommodate all of these requirements.
In considering its sensitive location surrounded by seven listed buildings, the design’s noticeable modern yet contextual twenty first century exterior, was designed to marry the 1753 Museum facades. This was key since the initial design was rejected as it was felt by the public and council that contextually it was lacking and thus did not sit cohesively amongst the existing. As a result, 20% of the initial design was moved underground so the WCEC would be consistent in height with the adjacent King Edward VII and Smirke buildings. A carefully selected palette of materials also helped to create the blend into its context, using a combination of old and new to reflect the purpose of the building: using the technologies available to us today to preserve the precious and delicate things of the past. This is achieved by open textured Portland Road Stone that reflects the rhythm of the similar stones of The British Museum being combined with 1600 hand-casted, kiln-fired glass planks which creates a veil of privacy (for research purposes) whilst also allowing a controlled but greatly needed influx of light into the workspaces.
Choosing to reference the nineteenth and twentieth century styles, steel frames support the four levels above ground. Concrete frames support the basement stories, sealing the storage rooms in sustainable conditions of temperature and humidity for sensitive artefacts.
Whilst subtle on the outside, the interior is defined with a technical aesthetic. With the grandeur spaces being within the main body of the museum, the focus of the WCEC was to allow clear circulation and ease of access for both people and exhibits throughout the building.
Bead-blasted stainless steel Halfen channels allow walls to be fixed into the polished concrete floors of the gallery, which along with glass (glass lifts, bridges and glazed lobbies) make up the majority of the interior’s appearance, providing a clean look throughout.
The inclusion of a 42 Tonne truck lift enables heavy ancient pieces to be received or dispatched by the British Museum with ease. Wider doors and hallways allow for better transportation and movement of exhibits, in comparison to what would have been achieved in the previous exhibition spaces.
RSH+P successfully fulfilled the numerous requirements of the brief by arranging the different functions vertically (as can be seen in fig xxx). The main exhibition space is located on the first and second floors. Beneath the Sainsbury Exhibitions Gallery, lies the logistics hub, which connects the British Museum to its new extensions. Conservation and research facilities are situated on top of the galleries to not only provide quality daylight and ventilation but also for enabling fume extraction to be projected up and out of the building. A green roof was also added to the design as a smart way of managing the risk of potential damage to exhibits due to pest infiltration. (diagram)
JUDGEMENTS:
PROCUREMENT & CONTRACTS:
-(Diagram)-
For this project, a Construction Management (CM) procurement and contractual system was used. In comparison to a ‘design bid build’ procurement route, where going out to tender to appoint a contractor occurs only after the design is completed, the CM procurement route sees the contractor hired earlier on in the design process. This means the CM firm are able to provide advice on buildability, costs, risks, procurement, the construction programme and selecting trade contractors. However the client will only be given an approximate overall price (as the design is not yet complete when appointed), compared to a tender price up-front. Additionally the CM firm, Mace, are not contracted to carry out construction but rather provide a position of advice, management and a voice of expertise. Contractual responsibility is therefore separate between the design, construction and management stages, with the client holding contracts with the managers, contractors and subcontractors individually. Mace also held outreach programmes on the site with local schools in order to promote the industry and demonstrate skills and potential careers within the sector.
In addition to providing Project Management and Project Director services, Equals’ overall aim was to ensure smooth on-site progress (ensuring continual site access), with minimal disruption to daily activities and the businesses working on the project. To do so, they inspected and assessed vibrational and noise impacts, caused by construction, to fragile objects within proximal existing exhibitions and consequently installed appropriate protection. Furthermore, their role continued in relocating the staff and equipment into the new facilities.
Many sources, including RSH+P’s website, place Savant (Tony Wilson specifically) as Project Manager. However, Equal’s site states that Wilson left Savant in 2008 in order to become the Project Director for the WCEC, joining Equals in 2013 a year before its completion. This raises questions as to why Savant was still associated with the project even though he had left the company in order to take this role. Nevertheless, his role as Project Director included acting as a direct point of contact for the client, providing updates, advice and overall management on their behalf whilst also attending meetings with the clients and Trustees. In the Queen’s 2014 Birthday Honours list, Wilson was recognised for his work towards museums and was awarded an MBE.
MEMBERSHIP:
(Diagram)
The larger design team consisted of: Partners, associate partners, senior associates, associates, senior architects and the support team, with a total of 37 people from RSH+P working on the project.
John McElgunn, the project architect and a partner of RSH+P, had client facing and previous management roles within the firm. He was therefore well suited for the WCEC project: it involved extensive consultation with the client group and the public as part of the design development process. Additionally he was heavily involved in the collaboration with the end user's, museum management, the project committee, the Board of Trustees and project sponsors. All of these groups played a large and important part in the design and consultation process. According to John, "Everyone on the museum side was welcome to chip in," he says. "That made for a pretty unusual client.”.
His client facing and public involvement was evident when the project first was rejected by the planning committee: McElgunn took this opportunity to further consult and engage with the wider community and various bodies to help get the application approved. McElgunn was involved through all stages of the design process from winning the competition in 2007 to when the building inaugurated in 2014.
In terms of the Design Team’s hands-on involvement, Albion Stone (the supplier of the Portland Roach stone) took the design team and Museum Trustees on a city and west end tour of the projects they’ve worked. During the tour, the architects decided on a bed of stone and went to their quarry to view the large range panels on site. Here, a stone range was agreed for the project. Albion Stone supplied 1,600m² of Portland Roach for the project.
Arup, an engineering firm, worked closely with Mace and the rest of the design team to meet a demanding and exacting programme. The team excavated the five storey basement, constructed the new pavilions, maintained the quality of the works and kept the museum’s visitors and neighbours happy throughout the construction period, which lasted just over three years.
During the design process, when Graham Stirk presented the design to the board of trustees, the minute meetings stated that all except one trustee, Barry Cunliffe, were unanimous in their support for the proposed design. Cunliffe had previously been to board meetings, and when the subject of the proposed project arose, he refused to take part. This may be due to being acting chairman of English heritage, highlighting his concerns on the project's relationship with the surrounding listed buildings.
DESIGN TEAM WORKING METHODS:
During the design processes of World Conservation and Exhibitions Centre at the British Museum Rogers, Stirk, Harbour, and Partners used the eight RIBA Plan of Work Stages; The design approach involved rigorous analysis and interpretation of the brief, and site. This informed the process and form of the architecture to create the functional, flexible spaces. Stage 2 of the design process brought the concerns of its sensitivity to the museum and the surrounding area to light. The RSH+P design team were able to attempt to constrain and eliminate these problems in the later stages of the design; namely concept design on stage three.
This however did not go smoothly; for example when the first concept designs were rejected by local residents. The solutions provided, the glass and Portland stone in addition to the graduating height, appeased the demands of the arguably archaic-opinionated (in their refusal for the initial design) locals. Another method used throughout the building was to arrange the scheme into two elements: Primary spaces (offices, conservation studios, laboratories, galleries) and secondary spaces (vertical circulation, mechanical and electrical distribution and access to the pavilion). This enabled for a greater aspect of layout simplicity and allowed each space to produce the clean crisp requirements required.
The north elevation directly references this latter point. The set building height corresponds with that of the King Edward VII Building, and provides and transitional height gradient towards the nearby University, and Hospital. In the overall scheme (arranged into two elements) the design teams’ methods of rhythm and colouration created a sympathetic pallet of materials to give a contextual aesthetic to the façade.
The functional requirements of the brief are arranged vertically across the pavilions. With the collections storage facility located below ground, providing the most stable environment conditions and spaces where loading can be easily accommodated. Having this facility placed on a number of below ground floors was the only way the WECE would not have towered over the façades of the surrounding buildings. The logistics hub on level 0 links to the logistic routes of the existing building helping with the functionality and improving the flexibility of the design. The Sainsbury Exhibitions Gallery on Level 2 links to the main gallery level of the museum, allowing for the best connectivity and visitor experience flowing from the great court room. As mentioned previously, the conservation studios sit above the gallery in order to provide good quality daylight and ventilation systems. From the early stages of the project the daylight design was a key aspect for the vision for the centre, with these spaces needing to be top of the range. Also mentioned previously, the green roof top of the centre helps to encourage biodiversity and sustainability. Through separating these functionality requirements, the design team was able to produce the most flexible and appropriate design without infringing on the listed buildings around.
Overall, the design team involved used, followed, and benefited from the use of the RIBA Plan of Work, allowing the problems that arose during the design stages to be solved creatively, and to the benefit of the design.
OBJECTIVES AND QUALITY OF DELIVERY:
In addition to requiring adaptable spaces to suit the Museum’s changing needs, much attention was brought to the biodiversity and sustainability of the building, to minimise energy consumption and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Although we have no clear indication on how many sustainability aspirations were discarded as the project went on, we know that natural ventilation, presence detection, zero carbon technologies and heat recovery systems make the building energy efficient as was the aim.
Even though they managed to fulfill all the requirements of the brief and include all the spaces some critics feel they failed to achieve the aesthetic purity needed for the british Museum’s new gallery space. Rowan Moore, an Architectural critique, stated: “There's much to like but the museum's new exhibition space seems to have the status of a broom cupboard”.
As a research group, we held a visit to the British Museum including the Rogers’ extension. As a whole we shared the opinion of the mention critique; feeling the space was indeed bland. That being said, we feel this may not be a negative; as a gallery space needs to be a plain backdrop in order to highlight the displays within the room.
Though structural issues came to light (tabled by Andrew Brunett, one of the trustees) related to the truck lift shaft, solutions for this were discussed on the 22nd March. Andrew argued that his proposed option would minimise the delay in the packages completion. Sadly however, the truck lift shaft was not completed for the inauguration. As a result, it lowered the overall quality of the lift shaft in comparison with the surrounding building, which was delivered on time.
The aim of designing an exterior façade that didn’t challenge the status of the original British Museum was in our opinions a success; it doesn’t demand to be seen, it isn’t overpowering, presumptuous or glaringly obnoxious; the use of the Portland stone with the glass panels echoes it’s neighbouring and partner Museum whilst also still in its self a clean, self-evident, honest design. It speaks of its partnership to the wider Museum, and an acknowledgement of its status. It promotes the Museum’s step forward in terms of a new, progressive future in its ambitions and a celebration of the exceptional work made by all of the staff. From the exterior the building isn't a dominant presence characteristic of a RSH+P design project. However, when examining the details of the project you will evidently find classic examples of Rogers’ architectural style. A bold painted steel frame with bold powerful connections.
Yet in its modest exterior it also appears distant; it all feels somewhat shut-off. Granted this may be because the exterior also acts as sunlight management, and for confidentiality of sensitive work. However, we believe this could have taken a different turn: there isn’t that immediate engagement or curiosity with the public, apart from the benches outside on the pavement, yet still as observed when on site, people tend to face away from it. Perhaps the building could have benefited from this enlightening or passive communication, a way to intrigue the public, to make them want to know more; to know that they can book onto tours to visit the workshops, or to even begin to acknowledge the work that goes on behind the scenes of the exhibitions that make the British Museum what it is today.
Yet in its modest exterior it also appears distant; it all feels somewhat shut-off. Granted this may be because the exterior also acts as sunlight management, and for confidentiality of sensitive work. However we believe this could have taken a different turn: there isn’t that immediate engagement or curiosity with the public apart from the benches outside on the pavement yet, as observed when on site, people tend to face away from it. Perhaps the building could have benefited from this enlightening or passive communication, even if this was suggestive and subtle, it would be a way to intrigue the public and to make them want to know more. They could begin to acknowledge the work that goes on behind the scenes of the exhibitions that make the British Museum what it is today.
STUDY OF OUR TEAM:
We had a medium sized team that consisted of 8 members: Andrius, Hana, Cara, Teddy, Henry, Connor, Trang and Karolina. All the team members were from an architectural background, all being second year B.A. Architecture students. For the most part we were familiar with the majority of the team, with few who did not know each other too well. In our team we had a member that had previously worked in several practices which helped us with figuring out how the design team will have approached the project. Thus, we were able to determine how best to break down what to look into in terms of research.
There was an unarticulated hierarchy, where two people took charge, receiving input and suggestions from the more vocal members of the group and helped distribute workload, whilst two other members took a more backseat role, who dealt well with getting on with roles they were allocated but not baring well with involvement or discussion during group meetings. All other members of the team contributed during discussion, however we faced some difficulty in regard to organising ourselves at some points as we ended up redoing work and carrying out tasks that in hindsight may have not been needed to be done.
We split the sections up into our own questions, according to RIBA’s Plan of Work, after carrying out initial research and seeing what else there was that we could look into and still had questions about. This helped us look at the project more in depth and be able to answer all the questions someone wanting to know more about the project, as we initially did, would have.
Processes evolved as we realised what worked and what didn’t. We worked in pairs and generally tried to split the workload equally. After the different sections were divided up and completed separately, we took a collaborative approach in writing and putting together the report. Checking over each other’s sections was done several times, also appointing a few of us to go through it thoroughly, checking it flowed well as a whole and editing and rewording where necessary.
When it came to major decisions such as grading however, we took a more democratic approach by which we all had equal input into what the percentages each person deserved was. We achieved this through a voting system by first discussing opinions as a group then each person individually allocating marks, then using the marks given by all to calculate a mean which was then the final grade given. There was however some discrepancy over whether or not anomalies in results should be included in the calculations of the mean and if results should be rounded.
A register was kept to keep track of attendance and reason for absence as well as notes on individuals’ level of contribution and attitude towards the work in meetings.
Attendance Report
26/10
02/11
09/11
15/11 (site visit)
16/11
Meet with partner
23/11
24/11
Hana
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Henry
✔
🗙
✔
✔
🗙
✔
✔
✔
Cara
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Andrius
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Teddy
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Connor
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Trang
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Karolina
🗙
✔
✔
🗙
✔
✔
✔
✔
Group Evaluation
Name
Tasks carried out
Strengths/ Weaknesses
Percentage achieved
Andrius
Funnel, decision making, specifying questions to research, research and write up of membership and procurement routes and The Study of our team
Was effective at communicating back and forth between the team and our lecturer. Actively took part in group discussions.
14.075
Hana
Allocating tasks and decision making. Research and write up of The Built Product and The Study of our team. Keeping track of attendance and contribution.
Actively took part in group discussions. Able to take charge in leading meetings, organising time and location of meetings and keeping track of attendance and contribution.
14.7
Cara
Research and write up of membership and procurement routes. Edited and reworded document to make sure wording is consistent.
Good at reviewing and communicating information through both words and visual aids/ diagrams. Actively took part in group discussions.
14.45
Teddy
Research and write up of The Built Product, and write up/ rephrasing of the Objectives
Concise in his way of working and able to reflect this in his writing and research. Also reviewed work whilst actively taking part in group discussions.
14.0125
Connor
Research and write up of the design team’s working methods and write up/ rephrasing of the Objectives
Actively took part in group discussions. Completed the work competently and efficiently.
13.45
Henry
Research and write up of the design team’s working methods, determining questions to research and write up/ rephrasing of the Objectives
Actively took part in group discussions and helped formulate ideas in the initial stages through to the write up. Although occasionally absent in group meetings.
12.5625
Trang
Research and write up on The Architect
Able to respond well to feedback given and tasks allocated. Asked questions but could have contributed more to group meetings.
9
Karolina
Research and write up on The Architect
Contributed to pair workload. Became distracted at group meetings and could have verbally contributed more.
7.75
In the beginning we spent considerable time liaising and planning as opposed to actually producing work, which we later learned was not the most efficient method of working. Therefore, similar to how the team working on the WCEC managed separate subcontractors working on site at the same time, we divided the tasks between the group according to the body, type of work and individual strengths. As a result we were able to produce work consistently and use our time efficiently: group members were no longer waiting on one another.
This being said, we could have taken more inspiration from their allocation of managerial roles and sticking to them all throughout the process: our team didn’t have set leaders or management figures. This meant that when coming to decision making, those involved voiced their opinions and the result was awarded to whoever was best able to reason. It also meant that sometimes communication of decisions and progress weren’t always clear to all members. Having a clearly identified peer with a managerial role would have meant that less time could have been spent allocating work, deciding when this was due and ensuring all members were keeping up with their responsibilities.