Next Wave Shelter & Kiosk Competition

NEXT WAVE SHELTER & KIOSK COMPETITION

Jury Report - Stage 2 Final Judging

Dates of Assessment : 25th & 26th November 2009

This paper describes the final judging process for the above competition.

Stage Two Submission Format

Following the first stage assessment the authors of the ten shortlisted schemes were issued with feedback from the first stage judging, and were required to refine their submissions in light of the feedback received. Second stage submissions comprised a 15 page design report plus an accompanying cost breakdown and outline programme. In addition, the teams had been asked to provide images and summary text for the public consultation.

Final judging would involve an interview and presentation with the Jury Panel.

Jury Panel

-Niall McLaughlin, Architect, RIBA Adviser, Chair of Panel

-Cllr Christopher Starnes, Elected Member, Rother District Council, Next Wave Project Sponsor

-Cllr Frances Winterborn, Elected Member, Rother District Council

-Cllr Michael Ensor, Elected Member, Rother District Council

-Claire Pollock, Sea Change Cultural Co-ordinator, CABE

-Alan Haydon, Director, De La Warr Pavilion

-Tony Leonard, Director of Services, Rother District Council

-Diane Russell, Design & Conservation Officer, Rother District Council

-Jan Windle, Next Wave Project Officer, Rother District Council

-Linda Roberts, RIBA Competitions (Observer)

The Judging Process

Final judging was held over two days in Bexhill De La Warr Pavilion, and involved a 45 minute interview and presentation with each shortlisted team. The teams were asked to start their interview with a 10 minute presentation. The purpose of the interviews was for the panel to meet the teams and togain a deeper understanding behind the proposed design concepts. Particularly the panel would be looking at how the teams responded to the questions put to them during the interview.

To ensure the jury panel members were fully familiar with the stage two submissions, one month in advance of the interviews they were each sent a CD containing all stage two submission material.

Public Consultation / Technical Appraisal

To help inform the process, panel members were each issued with a report summarising the findings from the public consultation. They also had all copies of all completed questionnaires and correspondence received.

The comments raised by the public were intended to inform the panel in their discussions and to assist them in their questioning of the teams. It was clear from the comments where the common areas of concern were, and the panel agreed that in some instances a number of these had been addressed by the detailed Stage 2 submissions, while in other instances the panel were interested in how schemes could develop to address concerns.

The panel was also provided with a technical summary of the ten schemes as provided by HTA, the Project Architects for the overall Next Wave project in Bexhill. An analysis of cost and programme had also been carried out by Ian Sayer & Co, in conjunction with the Next Wave Project Officer, and the findings from this were also available to the jury panel to consider in their deliberations and questioning.

Assessment Criteria

The panel’s assessment criteria was :

• Detailed Design Quality

Architectural quality ; creativity and innovation ; response to site and context ; day-time and night-time appearance ; design philosophy of the team

• Detailed Response to Brief

Functionality and fitness for purpose ; durability and future maintenance ; qualitative experience ; response to specific feedback ; sustainability

• Deliverability within Budget & Programme

Proposed programme ; construction budget ; experience of the team ; CDM

• Response to public consultation

As indicated analysis of the above would be aided by the feedback from the technical appraisal.

General Discussion

Prior to the first interview the panel discussed the format for the interviews.

Panel members had each been given an assessment form which listed all the criteria stated above. The Chair of the Panel explained that this was intended to make sure there was consistency and that the jury should use this to guide them through the process. It was up to each individual panel member whether they chose to ‘score’ the submissions or simply use the form to record comments against the criteria,however it was agreed that the final decision would be reached through deliberation and debate.

The panel agreed that there were four particular areas that were key to the success of this project :

-the scheme must be fit-for-purpose providing appropriate level of shelter

-durability – the designs must look good in years to come

-construction and cost – the budget and programme are tight therefore the panel would need reassurance that the successful scheme could meet the requirements

-aesthetics – the scheme should make a statement but should also be in keeping with the culture of the town.

It was important to see how the architects presented and how they responded tothe questions. Did they give confidence that they would listen, take on board feedback/criticism, did they strike the right balance between demonstrating flexibility in their approach and conviction in their concept.

The panel members were reminded that at this stage in the process the schemes are still in the design development phase.

To ensure consistency, each panel member was allocated a topic based on the criteria, around which to base their questions to the teams.

To follow is a brief summary of the ten interviews and key issues arising from the panel discussions, listed in interview order.

Interview 1 – Team A (Rayner Davies Architects Ltd)

Rayner Davies is a young practice established three years ago, with an office in Nottingham and more recentlyKent. The presentation explained the principal aims of the concept – to work with the existing promenade, ‘peeling up’ the ground surface, introduce ‘playful’ architecture, create framed vistas, and give an open and transparent feel to the structures.

When questioned about durability of materials the team said they had explored different options – maintenance free zinc roof, timber rainshield, polycarbonate glazing, if needed they said the individual slats could be removed. They felt the special things about the design to be the contrast of materials and the unique way the two curved structures came together. They explained that backs to seats could be incorporated to give more comfort if needed and that this could be done without affecting the concept. When questioned about wind protection they said the orientation of the structures addressed prevailing wind direction and referred the panel to the range of seating positions the scheme providedwhich meant there was always somewhere to shelter. In general terms they added that they would be open to discuss all aspects of the scheme.

The panel thought the team gave a very professional presentation, answering the questions very thoughtfully. They concluded the design ambition was expressed better in the shelterthan the kiosk, wherethey remained concerned about its level of encroachment onto the promenade. The other comment was that the design felt ‘over-engineered’and the panel questioned why so many steel structures had been proposed. So, although the scheme fulfilled many aspects of the brief, on both an aesthetic and practical level the panel had a number of concerns about some aspects of this scheme.

Interview 2 – Scheme B (K2 Architects)

K2 set up practice two years ago. Both partners are from seaside towns therefore familiar with the design requirements for the climatic conditions. They highlighted the fact that they wanted to create something that engaged with the landscape rather than ‘weather waiting rooms’. The curved shape and form of their scheme stems from research which suggests that flat formed structures perform badly in windy conditions. Familiarity with the seaside experience had also helped informed the colour and shape of the scheme.

The team explained the structures would be clad in marine ply, pre-weathered zinc (with a 100 year lifespan) - working with good engineers made them confident the design could be made durable. The jury panel questioned the team about the level of shelter from the wind – again they referred to their research which suggested that wind would pass over people’s heads, also that wind between the slats would be of very low pressure only - to accommodate earlier concerns the gap between slats had been reduced since stage one. The team felt their scheme had a 1930’s retro-feel that was in keeping with the town, but would be happy to work to get the colour right if people weren’t comfortable with it. In terms of comfort and access, the seats are deep and the slats curved, all surfaces are anti-slip, and the kiosk has a low servery section for children and people in wheelchairs.

The judges thought there were some lovely elements to this scheme, a particular strength was the interactive seating arrangement. Despite the team’s reassurances the judges remained unconvinced it would provide appropriate shelter. They also had a concern about the proposed steel lattice construction and whether the durability guarantee given could be achieved. And whilst an attractive scheme the judges felt that this scheme could be in danger of dating quickly, and concluded that this scheme was not the right one for Bexhill seafront.

Interview 3 – Scheme C (John Pardey Architects)

The team introduced the presentation with an example of a scheme designed for a coastal town for public conveniences – the designs have a light and airy feel and cleaning and maintenance costs have been halved. Though a single approach, the construction technique enabled each of six designs all to be very different. The team has a general interest in materials and construction technique and this always informs their designs. They acknowledged that their stage 1 scheme was too large for this site, and the developed scheme was a section of the original, which was possible due to the modular construction approach. They showed how the shelters and kiosk would be developed from modules all cut from the same sheet – each frame is different and the only change is the positioning of the bolts. They explained that the triangular shape underneath could be filled in if there were concerns about the void.

In terms of material choice the team said that corten has a 120 year design life and that rusting slows down in time. However they said they would be happy to look at alternatives, for example painted steel, if there were concerns. The design was specific for Bexhill and the team was confident it would become part of its legacy. Their approach to providing comfort was simple – people enjoy looking out to see. They had taken a balanced view between providing somewhere that is pleasant to sit on a sunny day as well as in bad weather. However, they stressed the design was still at the development stage and if people wanted further protection they could look at this, for example bringing the roof down at one end, or increasing the arms of seats. Also, people could always choose to sit the other side if they preferred.

The panel appreciated the team’s belief in their design and thought the response to the shelter question was very well put forward. The public convenience scheme gave confidence over the team’s ability to deliver good and practical architecture within budget. There was some concern that the scheme had lost some of its original qualities through being made smaller. Also the kiosk was less resolved than the shelter design. However, the proposed kit of parts construction technique was unique and inspired. And whilst it could be said that the shelter lacked the warmth and comfort of other schemes, this was an interesting and well-considered response to the brief, from a strong and experienced team.

Interview 4 – Scheme D (Superfusionlab Ltd)

The colour, shape and form of this scheme is inspired by the existing architecture of Bexhill. The shelter is designed to provide south-westerly protection, and allows views out and circulation within. There are opportunities for different seating configurations, with a metre between seats so it is fully accessible. Portholes within the kiosk give it a pleasant internal ambience. In terms of durability, the surface of the structures would be designed to be weather and graffiti resistant. The team gave different options for construction methods and materials. They felt their design provided good protection however if successful the next step would be to carry out a full wind analysis. Function and form had informed the design and already the shape had changed since the original design to accommodate earlier concerns.

The panel appreciated the team’s professional and articulate presentation, and their honest approach to budget, the fact that options were presented (for example the ‘nose’ of the kiosk could be reduced or removed),a benefit would be that this scheme could be designed to have a very long design life. The judges felt that a strength of this scheme was its continuous sculptural form. The team had worked hard to take on board the judges’ comments from stage one. However the design still didn’t seem to work in some respects – the seating seemed to be a bit disjointed from the shelter, the judges weren’t entirely comfortable with the level of shelter, and were concerned that the designs could date quickly. That said, this was a very imaginative and tactile scheme, the depth of thought had come through very strongly in the interview.

Interview 5 – Scheme E (Michael Tite & Tom Ebdon)

Michael Tite and Tom Ebdon are both young architects currently working at different practices. The panel were shownimages of timber housing designs in Cornwall and Kent that they had been involved with – good examples of designing in harsh coastal environments. Inspiration for the scheme came following visits to Bexhill, and generally from the British character of sitting out no matter what the weather, experiencing the seaside and looking out to sea. Thehigh-backed Y-shaped seating designwas proposed to provide both good shelter and different seating options, along with strong panoramic views out. The kiosk is a simple timber fabricated box with storage walls to house external display stock, and a variety of opening-up options depending on prevailing winds.

The panel asked the team to explain how the structure was held together, particularly how the connection between roof and seating worked. Theyexplained that at least half of each timber truss would be permanently fixed. The team would work with their engineers to develop and refine the junction, including the potential to allow a gap between the roof and seating to better set off the solid mass of the latter and the visual lightness of the former, and to ensure the roof was durable. With regard to aesthetics their aim had been to produce a design which had a modern contemporary feel that interacted with the environment and importantly allowed people to enjoy the seaside. The panel said that some people were uncomfortable with concrete and in response they said they would look at materials and would make sure the surface was tactile and smooth.

The panel was impressed with the team’s enthusiasm and commitment - they had an appealing attitude to the seaside experience which came through strongly in their presentation. The strength of the scheme is in its plan form and of all schemes this provided the best shelter. The judges were confident that any concerns about the structure and materials could be overcome without losing the aesthetic appeal. The panel were pleased to learn that the truss is more durable and rigid than appears. Spatially the kiosk worked well and as discussed with the team, the design could be easily developed to reduce its scale and to better articulate its ‘closed’ form. From the past work of the team, the panel had confidence in their ability to detail to a high standard.

Interview 6 – Scheme F (Don Orike Architects)