The architecture of reuse can lead to surprise revelations once a project goes on site, says Eleanor Young
In the airy expanse of the 13th-century Messums West tithe barn in Wiltshire, the words of Barnabas Calder rang out clear and true: ‘We need to throw the massive charisma of architecture behind reuse.’ As author of Architecture from Prehistory to Climate Emergency, he set the tenor for a day of poetic and pragmatic reuse projects and understanding their value in reducing the contribution of construction to climate change.
As the projects were paraded, it was clear that once on site, listening to a building to see how it could be its best self could not be constrained to early plan of work stages. Revelations uncovered in the built fabric confound expectations.
Retaining the good-quality bricks of Park Hill in Sheffield was a core part of Mikhail Riches’ strategy for the RIBA Stirling Prize-shortlisted phase 2 refurbishment, but behind them, the backing was crumbling.
On Smithfield General Market building the discovery of many extra metres of precise and thoughtfully detailed 7m-high vaults from the 19th century gave Stanton Williams extra room to play with on its scheme for the London Museum. To keep them beautifully visible, clear of the servicing, a trench was excavated around the perimeter. This revealed a dramatic, haphazard inconsistency in the depths of footings. ‘We spent 10 times longer on servicing because of the up and down footings,’ explained Paul Williams.
‘Existing buildings throw up unknowns almost weekly,’ he continued, recalling another project where a Civil War rampart, unknown to the client or Stanton Williams, was uncovered, requiring the design to be substantially reworked. It’s a hummock in the ground that now gives character to the Rhodes House gardens in Oxford. But who pays for the hours that the redesign will take?
It can be difficult to resource all the time designing workarounds or redesigning as these things require
At a time when many practices have shrunk, it can be difficult to resource all the time designing workarounds or redesigning as these things require. But the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report shows there is no room for skimping on designing thoroughly. The design team needs to be fully aware of the regulatory duties and landscape that are set up to keep us safe, taking exacting care to exercise those duties and ensuring that the right expertise is brought onto the job.
At the same time, we are seeing the current generation of architects receiving less in their pay packets through their careers. Practices are not making enough to support architects as they did in previous generations.
The RIBA and others have seen the extra responsibilities of principal designer as resetting the role – and so the fee levels – of the profession. And for building reuse, Calder is not alone is arguing that there needs to be a rethinking of fee structures to ‘adequately reward architects for helping people stay in existing buildings’. If you know how, get in touch. We all want to hear.