AF held our first project workshop last week.  Traveling to Nightingale Associates office in Oxfordshire, we spent the morning with them ‘trying out’ some of the tools.

Designed to be as interactive as possible, we explored stakeholder perspectives with post-it notes, brainstormed change scenarios, and sketched the effect of proposed adaptable solutions on a projects concept.  AF will be providing the participants with material based on the outputs they generated, enabling them more easily to assimilate the adaptable ideas as the project develops.

In an effort to rethink how the information from the more ‘polished’ diagrams can be simplified and more engaging particularly in a workshop format we started sketching ideas to re-visualize some of them. The diagrams present a mixture of possibilities: a) briefing/ charrette tool to brainstorm ideas (i.e. ‘blank’ versions), b) simple concept or information to sell ideas (as is),  c) a parti-diagram to help communicate ideas (i.e. modifiable), d) guidance tools encouraging designers how to consider design parameters and e) project analysis to verify ideas (i.e. consultancy).

We will continue to explore how to visualize them adding additional ones as well over the next couple of months and look for any suggestions from you!

I recently caught a piece on 60 minutes (an American news show) on how bad the home owning situation has gotten in the US highlighting the ‘dire’ manevour by the city of Cleveland.  With an estimated 11 million homes currently foreclosed on across the US, cities are now faced with a huge amount of vacant homes and pressure from remaining home owners to act as they see their property values continuing to fall due to the blight of their abandoned neighbours.  The typical scenario which we are all too familiar with (step 1): homes are foreclosed on or loanees walk away and abandon their loans/ homes.  Step 2, banks then recover the full amount of the mortgage (plus any expense and interest) typically through Fed Government guarantees/ mortgage insurance and then abandon the homes (they have no interest in taking care of a home once they got their money).  Step 3, thieves steal anything that has resale value (foreclosures are publically listed) devaluing the home and making a refit a much bigger task than the home’s current market value.  The solution by the city of Cleveland (step 4) = demolish the houses at the taxpayers’ expense (not to mention society with the increased waste).  The assumed worst part is that the banks retain ownership of the vacant lot which is now more valuable and easier to resell in the future.  Being an architect and conducting research on the topic of adaptability, I found it extremely hard to watch as there was no reflection on the sustainability perspective of such a mindless practice.  But where does that leave us, what alternative solutions are there?  How do we keep the existing homeowners in their homes or get new people in there before thieves raid the homes?  Where is the critical point of interjection?  It seems by the time we get to the extreme fourth step we’ve eliminated a lot of possibilities.  First thoughts…could the banks be held more liable on the homes by not receiving their full guarantee if the homes are abandoned (e.g. incentivising them to renegotiate mortgages possibly cutting the principle or interest rates)?  If no one buys the home at foreclosure could they be given back to the original owner with a subsidy from the Fed Government (i.e. instead of giving the money to the banks, give it to the homeowners and allow them to pay the government back at a slower, more manageable rate).  Could some type of temporary use or a rental company which specialises in foreclosed property help establish a renter’s market (which could help renters work towards purchasing the home or provide the needed time for the original homeowners to get back on their feet)?

Upon further reflection, I started thinking my initial thoughts rely primarily on tweaking the social context (e.g. government regulations, market rates), but could the physical design of the homes help prevent at least the ridiculous act of step four and find new life for the homes or at the very least the materials that constructed them?  The most straightforward answer would be to design the homes for disassembly strategically designing the building components to be disassembled without compromising their integrity and quality (e.g. accessible and reversible connections).  This would enhance a growing reuse/ recycling market and increase work for deconstruction contractors.  Another thought would be to imagine how the homes could be adapted, e.g. subdividing the home into smaller, more affordable units or converting them into alternative uses depending on their location and physical configuration.   What ‘other’ uses could a detached home be suitable for?  Could they, in a similar fashion as Georgian or Victorian terraces, be converted into doctor offices, lawyer practices, retail shops, etc?  How crazy would it be to conceive homes with businesses running out of the ground floor or the front room and living quarters above?  This was a common form of habitation around the world and still exists in many places in Japan (amongst other places).  The primary problem with suggesting alternative uses is the mono-functional context in which many of these homes sit.  Can a single business survive within a sea of ‘suburban style’ detached homes?  What balance or other infrastructure is needed?  As these peripheral residential areas of American cities continue to be reinvented through the adaptive reuse (conversion) of shopping malls and box stores, can the same reuse philosophy be applied to residential homes?  I remain unsure of the best solution, but feel this is interesting and current context to test the ‘scalability’ of the research.  Your thoughts please

Circle K is an international chain of convenient stores started in 1951 in Texas, USA (now Canadian owned).  In the 1980s and 90s the company filed for bankruptcy and developed a new corporate plan which closed many of their shops.  Around 2000, Paho Mahn, a professional photography, took an interest in mapping out and photographing converted Circle Ks in the Phoenix area.   His photographs show an array of new businesses (e.g. restaurants, cleaners, florist, tattoo parlor, grocery store, check cashing) occupying the vacant shells.  New occupants modify the exteriors with new signs, window/ door locations, paint and random objects.  Interiors completely gutted and some subdivided to support two shops.   The photos offer an interesting glimpse into the evolutionary nature of our built environment.

Now, if only the same thing could happen to all the McDonalds worldwide…

BBVH architects (Rotterdam) have designed a terrace house archetype for the GoldenPlover estate project in Rotterdam-Hoogvliet.  Potential owners can go to their website and through an online program customize the house in a variety of ways through a series of determined variables.  The first step is to select which lot you would like, you can then decide if you would like to add an additional floor or scale either the ground or first floor horizontally by an additional 1.5m.  Other features include choosing the type of patio doors, roof light, location of kitchen, and the configuration of the staircase, bathroom, entrance lobby and bedrooms above.

The user-friendly approach includes a price tag for every option and finishes with a printable itemized list of your decisions.   While the program is geared towards allowing owners to customize their new homes initially, it’s clear that the designers have thought about a variety of ways in which the home could be configured some of which are not locked in with the initial decision – which would be an interesting addition to the program showing owners which options could still be activated at a later date and which ones could not!

Many of us are familiar now with the term ‘meanwhile use’ in the UK which has particular relevance towards the refitability and convertibility strategies of our project.   For those unfamiliar, ‘meanwhile use’ is the temporary use of vacant buildings (or land) until such time that they can be brought back into commercial use again.  SQW consulting produced an informative report in May 2010 on the business case and learning points for Meanwhile Use.  The report states that there are approximately 25,000 vacant shops closed due to the recession in the UK (13% of UK shops sitting empty), while over 250 meanwhile projects are underway.  Nearly 75% of the projects are in vacant retail units, but other types of spaces are increasingly being used including offices, housing, pubs, places of worship, car showrooms and building sites.  More than half the uses are arts/ culture related, but informal learning opportunities and cheap office space are a growing trend.  As an attempt to get around some of the legal constraints (such as use classes) they have produced a standard ‘meanwhile use’ lease which can help interested parties.  The idea of ‘meanwhile uses’ can also be extended to the use of public building outside their normal operating hours (‘moonlight’ meanwhile use) – this is a consistent idea with several of our case studies (e.g. Kentish Town Health Centre, PS340).

A current example (Jan 2012) of a ‘meanwhile use’ space in London is pictured above (both photos) on Finchley Street which has been redesigned by Meanwhile space to accommodate individuals or groups looking for temporary work space (can also host an event).  The space was formerly a restaurant (in the O2 Centre) and can be rented for £10 per person per day or £250 per person per month.  The space is quite versatile – open plan with a variety of working areas (or you can bring your own desk) and is ideal for start ups, creatives and community focused groups.  For more information

Project by: Anastasia Globa (student winner)

The University of Melbourne’s Future Proofing Schools research project, recently held an interesting ideas competition for the next generation relocatable classroom.  The competition looked to enhance the conventional mass-produced response by producing  solutions that can be relocated and adapted to the nuances of context – shifts may include topography, culture, scale, function, climate, etc.  Whether it be for disaster response, rural communities or changing demographics the task was to illustrate how the design idea would adapt to a new set of parameters – what would change?  what would stay the same?  The entries were judged on four themes – 21st century teaching (teaching & spatial shifts), prefabrication & mass-customization (movable & economical), contextually integrated (e.g. site & landscape) and a sustainable solution (high performance).  The brief ties well into the AF strategies – particularly movable, scalable and refitable.

Project by: NBRS+PARTNERS (professional, 2nd prize)

Rob took part in a panel discussion at The University of Tokyo reflecting on the Adapting Peckham workshop experience in London last spring (other participants included Hiroshi Ota, Aya Kubota and Maria Claudia de Souza).  The discussion will be transcribed as part of the cSUR publication which is set to be published this April.  The talk covered a range of topics including impressions of Peckham, opportunities and challenges for urban regeneration, the (re)activation of architecture and public spaces, the role of government and the community, and the use of film as a design medium for architecture and urban design students.

Some of the interesting prompts included:

1. What is (and will be) Peckham’s role as part of greater London?  To what extent is there a unified vision for Peckham’s future and how has that been captured through the council’s recent AAP document?
2. What do events like the London riots in Peckham say about the quality of the physical space?  How is physical regeneration linked or not to social regeneration and a sense of civic pride?
3. What will the evolving role of community be with the continued economic situation and the government’s emphasis on Localism?  Whose responsibility is it to create a platform for action?  Who will fund future projects?

Interesting observations from the conversation:

1. It was evident from the Japanese perspective the most ‘shocking’ non-seized opportunity relates to what little has been done from the council’s point to activate the station as a centre point for the town and that it remains an under-utilized and isolated object.
2. There was a shared perception that Peckham is distant from the centre of London, suggesting the importance of good transportation links and the perception it carries to the sense of place.
3. The importance to activate the potential of (and connect) public spaces (e.g. Peckham Square, the flaxyards, the multi-storey car park).

AF held a kickoff workshop (05.12.11) for its knowledge transfer (KTA) project in London hosted by 3D Reid Architects.  The workshop was attended by collaborators from the UK, Denmark and Japan (via skype).  The aim of the workshop was to familarise the collaborators with the elements of the toolkit through a series of presentations and discussions.

As a warm-up exercise, the collaborators were given a pack of cards (pictured above) and asked how they might appropriate a subset of the ‘tools’ in their practice or on a project (at what stage? with which stakeholders?)?  The latter discussion around the toolkit was prompted from project presentations from David Rowley of Nightingale Associates and Soren Nielsen of Vankunsten Architects. The intent of the one year project is to test the implementation of the toolkit through ‘live’ projects with the collaborators’ practice.

James Pinder delivered a presentation about the AF research at the Nightingale Associates’ Sustainability Conference, held at Gateway College in Leicester in the UK. The conference was attended by a wide variety of construction professionals, including architects, developers and building services engineers.  The conference venue itself was a great example of the importance of designing buildings for change: since the building was completed in 2009, the College’s Learning Resources Centre has been moved from its original location, just one of several examples of how the building has been appropriated and changed by its users.

Guy Neville from Max Fordham provided an interesting presentation on the development of a matrix for framing conversations about sustainability when talking to clients, using the National Trust’s and Woodland Trust’s HQ projects as case study examples. Further information about the matrix can be found on their website. Susan Francis from Architects for Health delivered a talk on specificity and change in healthcare, using case study examples to underline the importance of designing for change. Her presentation highlighted the longstanding interest in adaptability in healthcare, through the work of people such as John Weeks, and there were a number of overlaps with our own research into adaptability.

Photo by Dean Terry
Over a hundred years in age, the building complex spread across 23 acres dates back to the late 19th century.  The main building was one of LA’s first power plants constructed in 1903 – the Edison Electric Steam Power Plant.  The building was converted to a Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery and subsequently converted again to work/ live environments for artists and now houses around 500 residents involved in a wide range of design professions along with restaurants and galleries (La Brewery).   In 1992 it was registered as a Historic Landmark by the city of Los Angeles.   Will other artist driven regeneration projects have suffered from gentrification through rising rents the Brewery remains artist-focused through a single family owner supportive of the community.  Most tenants benefit from long leases with increases tied to the cost of living.

The Adaptable Futures research group hosted it’s launch conference, Moving Architecture – implementing adaptability at the building and urban scale, in September at the Building Centre in London.  The event highlighted the results of a four-year research initiative with presentations from internal members coupled with external presentations from leading individuals in industry.

The day’s programme moved from an overview on the topic in the opening plenary into parallel sessions offering more nuanced perspectives on the topic (e.g. design, culture, business).  The afternoon session concluded with a closing plenary showcasing design applications of the research through student workshops/ competitions and practitioner projects.  AF issued an A3 Handout illustrating components of the toolkit to all attendees.

Presentations and transcriptions from the session are available to download.  Keynote:  Simon Austin, Design:  Robert Schmidt III, Culture (transcription):  Andy Dainty, Sustainability:  Peter Bishop / James Pinder, Business (transcription): Jim Saker.  Design Application Session:  James Kirk’s film (winning student film), Ash Sakula (film), Buro happold, Vandkunsten, Robin Partington

In its second year, 88 pianos ‘popped up’ this summer around NYC prompting spontaneous stages, concerts and engagements from people of all ages and walks of life.  Sing for Hope, a non-profit organization, whose mission is for all New Yorkers to have access to the arts, raises money to purchase the pianos year-round which are then ‘finished’ by different volunteer artists, scattered in public around NYC for two weeks, and finally donated to local schools, hospitals and community facilities. The ‘pop-up’ event is supplemented with online communications and competitions for ‘Best Music Video’ and ‘Photo of the Day’.  There are scheduled performances throughout the two weeks by volunteer artists (e.g. Broadway stars, local songwriters, and ballerinas) that gather large crowds.  For two weeks public space (many underused) around the city is activated (adapted) with these pianos, creating an activity, a buzz, that would otherwise not exist bringing people together and giving life to the city.

The AF project won new funding to take the next step in testing the implementation of the toolkit with design practices in the UK, Denmark and Japan.  Design practices include FAT, 3D Reid, Buro Happold, Assistant, and Vankunsten.  The work will also include collaborations with The University of Tokyo and The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts.  The work is set to begin from October 1^st, 2011.  For more information or interest in participating contact the AF team.

A slide from the presentation – more information in the paper.

Simon Austin presented the paper, “Understanding Adaptability through layer dependencies” at the 18^th International Conference on Engineering Design, 15 -18 August 2011 in Copenhagen.

The Duffle coat, a non-tailor made garment available only in a few sizes, has proven to be very ‘adaptable’ to a wide range of wearers over three generations (photo K Thornburrow).

William Fawcett of Cambridge Architectural Research visited Loughborough on Tuesday and shared his work that he has been doing on lifecycle options.  William’s work explores measuring and putting value on flexibility through simple simulation models.  The work defines a space’s flexibility by understanding the possible activities states, not the number of physical configurations. You can read a paper William published with MIT Projections here.

Photos of Leicester waterside (photo James Pinder)

Today James, Graham and Simon attended an event in Leicester’s waterside, organised by Ash Sakula architects. Ash Sakula and their development partners, Blueprint, were one of the successful entrants in our recent design competition. Their winning entry focused on exploring how Leicester’s waterside can be revitalised as an ‘adaptable neighbourhood’, one that evolves organically over time through local action, rather than being the product of top-down, government-led regeneration projects.

Photos of Leicester waterside (photo James Pinder)

The purpose of today’s meeting was to bring together stakeholders with an interest in the area and to work out how to begin the process of change. A wide variety of people attended the event, including local business people, local residents and representatives from Leicester City Council. The issues that they discussed were wide ranging and included the importance of making the area feel safer and the potential for attracting passing narrowboats by providing them with facilities to moor.

One of the main outcomes of today’s event was the willingness of different stakeholders to commit time and resources to begin the process of adapting Leicester waterside and developing a sustainable neighbourhood.