uk higher education space management project promoting space

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Promoting space efficiencyin building design

March 2006

2006/09

Promoting space efficiency in building design

Contents

Page

Foreword 2

1 Executive summary 3

2 Introduction 4

3 Study method 7

4 Results 8

5 Costs and benefits 11

6 Good practice guidance – Tools for achieving space efficiency 13

7 Case study comparisons 17

8 Case studies 1-15 23

Appendix: Area definitions 103

List of abbreviations Inside back cover

Promoting space efficiency in building design 2006/09 1

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the many people who helped us during this project, inparticular the Space Management Group and all those who suggestedpotential case studies, estates teams, staff and student users in the case studyuniversities. We have relied heavily on information provided by estatesdepartments. We have been well supported by a team from Davis LangdonManagement Consulting who helped gather and analyse cost information onthe detailed case studies. Particular thanks are due to Bernard Dromgoole ofHEFCE and Sian Kilner of Kilner Planning, who have helped activelythroughout the project.

Foreword

This report, commissioned by the SpaceManagement Group, provides the link betweenteaching and learning practice and the impact ofdesign on performance (the ‘wow factor’). It is avaluable complement to the SMG report on theimpact on space of future changes in HE (ref2006/10), and to a study published in March2005 by CABE and sponsored by HEFCEentitled ‘Design with distinction – the value ofgood building design in higher education’.Together these reports can provide a stimulus tofurther research, and to more efficient andeffective use of space.

Professor David ChiddickChairman of SMG Vice-Chancellor, University of Lincoln

2 Promoting space efficiency in building design 2006/09

1 Executive summaryThis publication is the outcome of a researchproject conducted by consultants AMA AlexiMarmot Associates for the UK Higher EducationSpace Management Group.

The aims were to identify which aspects ofbuilding design contribute most to optimumspace efficiency, and to produce good practicefor establishing space efficiency within highereducation institutions when embarking onbuilding projects.

The bulk of the publication comprises 15 casestudies of recent refurbishment, expansion,upgrading or new builds in higher educationinstitutions.

Below is a summary of what we have concludedto be 10 key points when seeking optimum spaceefficiency through building design. Below thatare 10 points of good practice.

Keys to space efficiency through buildingdesign (these are expanded on in section4.3.2)

• Maximise the built space on the footprint ofnew buildings and by modest additions andextensions in existing buildings.

• Match new uses to the existing built form inrefurbishment projects.

• Provide a high ratio of usable area to grossbuilt area.

• Capture balance areas for active use.

• Provide versatile space, furniture andfittings that can be used for differentactivities.

• Specify design features that allow differentactivities at different times.

• Optimise space standards for effective work.

• Create versatile office and research space,with appropriate open plan areas,supplemented by meeting and quiet spaces.

• Optimise furniture sizes for effective work.

• Provide for wireless data access to enablemaximum effective use of common space.

10 points of good practice for introducingspace efficiency (these are expanded on insection 6)

• Appoint a ‘champion’ for spacemanagement and cost in use.

• Systematically collect and update space andcost information.

• Agree targets and monitor their attainment.

• Collect standardised utilisation data,including office space utilisation.

• Collect and apply detailed cost information.

• Incorporate space efficiency concepts intothe estate strategy.

• Incorporate requirements for spaceefficiency into project briefs, feasibilitystudies, option appraisals and designreviews.

• Develop and maintain a clear decision andcommunication structure for buildingprojects, including user groups.

• Promote the benefits of versatile spaces andthe right furniture.

• Include space efficiency information in post-occupancy evaluations.


2 Introduction

2.1 Remit and objectives

The four UK higher education funding bodieshave commissioned research into a wide range ofissues relating to space management in order tohelp higher education institutions (HEIs) managetheir space in an efficient and sustainable waythat meets their pedagogic, research and supportneeds.

This report describes the outcome of researchinto the role of building design in spaceefficiency, reporting to the UK Higher EducationSpace Management Group (SMG) as part of thebroader Space Management Project (SMP). Thestudy remit was ‘to determine how design canmaximise efficient and effective space use for thefull range of higher education functions’. Theassumption behind the study is that moreefficient space is essential in the contemporaryclimate in the higher education (HE) sector.(Various definitions of space efficiency areexamined in section 2.4 and the appendix.)

Further elaboration on our 10 good practice keypoints to improve space efficiency throughbuilding projects are detailed in section 6. Theycover processes for HE management and estatedepartments to execute at the estate and buildinglevel. They are based on desk research,experience of space efficient practice in othersectors and on the findings from our 15 casestudies. All the case studies are in section 8.

There is ongoing review and debate about theextent to which buildings and their design mayhave an impact on the reputation and success ofan HEI, through the recruitment and retention ofstudents or staff. While recognising that designquality may be important in this respect, this

report does not explore this potential effect ofthe quality of building design, which is coveredin more detail in a recent report from theCommission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment (CABE)1.

2.2 Setting the scene – Student trends andacademic change

The context includes the following changeswithin higher education:

• participation in higher education has beenincreasing overall, with a greater increase inpart-time undergraduates than full-time2

• further increase in student numbers isexpected. The government target of 50% of18-30 year-olds attending HEIs could mean300,000 extra students by 20103

• there is greater breadth in the types ofstudents, and new subject areas are rising inimportance (such as non-medical healthprofessions, media and creative arts),combined with new approaches to teachingand learning, and to the use of IT and e-learning4.

2.3 Setting the scene – Impact on thedesign of space

Changes in higher education are beingaccompanied by, and in some cases causing,considerable modifications in buildings in theHEI estate. Space efficiency is improving acrossthe sector, with less space on average perstudent, institutions offering longer teachinghours, and more pooled space:

• there was a small drop in non-residentialnet internal area (NIA) per student full-timeequivalent (FTE) between 1999-2000 and2001-025


1 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), April 2005, ‘Design with Distinction: the value of goodbuilding design in higher education’. Written for CABE and the UK Higher Education Funding Councils by PriceWaterhouseCooperswith research by the University of the West of England.

2 Universities UK, 2004, ‘Higher education in facts and figures’, Summer 2004, Universities UK, viewed 11 January 2004,www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk

3 Davis Langdon Everest, 2002, Cost model November 2002, available at www.davislangdon-uk/europe_middleeast/costdata.htmlunder Building Magazine ‘21st Century University Building’.

4 JM Consulting, ‘Teaching and learning infrastructure in higher education’ a report to HEFCE, Ref HEFCE 2002/31.

5 Estate Management Statistics (EMS), Annual report 2002, available at www.opdems.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pubfiles.pl

• in 2004, 50% of HEIs were operating withless than 8.4 m2 NIA per FTE now,compared to 42% in 20006

• HEI estates departments are carrying outmany projects specifically to achieve siteand building consolidation.

Space efficiency must be balanced against itseffectiveness. New modes of teaching andlearning, for example, often require a largerspace per student within teaching rooms plus theprovision of new student-centred learningenvironments across the estate. Offsetting theseincreased demands means that even greater spaceefficiencies may need to be sought in otherfacilities such as offices.

The management of space and its co-ordinationwith the wider aims of each HEI is particularlyimportant and has been considered in otherpapers of the SMP. The impact on space oftrends in HE has been examined as part of theSMP study7. The report covers future changes inhigher education and confirms the likelihoodthat HEIs will have a prominent and stablephysical presence in the long term and act asmagnets for other uses, rather than dispersingphysically. The report suggests that future spacerequirements will be affected by student numbersand preferences largely outside the control ofHEIs. Institutions can, however, exert influenceover the impact on space demand that arisesfrom changes in academic disciplines orpedagogic approaches, and from managementfactors.

Changes in the external and internalenvironment will cause all types of HEI – be theyteaching-led, liberal arts, or research-led – toremodel and redevelop their estates to meet newneeds, often to provide ‘more space forunstructured/ad hoc self-directed learning andpeer teaching among students’. Seminars willoften be accommodated by creating more small

teaching rooms. Administrative functions areexpanding, which may offset the spaceefficiencies achieved by introducing more openplan office areas.

2.4 Definitions

2.4.1 Measurement

Advice on improving space efficiency must beaccompanied by clarity in measuring thatefficiency. Measurement is necessary so thattargets can be set and space efficiency attained.Space efficiency measurements depend on floorarea, which must be measured using agreeddefinitions. There are several valid ways tomeasure space and analyse the total area withina building. They are based on the principle ofdistinguishing the areas used for differentfunctions, including the structure of a building.

The concept of usable space and its relationshipto ‘balance’ areas (ie, areas that enable abuilding to function, such as lifts and toilets)and/or net internal area, is critical when seekingspace efficiency. There are differences in the wayspace is described in commercial buildings andHEIs. Gross and net areas are distinguished inboth sectors but usable space may be differentlydescribed. The appendix sets down definitionsused by the Royal Institute of CharteredSurveyors (RICS)8 and in Estate ManagementStatistics (EMS)9. The compilers of EMSdefinitions suggest that in time a shift to matchthe RICS definitions could and should beachieved. This would reduce the potential forconfusion between different measurementmethods.

2.4.2 Space efficiency – Buildings

The space efficiency of any building relates tothree factors:

• the quantity of space, generally calculated interms of floor area though occasionallyvolume may also be relevant


6 EMS, Annual report 2003, available at www.opdems.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pubfiles.pl

7 Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Paul Temple, Institute of Education, 2006, ‘Impact on space of future changes inhigher education’. UK Space Management Project. Ref HEFCE 2006/10.

8 RICS, 2001, ‘Code of Measuring Practice – A Guide for Surveyors and Valuers’ 5th edition, RICS Books, London.

9 IPD Occupiers Property Database in association with GVA Grimley, ‘EMS data definitions’, at www.opdems.ac.ukpublished November 2004.

• the number of users, potential and actual

• the amount of time the space is used.

A building can be said to be ‘designed for spaceefficiency’ when it provides:

a. The minimum necessary space for thedesired functions to be properlyaccommodated, with minimum ‘waste’between net internal area and gross internalarea (NIA:GIA, commonly expressed as theratio net:gross) or between net usable areaand net internal area (NUA:NIA). Thesemeasures are normally expressed aspercentages.

b. The minimum space necessary for effectivelearning and research per FTE student(space per student FTE) or staff (space perstaff member, or laboratory worker, FTE).

c. A high level of space utilisation because thespace is used for the maximum possibleamount of time10. This concept is generallyapplied to utilisation of teaching space,though it can also be applied to office spaceutilisation11. It is usually expressed as thepercentage of hours of use compared to abenchmark (typically 50 hours per weekduring term time), multiplied by thepercentage of occupied seats.

2.4.3 Space efficiency – Site and estate

Considering briefly the site on which thebuilding stands, a space efficient building is onethat makes most use of the site, and thereforehas a maximum gross external area in relation tothe site area (GEA:site area).

This concept can be extended to an entirecampus. An estate can be considered efficient ifit uses all the land it has for buildings, landscapeand access well, while taking into account theneed for future expansion, and the density that issuited to the surrounding development.

Many of the case study buildings are part of anestate rationalisation process, seeking to reducethe number of buildings and concentrate onsmaller or fewer campuses. Inevitably estateefficiencies have been sought and generallyprovide ample justification for specific buildingprojects. This applies to buildings that arerefurbished, modified or built to accommodatethe organisational changes that often accompany,and may be the incentive for seeking, estaterationalisation.

2.4.4 Resource and cost efficiencies

Other efficiency measures incorporate conceptsof lifetime cost and use patterns over time. Wehave not explored these ideas in detail thoughthey are relevant in building projects that seek tomaximise efficiency benefits overall. Efficientspace in these terms is:

• space that can be modified cost-effectivelywhen functional requirements change, thuspermitting reuse of buildings in the long-term

• space that has been specified and detailed togive reasonable cost in use

• space that is built to last and will have along life.


10 Education and Learning Wales, January 2002, ‘Space Management - a Good Practice Guide’, Higher Education FundingCouncil for Wales (HEFCW). These data are requested in the EMS returns.

11 Expressed as the percentage of hours that workspaces are used over a standard day, usually 10 hours from 8am to 6pm.

3 Study methodThe study method involved:

• a literature review of available materialabout space measurement, utilisation andefficiency in university buildings

• comparison with the body of knowledgeabout the provision of efficient space inother building types, especially offices

• 15 case studies of buildings that appeared toincorporate design ideas to enhance spaceefficiency.

The literature review examined space measuresand concepts of space efficiency currently used inthe UK and internationally. We looked at spacestandards that have been applied to differentdisciplines in HE at different times, thedevelopment of room utilisation measures, andthe increase in centrally timetabled, pooledrooms.

The 15 case studies cover recently completedbuilding projects ranging from very small tolarge, general teaching to highly technicallyspecialised space, new build and iconic tointernal rearrangement and refurbishment. Wevisited the sites, conducted interviews, examineddrawings and other documents, and thenanalysed the data. The selection, shown insection 8, covers: urban and campus contexts;institutions ranging from research focused toformer polytechnics mainly concerned withteaching; a wide range of disciplines; and a widegeographical spread12. All the case studies werechecked by the individual estates departmentsthat had provided the information. Our analysisof what they revealed is presented in section 7with the case study descriptions following.

In terms of resource efficiency, refurbishmentprojects are more efficient overall, even if thespace efficiency measures, as defined in 2.4, arethemselves not significantly improved. ManyHEIs have major programmes of refurbishment,

a trend that Barnett and Temple’s13 reporthighlights, and that can be expected to increasein future. Existing funding direction at theHigher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE) encourages the refurbishment of spacerather than a more costly new building. Forthese reasons many refurbishment projects wereselected for the case studies.

Four cases, which appeared, from the first visits,to provide good information about spaceefficient design measures, were further analysedand additional material was gathered, includingcost information.

Research for each case study collected, analysedand collated the following information whereavailable:

• use of the building

• student FTEs using the building

• type of campus, site and location

• new or refurbishment project

• date of completion

• main client, design team, contractors

• briefing information

• cost overall (and GIA per m2)

• building area (GIA, NIA and NUA)

• photographic record

• furniture measurements for research andlearning resource buildings.


12 A list of over 300 possible cases was initially drawn up, suggested by SMG, Kilner Planning, Davis Langdon from its wide clientlist, from a review of the technical literature and through our own contacts. This list was reduced to 60 and then further to 15.

13 Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Paul Temple, Institute of Education, 2006, ‘Impact on space of future changes in highereducation’. UK Space Management Project. Ref HEFCE 2006/10.

4 Results

4.1 Key findings from desk research

The desk research suggests a number of pointsabout space efficiency and building design:

• information about specific buildings, theirdesign and use is sketchy. Only a fewinstitutions appear to collect thisinformation systematically for all buildings

• the contribution of any particular buildingto space efficiency or effectiveness is notusually identified in institutionalinformation

• EMS data are compiled from individualbuilding information held by HEIs butcollated in an aggregated format by eachinstitution

• space standards are commonly used as aguide for design, measured by discipline orfunction, and for office space, by seniorityand role. This was the case for theUniversity Grants Committee (UGC)standards in the past

• in the UK the average space per studentFTE is lower than in many other countries –particularly the US and Australia

• utilisation data are collected by many HEIsfor teaching rooms, but are under-exploitedas a tool to manage space efficiency.Utilisation data for other spaces do notappear to be gathered.

4.2 Office space

Efficient use of space is well articulated in othersectors, especially for office buildings.Developers of speculative office space haveincreasingly sought to provide space-efficientbuildings, to improve product value. Owner-occupiers also seek space efficiency, in order tocontrol one of their major overheads. Typicallyoffice workspace in the UK averages 14-16 m2

NIA in large private organisations. Manyorganisations have embarked on projects toincrease space efficiency through strategies ofreducing the average size of enclosed offices anddesks in open plan areas, eliminating all solooffices and introducing office ‘hotelling’ formobile staff. Much importance is also placed onreducing the space taken up by filing anddocument storage through the use of highdensity storage, efficient filing furniture,electronic filing and knowledge management.Some of these solutions are applicable to the HEIsector though not widely used as yet.

In the office sector, there are well-established keyperformance indicators for space efficiency. AnNIA:GIA ratio of 85% represents a good ratio oftenant area to landlord area from a landlord’spoint of view, and an NUA:NIA14 ratio of 80%represents an efficiently designed office buildingfrom a tenant’s point of view, where primarycirculation does not reduce the usable areaunreasonably.15

4.3 Key findings from case studies

4.3.1 Data

The HEIs in the case studies have not generallycaptured or used data to promote spaceefficiency. There are some exceptions, but on thebasis of our sample, this is not common in thesector:

a. Space efficiency has not generally beenpresent or high on the agenda in mostbuilding projects. For space efficiency to bedelivered it must be emphasised more,especially during the briefing and earlydesign stages.

b. Measurements of space efficiency, such asnet:gross floor area, are rarely captured orused. Those provided for the EMS, such asspace per student FTE, are not related toindividual buildings. The measurements thatare available do not appear to be


14 NUA (net usable area) = NIA minus primary circulation routes for fire exits.

15 Eley, J & Marmot, AF 1995, ‘Understanding Offices – what every manager needs to know about officebuildings’, Penguin Books, London; and Marmot, AF & Eley, J 2000, ‘Office Space Planning – Designing forTomorrow’s Workforce’, McGraw-Hill, New York.

incorporated into the thinking behindproject briefs.

c. Feedback data are not regularly collected byHEIs. There is little feedback informationabout floor areas, furniture sizes or spaceefficiency, so projects cannot benefit bylearning from previous examples.

d. Utilisation data are usually only collectedfor teaching spaces, sometimes only forpooled teaching spaces. There is scope touse such data far more powerfully, ensuringcompatibility in measurement across HEIsand collection of data for more space types,especially offices.

e. While data on capital spending on projectsis generally available, the quality of cost-in-use data captured by the case studyinstitutions varied significantly, with anumber simply capturing data on a campus-wide (rather than a building-specific) basis.

4.3.2 Space efficiency through building design

We have identified several design measures, somein common use, adopted to maximise spaceefficiency16:

a. Maximising the built space on the sitefootprint of new buildings and modestadditions and extensions to existingbuildings can have a significant impact.Design strategies include:

• adding a new outer skin or extra areaor building on the roof (seen in casestudies 9 and 14)

• filling in atria and voids in the floorplan, making buildings deeper fromwindow to window and providingincreased floor area on essentially thesame footprint (seen in case studies 4and 9)

• small extensions, sometimesincorporating specialised uses, allowbuildings to fulfil new functionswithout much increase in area or loss

of site amenity (seen in case studies 8and 10).

b. Matching new uses to the existing buildingtype in refurbishment projects (case studies3 and 4).

c. Capturing balance areas for active usewhere possible (case study 12).

d. Providing versatile space, furniture andfittings that can be used for differentactivities (case studies 1, 3 and 4).

e. Specifying design features that allowdifferent activities at different times (casestudies 3 and 4).

f. Optimising space standards for effectivework (case studies 1 and 14).

g. Creating more versatile office and researchspace, open plan areas as appropriate,supplemented by additional meeting andquiet spaces (case studies 2, 5, 7 and 13).

h. Optimising furniture sizes for effective work(case studies 1 and 14).

i. Providing for wireless data access to enableoccasional use of common space.

In addition to design measures the case studiesalso show that management of space plays asignificant role. Many of the case studies useopen plan areas, especially for administrativestaff, recognising that these are space efficientand reduce the cost of churn. Group rooms foracademic offices are being adopted in somecases, to help integrate related disciplines, withan added advantage of opportunities for spacesaving. Reduction in solo offices does not alwaysreceive support from senior management, and israrely popular with academics. It is moresuccessful when carefully managed, as forexample at Sheffield Hallam University, whereusers’ perceived difficulties were addressed andthe advantages exploited.

Management can also play a role in controllingthe overall size of the workplace footprint by


16 The case study numbering reflects the list in Figure 1, section 7. Not all ideas listed were found in thecase studies.

encouraging efficient storage habits, andinvesting in electronic filing and knowledgemanagement.

Space efficiency is being increased in some HEIsby making as much teaching space as possiblepooled and centrally bookable. This is notnecessarily affected by building design, thoughthe detailed design of equipment and finishesmay be used to encourage more opportunities forgeneral use of teaching spaces. Location alsomatters. Teaching rooms used by a diversepopulation should be located where they can beeasily found even by people unfamiliar with aparticular building, and be easily controlled forsecurity. Locations at ground level and nearstairs and lifts are desirable.

Standards are an important management tooland can play an important role in introducingefficiencies. Space standards or norms aregenerally desired, and still in common use,especially to gauge building requirements asprojects start. They are often based on the oldUGC or Polytechnics and Colleges FundingCouncil (PCFC) standards, usually reduced by afactor determined by each HEI as suitable for itsindividual purposes.


5 Costs and benefitsEvidence suggests that when the HE sector getsthe development process right it can deliverbuildings and facilities that are comparable incost with any other sector. Indeed, many HEIs,particularly those with a significant internationalstatus, now benchmark themselves against theseother sectors rather than against each other andare moving away from ‘best in university class’buildings. For instance, when delivering ascientific research building a university maybenchmark itself against a leading private sectorlaboratory, and when delivering a facultybuilding it may look to review what it isproviding against British Council for Offices fit-out guidelines.

Having said that, the HE sector delivers a rangeof facilities and building types that is far broaderthan almost any other sector and, therefore,every building can be considered prototypical.This range, with some of the other uniquecharacteristics of the HE sector, means that thereare a number of challenges in delivering a newfacility.

5.1 Issues affecting costs

Some of the issues that affect costs and thereforeuseful cost-benchmarking are as follows:

• the need to include significant amounts ofancillary space (such as retail space, or caféareas) rather than primary functional spacewithin a new building

• restrictions imposed by funding and phasingmay mean the optimum facility cannot beprovided

• the pressure on finite funds to address asignificant backlog of maintenance workpromotes a ‘make-do and mend’ approachrather than a longer term redevelopmentstrategy

• lack of funds to maintain new facilities

• the need for flexibility and adaptability toaccommodate any future changes inteaching strategy and the university’s long-term aspirations

• for inner city universities, a lack of spacedrives institutions toward the (small scale)refurbishment of existing space and leavesthem unable to solve some space standardissues that a new building would overcome

• space use norms on an existing campus canmean that the overall space per student FTEcontinues to be higher than could beachieved on a greenfield site

• the inability of small- to medium-sizedrefurbishment projects to make effectiveamounts of surplus space available

• the need to spend significant amounts oninfrastructure upgrades before usable spacecan be refurbished

• the type of institution – research, teaching,science based, arts based etc

• the briefing process and the need for strongacademic leadership throughout the project:aspirations must be clearly identified, notover-specified, and unnecessary (or late)changes should not be introduced

• funding streams and sources that placegreater emphasis on capital cost limits (and,in particular, cost per m2 limits) rather thanspace efficiency or whole life costconsiderations

• anomalies in the capture of historical data.

The way many HEIs capture and analyse costdata means that information that is publiclyavailable is often of little use when trying tocompare in detail how efficient one specificbuilding is against another. Historically, thetraditional way to record cost data has been on acost per m2 of GIA basis and this will beinfluenced by many different factors.Consequently, there may be very little correlationbetween the cost per m2 GIA, user satisfactionand space use within the building. Analysingdata on a simple cost per m2 GIA basis withoutfurther data sources is therefore of limited use.


5.2 Conclusions

Space efficient building design can be helped by:

• ensuring that space efficiency is a conscioustarget for each project

• collection and use of data on space, cost,and use, for strategic decision-making andthroughout projects

• incorporating appropriate specific designideas found in the case studies

• careful specification and planning offurniture

• following good process in all decisions.

Space efficiency as a specific goal did not seem tohave been overtly expressed in most of the casestudies. The exceptions are buildings which weredesigned as part of an estate consolidationstrategy, rather than as space-efficient buildingsin their own right.

Generally, the data about space that is availableto HEIs is not as well-used as it could be, andmore data is required. Great variety isencountered when looking at the buildings ofdifferent HEIs. This supports the need for HEIsto collect their own space efficiency measuresover time, as well as relating their measures tothose of other HEIs, through the EMS process.

The design ideas that are most helpful, such ascreating versatile, multifunctional spaces or openplan and shared office areas, are closely affectedby assumptions about the management of spaceand its ‘ownership’ and therefore to theorganisational structure and culture. Support atthe highest level is needed for the introduction ofmany of these concepts, both to clarify them inthe briefing process and to get buy-in from theusers.

Furniture needs to be considered early in aproject. Where case study HEIs commissionedfurniture specifically for a particular use, spaceefficiency was not found to be a clearlyarticulated requirement, although small sizeswere in fact bought. New design ideas forfurniture that would help multi-use or be morespace efficient for a particular building may beneeded from traditional, or from new, suppliers.

Furniture innovation that leads to efficient,functional and attractive spaces should be soughtfor student seating, staff desks and all storage.


6 Good practice guidance –tools for achieving spaceefficiencyHEIs can take a number of steps to implementgreater space efficiency, which are listed in theexecutive summary. Here we expand on those 10keys to success.

6.1 Appoint a ‘champion’ for space andcost-in-use

A champion (or champions) is needed for spaceand for cost-in-use. The champion should havethe time, resources and authority to contribute topolicy decisions as well as to influence individualprojects. It could be the same person or twoseparate individuals. This champion needs toprovide a report on space efficiency to the board,senior management, and to each faculty at leastannually. Champions should be involved insetting space efficiency and cost-in-use targets,checking project designs to see that these targetsare taken into account, and ensuring that follow-up is achieved through appropriate post-occupancy evaluations (POEs).

6.2 Systematically collect and update spaceinformation

A database of information about buildings,internal spaces and faculty or departmental usersmakes space efficiency policies easier toimplement. The database should provide goodtrend information about space requirements onwhich future briefs can be built. The databaseshould include area measurements distinguishinggross, net and balance or net usable categories.The areas should be checked against ‘as-built’drawings to ensure they match and be updated ifbuilding changes are made. A standardnomenclature should be part of the database, toallow each room type to be categorised. Thedatabase should link to, or incorporate, detailsof post-occupancy surveys, including details ofthe space standards achieved and in use and theusers’ reactions to these standards.

6.3 Agree space targets, monitor theirattainment and report to senior management

Space targets should be developed for the HEsector for the following categories:

• GEA:site area

• net:gross area

• NIA/student FTE

• office NUA/office user FTE

• teaching space utilisation

• utilisation of other spaces – such as officesand learning spaces.

The case studies indicate that net usable:grossfloor area ratios in learning resource centres arelikely to be higher than in general teachingbuildings; while specialist buildings, such asscience research and performing arts, will havelower ratios.

EMS data should incorporate area efficiencymeasures of net usable:gross area, for entireestates, and for specific buildings. This wouldallow benchmark information to be built upacross the sector. Space ratios for specificacademic disciplines should be developed.

Individual HEIs should collect and monitor theirown detailed information for each building tocompare with sector-wide targets.

6.4 Collect standardised utilisation data,including office space utilisation

Utilisation data are key to understanding howwell a building meets its objectives. A targetutilisation rate for HEIs suggested by Educationand Learning Wales (ELWa)17 is 30% utilisationacross a full teaching week. HEIs should carryout utilisation studies using standard proceduresfor the purpose of benchmarking.

All teaching rooms, whether centrally timetabledand allocated, or used by one faculty ordepartment alone, should be monitored.Utilisation information should be linked to the


17 ELWa, January 2002, ‘Space Management: a Good Practice Guide’.

scheduling of teaching rooms. It is required byEMS and should be collected in the same way byall HEIs.

The case studies demonstrate that these data arenot gathered consistently, for example they varyin:

• length of observed day

• percentage of rooms observed

• whether only centrally bookable rooms arereviewed

• how room capacity is defined

• how actual capacity is recorded.

Non-teaching spaces such as office areas orlearning resource centres should be includedwherever practical in order to allow appropriatespace management policies to be developedaround known use patterns.

6.5 Collect and apply detailed costinformation

Space champions should ensure proper captureof as-built cost data so that real data can be usedto establish parameters for future projects, whichwill help complete the feedback loop. To enableproper comparison between buildings, wesuggest that the following data should becollected:

• a proper elemental as-built cost analysistogether with brief specification notes

• a schedule of abnormal costs and key costdrivers

• details of how the contingency was spent(eg unforeseen construction problems oruser/client change)

• key details for briefing including theexisting space standards and those to beachieved within the new facility

• running and maintenance costs on abuilding-by-building basis rather than thesimple campus-wide analysis that iscurrently common

• a more appropriate unit cost than cost perm2 that recognises the diversity within the

HE sector. Consideration could be given tothe construction cost per pound of incomeper m2 as one alternative.

Each HEI should establish an appropriate budgetto fit out space to be refurbished – in manyinstances an insufficient allowance is set whichunnecessarily restricts flexibility. Over time, thismeans that more significant work needs to beundertaken. HEIs should focus on producingflexible space that can be easily changed.

Institutions should consider spending moreinitially to achieve long-term cost savingsthrough appropriate flexibility, and spendingmore per unit area while reducing the area to befitted out. The aim is to make high quality,flexible space work harder without increasingoverall project costs.

The benefits of greater flexibility can beillustrated when the HEI undertakes robustbenchmarking to establish the cost impact andthe usage benefits. Universities should considerestablishing examples of best practice solutionswithin the campus against which individualschemes can be compared and against which theimpact of more or less flexibility can bemeasured, for instance the cost impact ofintroducing retractable seating to lecture theatresrather than fixed seating.

6.6 Incorporate space efficiency conceptsinto the estate strategy

All projects should be set in the context of theoverall estate strategy of the university so thattheir contribution can be maximised. Spaceshould serve the main purpose of the universityin delivering education and research. The estatestrategy, and its efficiency targets, should be co-ordinated with other important universitypolicies such as the strategic development plan,infrastructure plan, and teaching and learningstrategy.

Data about buildings being vacated should bereviewed to ensure that spatial and functionalimprovements are genuinely created in newbuildings. Adding floors, or infilling a part of thefootprint that was originally open, or both,makes intrinsically more efficient use of the


immediate site. The potential contribution ofdifferent buildings and sites in this respect shouldbe understood and incorporated as part of theestate strategy.

6.7 Incorporate requirements for spaceefficiency into project briefs, feasibilitystudies, option appraisals and design review

HEIs should include space efficiency within therequirements for the choice of design team ordesign/build team in invitations to tender (ITTs),Office of the Journal of the European Union(OJEU) notices and in interviews. Hard datafrom shortlisted teams on the space efficiency oftheir own recent work should be reviewed.During feasibility studies and option appraisals,space champions should incorporate concepts ofspace efficiency in assessing alternative strategies.

Institutions should make sure that all projectbriefs are properly formulated with the rightconsultation and feedback to users. This includesmanaging stakeholders’ expectations, explainingreasons for any space efficiency issues, andresolving any difficulties this may cause. Iforganisational or space policy changes are takingplace as part of the building project (a verycommon situation), consultation, follow-up, andsupport should take place during the period ofchange, especially for people moving fromenclosed offices to open plan work areas. Timeshould be built into the project to allow this tohappen.

In early stages of the design process, HEIs shouldrequest area measurements from the design teamto compare against norms and against the brief.

6.8 Develop and maintain a clear decisionand communication structure for buildingprojects, including user groups

Every project needs a clear structure fordecisions on scope, targets and details. Thebriefing process is exceptionally important andrequires careful management throughout theproject. Communication about reasons fordesign decisions is needed. Creating a user teamthat is kept in close contact with the project as itdevelops is a helpful approach at all times, andparticularly when there are significant changes,for example to policies about space entitlement.

The user team at the design stage may laterremain as the team involved in longer termmanagement of the building. This is generally ahighly effective way to ensure that a buildingcontinues to work efficiently for the users. Ifgroups from several different disciplines sharethe building, the user team is a usefulcommunication forum.

6.9 Promote the benefits of versatilespaces, with the right furniture

Reduction in ‘ownership’ of space is one of thekeys to more flexible planning and the spaceefficiencies that brings. While acknowledging thestrong sense of territory in academicdepartments, users need to be encouraged toappreciate that the move towardsmultidisciplinary courses, the increase in centralbooking of teaching space and the pervasivenessof information technology, will make it easier forrooms to be used for many different types ofteaching and learning by several faculties.

Generically designed rooms can easily bereassigned to different departments. Localamenity space for both staff and students, suchas coffee shops, breakout areas and wireless-enabled computer zones, are examples ofversatile spaces. Versatility may involve highercapital cost for more equipment or finishes,which must be justified by improved utilisation.

Estates departments along with userrepresentatives should define the flexibility theywish to achieve before a design team isappointed. They need to consider the effectivelifespan of the proposed space use. Uses that areunlikely to change significantly over the mediumterm (10-15 years) require only limited amountsof flexibility.

The way in which furniture fits into a space hasan important influence on its use and efficiency.Measurements should be taken of existingsituations, especially if long-term furniturecontracts are being placed. Workplace furnitureincludes desks and storage, both of which arevitally important. Appropriate teaching roomand learning area furniture should be exploitedto the maximum.


6.10 Include space efficiency information inpost-occupancy evaluations

A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a keyelement in the feedback loop that allows:

• minor problems to be corrected

• successes to be replicated

• repetition of mistakes to be avoided.

Post-occupancy surveys should include details ofthe space standards targeted and in use and theusers’ reactions to these standards, anddocument building space efficiency. Informationshould be collected through questionnaires,interviews, and recruitment and leavinginformation from the human resourcesdepartment, to verify whether or not usersperceive space efficient buildings as better orworse than others.

HEFCE and the Association of UniversityDirectors of Estates (AUDE) are currentlylooking at methodologies for post-occupancyevaluation and their suitability for HEIs. A‘Guide to post-occupancy evaluations’ will bepublished by AUDE in spring 2006. The HigherEducation Design Quality Forum (HEDQF) haspreviously suggested the ‘De Montfort’ methodwhich has been in use for some time.

The name ‘post occupancy’ can be misleading asevaluation should take place at the start of aproject, to allow the setting of targets and goalsto be made against real information, as well asafter occupation has been established for somemonths to assess how well these targets havebeen met. The post-project evaluations that arecurrently often carried out as POEs focus less onunderstanding the efficiency of the space inrelation to its uses, and more on understandingthe quality of the process and its outcome as afinished project. This must change if POE is tohelp space efficiency to be achieved.


7 Case study comparisonsWe carried out several comparisons of the case study material on different measures as summarised in thefollowing tables and charts.

Figure 1 Area analysis of the 15 case studies showing a range of area efficiency measures

NIA/ Area m2 Area m2 Area m2 NIA: NUA: student

Ref Building type Name and HEI User GIA NIA NUA GIA % GIA % FTE m2

1 Science/ Biomedical Sir Alexander Biomedical 25,517 19,998 13,308 78.4% 52.2% 13.3Fleming Building, SciencesImperial College

2 Science/Health Health and Well Health 8,142 6,770 5,225 83.1% 64.2% N/AStudies Being Building,

Sheffield Hallam University

3 Education St. Andrew’s Faculty of 12,275 10,676 8,101 87.0% 66.0% 6.36Building, University Educationof Glasgow

4 Performing Arts Foyle Arts Building, Performing Arts 2,714 2,167 1,773 79.8% 65.3% 3.65University of Ulster

5 Science/ NanoscienceNanoscience Research Centre, Nanoscience 1,720 1,569 1,134 91.2% 65.9% N/A

Cambridge University

6 Science/ Chemistry Chemistry Research Chemistry 14,174 11,718 8,987 82.7% 63.4% N/ALaboratory, Oxford University

7 General/ Owen Building, Multidisciplinary 10,323 88,491 7,621 82.3% 73.8% N/AMultidisciplinary Sheffield Hallamteaching University

8 General/ J Block, General 8,238 5,882 5,605 71.4% 68.0% N/AMultidisciplinary University of teaching/Adminteaching Glamorgan

9 General/ Malet Street Building, Multidisciplinary 7,715 N/A 6,042 N/A 78.3% N/AMultidisciplinary Birkbeck Collegeteaching

10 General/ Canal Side East, Multidisciplinary 4,187 3,333 2,916 79.6% 69.6% N/AMultidisciplinary University ofteaching Huddersfield

11 General/ Clarendon Building, General teaching/ 11,088 6,599 5,470 59.5% 49.3% N/AMultidisciplinary University of Student Servicesteaching/ Student TeessideServices

12 General/ Holgate Building, Student Services 4,745 4,123 3,229 86.9% 68.1% N/AMultidisciplinary York St. John teaching/ Student University CollegeServices

13 Business Michael A. Ashcroft Business 3,675 3,130 2,383 85.2% 64.8% N/ABusiness School, Anglia Ruskin University

14 LRC Harrison Learning Learning Resource 10,980 10,025 8,851 91.3% 80.6% N/ACentre, University Centreof Wolverhampton

15 LRC Great Central Learning Resource 5,063 4,323 3,665 85.4% 72.4% N/AWarehouse, CentreUniversity of Lincoln

Source: Calculations by AMA from drawings supplied by estates departments.


Figure 2 Area per student FTE at building and university level (m2 NIA)*

*Data from three detailed case studies compared to EMS 2003-04 Source: EMS data from estates departments; building areas calculated by AMA.

Figure 3 Area per researcher (m2/workspace)*

* Desk surface, footprint, typical room average NUA from six case studies and University of Sussex.N.B. Desk surface = horizontal working area; footprint area = space taken by a desk, chair and localstorage; room average = total room area NUA divided by number of desks.

Source: Areas calculated by AMA from drawings provided by estates departments and site measurements of desks.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Imperial College

Campus

University of Glasgow University of Ulster

Building

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SAF phD

Malet S

treet

SAF Pos

t doc

resea

rch

Univers

ity of

Susse

x

Oxford

Che

mistry

Malet S

treet

Nanos

cienc

e

Desk surface area

Footprint area

Room average

Sir Alexander Health andSpace type Fleming Foyle Arts St. Andrew's Well Being

Teaching and learning 13.3% 51.9% 23.8% 30.2%

Research 23.9% N/A 4.4% N/A

Teaching/research support 5.3% N/A 2.1% 2.8%

Staff office space 8.9% 10.4% 21.1% 23.9%

Student amenity 1.5% N/A 4.7% 4.5%

Circulation 15.5% 18.7% 33.1% 18.1%

Core 17.2% 13.9% 6.7% 16.2%

Other 14.4% 5.1% 4.1% 4.2%

Source: Calculations by AMA, from drawings provided by estates departments.


Figure 4 Area per workspace in libraries or learning resource centres (m2/desk space)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Univers

ity of

Wolv

erham

pton

Birkbe

ck

Colleg

e

Univers

ity

of Lin

coln

Middles

ex

Univers

ity

York

St. Jo

hn

Univ

ersity

Coll

ege

Univers

ity

of Ulst

erLSE

Desk surface area

Footprint

Source: Calculations by AMA, from drawings provided by estates departments and site measurement of desks, fromfive case studies plus LSE and Middlesex University.

Figure 5 Analysis of area allocation to different functions from our four detailed casestudies (% GIA)

Figure 7 Space per desk in 12 case study buildings (m2 NUA)

Building NUA per:

TypicalDesk Typical 1 Typical 2 3-10

Work foot- person person person Typical surface print office office office 11+ office

Nanoscience Research Centre 2.2 4.0 9.0 5.3

Michael A. Ashcroft Business School 1.4 3.6 11.6

St. Andrew's 12.9 7.0 8.6

Canal Side East 1.7 2.9 11.9 6.0

Malet Street 1.1 2.2 10.2

Sir Alexander Fleming Building 0.9 16.2 8.3

Foyle Arts Building (desk 1) 1.7 2.9 11.5

Foyle Arts Building (desk 2) 1.6 4.2 7.3

Clarendon Building (desk 1) 2.3 4.3 11.0 7.0 8.4

Clarendon Building (desk 2) 1.7 2.9 11.0

Clarendon Building (desk 3) 1.7 2.9 12.2

Chemistry Research Laboratory 2.6 4.8 14.0

Health and Wellbeing 1.8 3.2 10.2 7.4 6.0

J Block 1.5 2.6 15.2 8.6

Holgate Building 1.5 2.6 9.7 7.5 4.8

Source: Calculations by AMA from drawings with furniture layouts provided by estates departments.


Figure 6 Teaching room utilisation for three case studies (% utilised)

Source: Data from the estates departments and ELWA: ‘Space management: A good practice guide’, 2002.

N.B. Utilisation = frequency x occupancy %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

University of Ulster

University of Glasgow

Actual case study building

Actual for campusTarget campus

ELWA 2002 30%

Sector Median EMS 2003-0425%

Sheffield Hallam University


Figure 8 Furniture footprints from selected case studies

Source: AMA measurements from layout plans provided by estates departments and site measurements.

Figure 9 The main cost data: four detailed case studies

£/m2

Size £/m2 £/m2 Running and

Building (m2 GIA) Function GIA NUA £/ FTE maintenance

Sir Alexander 25,517 Science 3,100 5,940 not available 106

Fleming Building Building

Health & Wellbeing 8,142 Faculty 1,216 1,895 not available 32 (2)

Building

St. Andrew’s Building 9,632 Faculty 519 (1) 617 2,490 130

Foyle Arts Building 2,714 Arts 610 935 2,573 21 (3)

Source: Davis Langdon from figures provided by estates departments.

Notes

(1) = Excludes subsequent costs to ‘complete’ the building

(2) = Running costs only

(3) = Maintenance costs only


Figure 10 Typical cost ranges for university buildings compared to case studies (£/m2 GIA)

Source: Davis Langdon

Arts buildings– part refurb

£/m2 GIA

Faculty buildings– part refurb

Faculty buildings– new build

Biomedical research buildings

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Foyle Arts Building (£610/m2)

St Andrewí s Building (£519/m2)

Health & Wellbeing Building (£1,216/m2)

Sir Alexander Fleming Building (£3,100/m2)

8 Case studies

Case studies of the following 15 buildings are described in this section. Case studies 1-4 are covered inmore depth.

Ref Building and institution name User Date Type of build Area m2 GIA

1 Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Biomedical Sciences 1998 New 25,517Imperial College

2 Health and Wellbeing Building, Health 2004 Refurbishment + extension 8,142Sheffield Hallam University

3 St. Andrew's Building, Faculty of Education 2003 Refurbishment 12,275University of Glasgow

4 Foyle Arts Building, Performing Arts 2003 Refurbishment + extension 2,714University of Ulster

5 Nanoscience Research Centre, Nanoscience 2003 New 1,720Cambridge University

6 Chemistry Research Chemistry 2003 New 14,174Laboratory, Oxford University

7 Owen Building, Multidisciplinary 1996-2004 Refurbishment 10,323Sheffield Hallam University

8 J Block, General teaching/ 1997, 1999, Refurbishment 8,238University of Glamorgan admin 2002

9 Malet Street Building, Multidisciplinary 2003 Refurbishment + extension 7,715Birkbeck College

10 Canal Side East, Multidisciplinary 1998 Refurbishment + extension 4,187University of Huddersfield

11 Clarendon Building, General teaching/ 1999 Refurbishment 11,088University of Teesside student services

12 Holgate Building, Student services 2005 Refurbishment + extension 4,745York St. John University College

13 Michael A Ashcroft Business 2003 New 3,675Business School, Anglia Ruskin University

14 Harrison Learning Centre, Learning resource 2002 Refurbishment + extension 10,980University of Wolverhampton centre

15 Great Central Warehouse, Learning resource 2004 Refurbishment + extension 5,063University of Lincoln centre


Case study 1


Sir AlexanderFleming Building Imperial College, London

The Sir Alexander Fleming (SAF) buildinguses space saving methods such asmultidisciplinary research labs andexpandable seminar/teaching spaces toeconomise on space. The ‘research forum’(pictured right) has a dual function: it is theprimary circulation space throughout theSAF and it doubles as an open planresearch write-up and study space forpostgraduate students.

OverviewThe building is centrally located within theSouth Kensington campus of Imperial Collegeand consolidates three previous research andteaching facilities into one modern researchdepartment.

It is located on the footprint of the old RCSIIbuilding as well as an adjacent vacant plot, andholds the Department of Biomedical Sciences,the Undergraduate Medicine offices and LifeSciences departments. It provides facilities forundergraduate medical and research studentsand houses 400 members of staff. The buildingincludes ample research space, specialised as wellas multidisciplinary laboratories, lecturetheatres, seminar rooms and office space spreadover seven storeys. In addition to the academicfacilities, a café, catering and ‘break-out’ spacesare available.

The central atrium or research forum spansvertically from the second to the sixth floor, andis designed to act as a unifier between the levels,encouraging social interaction between theoccupants, primarily postgraduate researchstudents.

Briefing, design and constructionprocess

Objectives

The existing distribution of teaching facilities formedical undergraduates was not attractive topotential students. The need to consolidate ontoa single site, as well as the necessary replacementof dilapidated buildings were the primary driversbehind this project.

Reports into NHS activities and hospitalprovision raised questions about the approach toteaching undergraduate medicine, whichreinforced the desire to bring the Biologydepartment onto the main site. By incorporatingthis function into the SAF building, space couldbe released for conversion to student residences.Funding was available from the NHS for thisproject as well as from HEFCE.

Interaction between different teams andindividuals was desired by the academicdisciplines involved.

Photo: AMA

Briefing

A paper was prepared to establish the actualspace that would be required, to create abusiness case. There was no head of the facultyat the time to provide specific detailedinformation, and space norms were used, basedon the UGC norms reduced by 10%.

The then estates director and project manager(employed specifically for this building) were themain drivers behind the project.

The early part of the design process includedconsulting user groups as far as possible. Theeventual occupants of the building were not yetknown, but potential users provided informationabout requirements. The lack of specificoccupants at the start of the briefing processpromoted the development of a very genericdesign. In addition, the university had madevisits to other similar buildings in the sector,both in the UK and abroad.

The restricted size of the site meant that spaceeconomies were important and the design teamencouraged consideration of open plan

laboratories. This allowed for changes in sizes ofresearch teams to take place while using thespace most efficiently, and was accepted as asuitable design concept. This approach wasadopted in the final design.

However, the implication of open plan flexiblelaboratories is that they have to be providedwith services suitable for a wide range ofdisciplines.

Placing these laboratories on the outside of thebuilding with the open plan research write-uparea in an internal location allowed the use of anopen atrium to provide interaction space,circulation and an economical layout for desks.Had the labs been internal, the atrium could nothave been open and the interactive feel wouldnot have been created.

As the design progressed and real users wereidentified, the open plan concept was somewhatreduced in scope so that a few more enclosedoffices were provided.


Fourth floor plan

Sketch: AMA

The multidisciplinary labs have been designed ina generic manner where laboratory worktablesare outfitted with the basics such as power, gasand microscope. Specific equipment and toolsare stored in an adjacent room, and used asnecessary.

Procurement

Planning restrictions on the mass of the buildingled to the design of the usable, open plan atriumspace. Westminster planners objected to theoverdevelopment of the site initially in terms ofdensity and mass. To overcome this obstacle inscale, Foster and Partners included an atrium.

Imperial College chose to use constructionmanagement (CM) as the route for procurement,which was new to the college at the time.However, the SAF building was one of the firstlarge scale new build projects that the collegehad undertaken. The project had a number ofcritical procurement drivers, not least the mergerof Imperial College with both St Mary’s MedicalSchool and Charing Cross, which necessitatedthe requirement for a single biomedical facultybuilding. Had a more traditional approach toprocurement been adopted, the building wouldnot have been completed in time for the openingof the new faculty.

Due to the creation at the outset of the project ofa new, enlarged faculty, there was no detailedbrief so the construction management approachenabled this brief to be developed in tandemwith undertaking the basement and frameconstruction.

In short, a packaged approach to theprocurement was the only way to deliver thiscomplex project within the desired timeframe.

Costs

This project comprises a new build biomedicalresearch building, with an emphasis on creatinga space that is both functional and inspiring. Theoverall construction cost of £3,100/m2 (based at2005 price levels) should be benchmarkedagainst a range of £2,400/m2 to £3,200/m2 for anew build development. This puts the projecttowards the high end of the range, but that is tobe expected given the location and restraints ofthe site.

Imperial College has, over the last six years,undertaken minimal upgrades to part of thefacility. In particular, there has been an emphasison increasing the flexibility of some of theteaching laboratories and the introduction ofcampus-wide audiovisual teaching facilities.


SAF building: Space breakdown by type GIA

Teaching 13%

Research 25%

Teaching/research support 5%

Staff office space 9%Student amenity 1%

Circulation 15%

Core 18%

Other 14%

Source: Area calculations by AMA

In 2004, Imperial College spent in the region of£500,000 on upgrading the fifth floor teachinglaboratory.

The construction cost excludes free-standingfurniture, equipment, and the fitting out of thecatering and basement areas. These budgets weremanaged directly by Imperial College and thereis no cost information available to assess them.However, we consider it the norm that these areexcluded from the construction costs.

It is not known if the existing buildings weresold to provide funds for the new building.

With respect to running costs and maintenancecosts, we have been able to analyse the EMSdata for Imperial College’s South Kensingtoncampus, which it has used to provide anindication of the running and maintenance costsof the building. This information is not specificto the building itself and has been calculated ona pro rata basis by area.

We do, however, understand that the SAFbuilding accounts for a high proportion ofImperial College’s energy use on the SouthKensington campus which is not proportional tothe building’s area. The data that has beenprovided can only be analysed on a pro ratabasis and so must be considered purelyindicative.

There is no information available in order tobenchmark running costs or maintenance costsback to the original facilities in order to get agenuine comparison of like-for-like facilities.However, notwithstanding that the new buildingis more complex and includes a greater degree ofmechanical and electrical installation, along withequipment, we would expect the running costsand certainly the maintenance costs to be moreefficient.

In order to complete a comprehensive review ofthe running and maintenance costs a copy of theEMS data specifically recording data for the SAFbuilding will be required. From discussions withImperial College, this data may not be availablein the format that will enable this to be doneaccurately.

Post project

Use

The organisation of the building concentratesundergraduate teaching in the narrow East-Westwing and research in the main part of thebuilding. Everyone uses the ground floorentrance area. There is a cafeteria on thisentrance floor, which is extensively used bypeople working in other buildings as there islittle other provision on this part of the site. Theground floor is separated from the atrium by aglazed area, which allows light through but cutsdown sound transmission. This was a lateraddition to the project that had not originallybeen envisaged as necessary.

In the research area the post-doctoral researchershave desk space outside the labs and the PhDstudents are on the wider landings across theatrium.

The building is well-used, both forundergraduate and research purposes. Therehave been some changes to accommodateadditional people:

• in the undergraduate teaching laboratorywing, two laboratories on the fifth floor havebeen knocked into one to allow a largergroup to be taught at one time. There are


The main entrance to the SAF building

Sketch: AMA

LCD screens that enable the lecturer, ormaterial being discussed or written, to beseen from all over the larger laboratory andthese have been extended to other rooms foroccasions when this large space is inadequate

• the access routes at the end of the atrium inthe research area were originally equippedwith bookshelves. These have now beenreplaced by additional researcher study carrels

• some of the offices that had been availablefor solo occupation are now being used bytwo people.

The ideas behind those aspects of the designaimed at increased interaction can be seen to beworking. The social spaces in the research areaon the third and fourth floors are good examplesof this. One tangible outcome of the recognitionof increased interdisciplinary interaction is thatthere are now 24 students funded by theWellcome Trust to work across shareddisciplines.

One undergraduate medical laboratory wasmodified soon after occupation. It had beenassumed that the large groups to be taughtwould need large laboratories. Because there is aneed for smaller groups for practicals, as well asfor more seminar space, a series of foldingconcertina partitions have been installed, and aportion of the lab has been subdivided toprovide seminar/practical space (as picturedabove).

The flexibility for the research laboratories hasproved successful. When group sizes change theteams simply shift up and down the benches to

accommodate the new numbers. This is a cheapand effective way to change teams and meansthat it can take place whenever it is needed.

For highly specialised facilities there was anexisting user representative who was able tosuggest suitable technical solutions, and, in thecase of a radical approach to air handling, wasable to convince the College that this would bemore effective than more traditional solutions.

The first level ‘flexi’ seminar space can be usedas a large single room or be reconfigured intotwo, three or four smaller rooms, able toaccommodate 50 to 240 people. In practice,although reconfiguration of rooms is relativelysimple, these dividers are used primarily forspecial events to configure the space to theappropriate size, rather than being usedconsistently for class size adjustment. In additionto this innovation, the seminar spaces provideexternal income from hiring out space.

Utilisation

Formal utilisation studies have not been carriedout on spaces used for research activities. Arecent study on undergraduate spaces has not yetprovided results.

Post-occupancy studies are only carried outwhen specific problems arise and a solution isbeing planned. However, there is a formalchange process that has been instituted, in partbecause of the SAF building, which makesrigorous assessments of the need for and cost ofproposed changes.

User viewsAnecdotally people believe that undergraduates,researchers and staff are influenced by thequality of the building when deciding whether tocome to Imperial College. In addition, those whowork in it do not wish to move to work in otherbuildings, despite the fact that space in the SAFbuilding attracts higher space use charges.

Some aspects of the building causedunfavourable comment when the perimeterconstruction period barriers were removed. Theperimeter treatment was felt to be unattractiveand trees were requested to be planted outsidethe building.


Medical lab partitioning

Photo: AMA

Staff

Initially there was unease that there was so muchopen plan space for desk work, as well as abouthow the open laboratories would work. Someacademic staff were against the openness. Theywere concerned about confidentiality, and maderepresentations to the rector, which did result inan increase in enclosed offices and theconsequent problems with air handling.However, since the building has opened therehave been few problems with this.

The noise in the atrium was expected to presenta problem, and the introduction of ‘white’ noisewas discussed. However, the general hum ofactivity provides its own ‘white’ noise and whilethere are occasional local problems it is notgenerally an issue.

As space is tight everywhere in the college, therehave been comments that the area around thelifts, which joins the research wing to theundergraduate wing, is very wasteful, large andhard to find a use for. This tends to lend force tocomments such as ‘the atrium is a bit excessive’.

Teaching spaces and lecture theatres are felt tobe good with good audiovisual facilities, andgenerally the finishes are attractive, easy to keepclean and have lasted well, except door handles.Some of these are beginning to fail so that theydo not latch the door shut effectively.

Students

The completely open ‘research forum’ requiredsome time to get used to. While some studentsliked the open plan and improved socialinteraction, some students initially felt a littleexposed in the space.

The research students appear well satisfied eventhough their spaces are very small, and they arenot usually all together in any particular bay asmuch of their time is spent in the laboratories.

There are some researcher desks that are locatedunderneath the open stairs connecting thedifferent levels in the atrium. These are not likedbecause the stairs have open treads and dirt frompeople’s feet showers down on the people sittingunderneath. It appears to be impossible to getpermission to change this.

Building managementA number of aspects of improved buildingmanagement have been introduced to ImperialCollege through the SAF building:

a. It is a complex building, with, for example,41 air handlers, (whereas Imperial College’s


Expandable seminar space

Photo: AMA

The atrium

Photo: AMA

comparable Flowers Research Building hasonly four). It is also a building planned forflexible use. It has therefore been seen to beworth providing the building with its ownresident building manager to help controlhow this flexibility develops.

b. Management teamwork, bringing togethertechnical staff, the services specialists andfacilities management knowledge, has beenstrengthened.

c. It has been recognised that buildingmanagers may need additional training inthe skills and knowledge needed to managebuildings effectively and professionally. Theimportance of user interaction groups hasbeen recognised.

d. The complexity, as well as the shared natureof the occupation, has meant that amanagement committee was set up with abuilding user group, led by the Estatesdepartment. This is now part of standardImperial College practice and is seen to bevery helpful in maintaining the mosteffective and trouble free use of thebuilding.

e. Because of construction cost overruns onthe SAF project the college has put muchstronger procedures in place to prevent thishappening in future.

f. The use of space charging was brought inpartly in relation to the SAF building, partlyin response to the general shortage of space.

Lessons learnedThe development of this building and theconsequent consolidation of three previousresearch buildings centralises the department andeconomises space. The staff in the SAF buildingcame from three different sites: Charing Cross, StMary’s and the Hammersmith campus. Thevacated space was re-used for academic purposesas the college won additional research awardsand some large teams moved in from otherinstitutions.

The generic approach and the open plan spaceshave worked as intended, to allow flexible use tosupport growth and change:

a. A ‘generic’ approach to design, creatingmultidisciplinary teaching and modularresearch labs, has helped to maximise usage,allow growth of different cohorts andteams, and adaptation for innovations intechnology.

b. Expandable seminar and lecture spaces havebeen created by using appropriate roomdividers that provide good soundattenuation.

c. The ‘research forum’ has been used asadditional research and study space ratherthan as mere circulation space. Sincecompletion, the number of research andstudy spaces has increased and they nowcover virtually all free space surroundingthe atrium while there is still a comfortablecirculation area.

The openness of the laboratories and the factthat different disciplines can use contiguouslaboratory spaces and shared social areas havehelped create greater social interaction betweenthe various disciplines within the SAF.

When visitors are introduced to the building bytaking them first to the sixth floor in the atrium,a striking ‘first impression’ is made. This visuallydemonstrates the spirit of openness andinteraction. It appears to be instrumental inbringing high quality staff and students to workat Imperial College.


Photo: AMA

A large, generic lab

Project summary


Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College, London

Building use: Medicine and Biology

Student FTE: 10,336 (campus)

Location and type of site: Central London

Campus type: Urban, Multiple Campus

Type of build: New Build

Completion date: 1998

Team responsible: Architect: Foster and Partners

Research facilities design: Sandy Brown Associates

Construction: Schal Construction

Brief Brief established by: Estates Director and Project Manager

Space standards specified: UGC norms reduced by 10%

Procurement route: Construction management

Area breakdown Area GIA: 25,517 m2

Area NIA: 19,898 m2

Area NUA: 13,308 m2

Efficiency

Area/student FTE m2 NIA building: 14.8 m2

Area/student FTE m2 NIA Campus (EMS): 28.6 m2

Area/Faculty FTE m2 NIA: 15.6 – 18.0 m2 (single office)7.8 – 9.0 m2 (2 person office)

Utilisation target: none

Utilisation actual: unknown

Cost Cost/m2 GIA – construction: £3,100/m2 (based on current price levels)Cost/m2 GIA – running: £79.16/m2 GIA

Cost/m2 GIA – maintenance: £26.85/m2 GIA

Case study 2


Health andWellbeing BuildingSheffield Hallam UniversityA new extension and the refurbishment ofthe original building are helping theuniversity further its plan to accommodatealmost twice the number of students with aspace increase of less than 10%.

Overview Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) has two maincampuses, the City campus on a site close toSheffield’s main railway station, and Collegiatecampus a few miles away in a more residentialpart of the city, as well as three smaller sites.

The estates department has been very active inproviding, monitoring and managing space forthe university. In 1992 there were five sites andvarious options for change were reviewed,including the possibility of a greenfield campus.It was decided, despite the poor state of many ofthe existing buildings, to concentrate on the twomain sites and upgrade, improve and match thespace provided to student and faculty needs.

We have profiled two separate buildings at theuniversity in our case studies, the Owen buildingand the Health and Wellbeing building whichhave together helped the university plan toaccommodate almost twice the number ofstudents with a space increase of less than 10%.

The Health and Wellbeing building on theCollegiate campus was an existing building ontowhich a substantial amount of new space hasbeen added. Many of the design ideas, forexample clusters of shared staff offices andmulti-use teaching spaces, were developed andtested in other buildings including the Owenbuilding (see case study 7).


Objectives

The purpose of the work was to provide newaccommodation for the Faculty of Health andWellbeing. Teaching rooms were needed toreplace outdated provision for a discipline thatcould be relied on as a steady or growingmarket.

The university wanted to integrate the teachingto meet varying professional needs in the healthand social care fields, by bringing people intoone building and creating shared office areas fora mix of disciplines. The NHS is seeking a more‘joined-up’ approach, so a hybrid approach toteaching is required, breaking down some of theexisting professional barriers.

The development aimed to provide high qualityspecialist teaching areas to enable the students tohave an appropriate grounding before theirclinical placements.

The brief and design for this project was decidedupon before the university embarked on itsrestructuring, which created the new Health andWellbeing Faculty, incorporating part of whathad been a School of Health and Social Care.This change meant that in the end a slightlydifferent group of people were moved into thebuilding than had originally been envisaged.There are more administrative and fewerresearch staff than had been planned at the start.The brief was delivered with only two smallchanges during construction.

BriefingThe head of the school, who then became deanof the Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, set theobjectives for the building. The detailed work ofcollecting the briefs for particular spaces,establishing sizes of student cohorts,understanding the equipment needed in differentspecialist rooms, was co-ordinated by SueHolmes, Head of Facilities Planning. A technicalmanager from another faculty also helped at thebriefing stage.

The university established a project board tooversee the process. It consisted of the pro vice-

chancellor concerned with planning andresources, the director of finance, the director ofestates, an academic champion and two membersof the estates department to co-ordinate supply(projects) and demand (facilities planning). Theproject board also had three members of theSchool of Health and Social Care, (later theFaculty of Health and Wellbeing) on it, the dean,assistant dean responsible for academicdevelopment and the faculty’s head of businessservices, as well as the academic champion in theschool responsible for co-ordinating needs andcommunication.

Staff were asked to fill in comprehensivequestionnaires to record the detailedrequirements for all their areas, and these wereeventually translated into comprehensive roomdata sheets that they had to sign off. Thequestionnaires led to discussion about the brief’sdevelopment. Once agreed, the data sheetprocess took place.

Some work practices (such as technicianslaundering lab coats) were discovered and werenot accommodated in the new premises.

Staff made requests for the amount of space thatthey thought they needed. These were comparedto the space actually used, realistic predictionsfor new student numbers, and changing teachingand learning practices.


Health and Wellbeing building: space breakdown by type

Source: Area calculations made by AMA

Teaching and learning 30%


Staff office space 24%

Student amenity 5%

Circulation 18%

Core 16%

Other 4%

In SHU space charging is used and wellunderstood, and has been systematicallydeveloped to take account both of amount andtype of space, so departments are ready tobalance their space wishes with a realisticassessment of likely demand. Since the briefingprocess is not exactly a science, the board triedto ensure some flexible space created around thebrief to meet changing demands, as well ascreating flexible spaces within the brief.

Well aware of current good practice in officespace, the estates department sought to creategeneric, adaptable office areas, able toaccommodate a range of departments with theroom for growth and change. This led to thecluster offices that generally accommodatebetween three and five members of staff. Thesewere particularly suitable for the Health andWellbeing building to meet the desire to bringtogether different disciplines in the staff offices.

Procurement

Once a sufficiently detailed brief was assembled,a team of consultants – architect, mechanical and

electrical engineers, planning supervisor, quantitysurveyor, and contract manager – were selectedon a fixed price fee after tendering.

This team developed a detailed design,incorporating a portion of the existing buildingon the site and adding a new wing. The originalintention had been to mothball more of the oldbuilding, but student numbers increased as aresult of winning more NHS teaching contractsso a larger building was required. The new wingwas in fact ‘bent’ in order to:

• provide sufficient accommodation

• meet planning restrictions/conditions

• fit onto the site.

The design was then included as a part of thefinal tender information for a design and buildproject with a guaranteed maximum price on aJoint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract.

The contractors continued to use the architects,although they were not obliged to, and usedtheir own mechanical and electrical (M&E)designers. The planning supervisor and quantity


Five-person office module with alternative furniture arrangements

Administrative staff areaccommodated in more openplan areas, as has becomecommon in the university.

Source: SHU

surveyor remained employed by the clientthroughout. This type of process has regularlydelivered projects to time and budget for theuniversity and is the preferred approach.

The new boiler plant for the adjacent seven-storey residential block was used to provideheating for the new building and this was part ofa separate but parallel contract, which finishedbefore the main contract.

Costs

This project comprises part new build and partrefurbishment, however there is insufficientdetailed data to understand the split in thecapital cost between the two areas. The overallconstruction cost of £1,216 per m2 should bebenchmarked against a range of £1,000 /m2 to£1,350/m2 for a new build development and£600/m2 to £850/m2 for a refurbishment. Atface value this would suggest that this projectwas priced at the high end of the market.

Looking more closely however, inclusions suchas the upgrade of the existing boiler house whichalso serves the adjacent residential block, newescape stairs and plant access to the existingbuilding, a full external works scheme and theextensive nature of the refurbishment, increasedthe outturn construction cost.

The construction cost excludes the specialisthealth equipment fit-out and the furniture,computers and audiovisual provision, whichwere all provided as new. These might notnecessarily have been immediate capitalexpenditure had the faculty not relocated to thenew facility, however they would ultimately havebeen required to upgrade old facilities to asimilar standard.

There is no information available in relation tothe purchase price of the original building andland. This would require consideration for a truecomparison of the capital and running costdifferential between the old and new facilities.

The other old buildings are currently beingrefurbished to provide new teaching space forthe university. Although this has not beenundertaken to recoup some of the expenditure, itdoes enable more teaching to take place at theuniversity and subsequently bring in morerevenue if used to increase enrolments.

We have received some information with respectto the energy and water costs.

The energy consumption for the Health andWellbeing building is currently calculated at 155 to 200 kWh/m2/yr. This can be compared tothe average energy cost for the university of 202 kWh/m2/yr. Therefore, even if the final


Level four of the building: shading shows the new extension

Source: AMA

consumption were at the higher end of the range,the new building would be more efficient thanthe average.

The estimated water consumption based oninformation to date for the new building is 0.30 m3/m2/yr, compared to the universityaverage recorded at 0.49 m3/m2/yr.

There is no information available in order tobenchmark this specifically back to the originalfacilities in order to get a genuine comparison oflike-for-like facilities.

To complete a comprehensive review of therunning and maintenance cost, a copy of theEMS data would be required as this contains keyinformation such as property, maintenance,cleaning and property management costs.

Post project

Use

The Faculty of Health and Wellbeing buildingcontains several specialist teaching rooms, withspecialist equipment or laid out to replicatemedical and household spaces, as well as generalteaching spaces, staff and administrative offices.

A POE is planned, but it will not be an HEDQF-style POE. The SHU estates department is keento find out the contractors’ views. An externalconsultant will examine the design andprocurement process by interviewing relevantpeople. One objective will be to find out how toimprove the transmission of information. Forexample, it may look at issues such as whetherthe room data should be on a drawing insteadof, or as well as, on room data sheets.

Utilisation

Utilisation of teaching rooms, both general andspecial, is monitored regularly, but staff officesare not. The data is used when assessing newspace requirements. These studies collectinformation on the frequency and percentage ofcapacity used of all bookable rooms. SHU hasset a target of 50% utilisation.

In semester 1 of 2004-05 utilisation was 42%due to changes in teaching and learning resultingfrom the planned revalidation of courses. Thepotential to co-teach more groups in better-sizedfacilities meant space was more efficiently used,and there is capacity for further planned growth.


Photo: AMA

New double-height reception area

Since the building was completed, the faculty hassubmitted further tenders for additionalcontracts.

User viewsThe university does not routinely collect userviews on the suitability or attractiveness of theaccommodation. However, there is ample scopefor views to be expressed and passed on so thatany problems can be resolved. Informalcomments are noted and acted on. For example,positive feelings about wide corridors in aparticular conversion, and dislike of narrow onesin a relatively new building, led to a policy toensure generous spaces for student movementbetween classes where possible.

Staff

We contacted staff to find out how they feltabout the available accommodation in the newbuilding. They expressed generally very positiveviews. There is better information technology,the spaces are ‘light and well-designed’ and thebuilding is well liked: ‘I feel so strongly about it,it is just so good’.

People now feel far more integrated. They usedto feel isolated and the new facility has enabled abroader view of their discipline. Beinginterdisciplinary ‘has opened up a new world’.

The cafeteria is already often overcrowded, andcould perhaps be bigger. However, it has becomea very important functional part of the building.When it is quiet it provides a good location tomeet students or have an informal team meeting.It has encouraged socialising and supported theinterdisciplinary approach for which the buildingwas designed. It is ‘very helpful to be able tomeet without having to look for a room’.

The design of teaching spaces to allow a ‘patientjourney’ to be followed is a very effectiveteaching device. It allows students to ‘seepatients in different locations’. (There are somewide corridors to allow bed movement to makethis ‘patient journey’ possible.)

People were anxious about the shared offices andsaid that ‘if everyone is in it can be noisy’.Generally shared offices have not been asproblematic as anticipated partly because thereare other areas where it is possible to haveprivacy.

It is felt that as the building becomes morecrowded it may get more difficult to booktutorial rooms but currently there are rooms touse for group projects and the building is veryconvenient. SHU has a culture of shared offices.

Other areas of the site provide ‘other teachingand general spaces’. The building was neverplanned to entirely meet the needs of this staffgroup on campus.

Students

We found that student opinion on the newdevelopment was influenced by the poor qualityof accommodation in the old spaces that theyhad used. They had been taught in a buildingthat was ‘drafty or too hot, dark and dingy, withpoor acoustics, in need of repair’. The corridorswere too small and had convoluted routes.

This new building is ‘modern, comfy, bright’. Itis easy to get from one lecture to another and‘there is coffee on hand’, although the coffeearea does sometimes fill up.


Use of bold colour makesspaces brighter and livelier

Photo: AMA

Some students raised the issue of having to leavethe building to go to the library and expressedthe desire for a ‘mini-library’ and a photocopierin the building. A quiet study area would also beappreciated.

The inter-professional feeling of the teachingareas is good and the specialist rooms with their‘state-of-the-art equipment’ are appreciated.Although students meet in inter-professionalshared learning activities, they did not seem tomix very much with students in otherspecialisms.

Parking problems were the only seriouscomplaint. Some students come from a greatdistance as they cannot get the teaching theyneed near to where they live, or near thehospitals in which they do their clinicalexperience.

Building managementThe estates department manages all the buildingsdirectly. The heating plant for the building isshared with the neighbouring seven-storeyresidential block.

Lessons learnedAcross the estate, the average space per studentFTE has greatly decreased. In 1996 the area GIAper FTE was around 10 m2, by 2003 it haddropped to around 8 m2/FTE. This is paralleledby running cost efficiency, as running costs haddropped from about £50/m2 to under £32/m2

per annum. This is a reflection of the carefulwork put into space use and planning by theestates department.

The SHU space management champion, SueHolmes, has devised an approach to spacecharging that makes the faculty aware of theways in which its space is used and helps it tofocus on finding ways to reduce space-relatedcosts.

For the Health and Wellbeing project, thecollection and use of data about actual roomareas, utilisation and use patterns was integratedwith the briefing process, allowing teachingobjectives to be aligned with good practice inbuilding planning.

The space planning of the cluster arrangementfor academic offices has helped to deliverconsiderable space efficiency and also delivers anintegrated feel.


One of the many specialisedteaching spaces

Photo: AMA

The internet café in thecafeteria

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Health and Wellbeing Building, Sheffield Hallam University

Building use: Health, including old School of Health and Social Care

Location and type of site: A residential area in Sheffield

Campus type: Urban site, multiple campus

Type of build: New and refurbishment


Brief Brief established by: Head of the school (later became dean of the Faculty of Health and Wellbeing)

Space standards specified: SHU has developed its own space standards

Procurement route: Design and build contract with guaranteed maximum price


Area NIA: 6,770 m2

Area NUA: 5,225 m2

Efficiency Area/faculty FTE m2 NIA: 7.0–7.8 m2

Utilisation target: 50%

Utilisation actual: 25.5%

Cost Cost total – construction (year): £9,900,000 (2004)

Cost/m2 GIA – construction: £1,216/m2

Case study 3


St. Andrew’sBuildingUniversity of GlasgowThe ‘Battery Pack’ extension to the Facultyof Education replaces the ill-fitting 1930sextension, reflecting effective estateplanning and a relatively modest upgrade to‘join up’ several haphazard extensions donein previous years.

Overview The University of Glasgow occupies an urbansite on the western edge of the city centre.

St. Andrew’s building is a six-storey, Edwardianbuilding (1913), with two multi-storeyextensions and one single-storey extension (agym) added during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.The most recent addition, the ‘Battery Pack’extension, was finished in 2002 and is a fullheight circulation zone, which unifies the variousportions of the building. It replaces a 1930s two-storey addition to the original building.

The building houses the newly formed Faculty ofEducation, which includes adult education aswell as teacher training.

The Battery Pack is an example of two aspectsof space management:

a. Effective estate planning: acquisition of abuilding, previously used for a functionsimilar to the intended new one, on a sitewith development potential, to house anewly acquired teacher training function.

b. A relatively modest intervention to upgradea haphazard building and solve its problemof confusing and poor disabled circulation,which was making it difficult as well asunattractive to use.

Briefing, design and constructionProcess

Objectives

The objective of the project overall was toprovide accommodation for an entirely newFaculty of Education. Once the building waschosen, the specific objective was to remedyfailings and bring it into use in time for the startof the new academic year in 2002. A significantproblem to address was the disjointed physicalcommunication between different parts of thebuilding that had arisen as a result of severaldifferent additions.

The initial trigger for the project was theproposed merger with a teacher training collegelocated in Bearsden, a northern suburb ofGlasgow. The Scottish Funding Councilencouraged this merger as part of a drive tomerge university resources, including space,more efficiently. This Catholic teacher trainingcollege was to be merged with the existing Adultand Continuing Education, and EducationalStudies departments in the Faculty of Arts. Anew Faculty of Education requiring a new homewas the result. The suburban site of the teacher

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

training college was to be sold to finance thenecessary building work.

The initial intention was to build a new buildingspecifically for the new faculty. The OJEUprocedure was initiated, an architectural team(RMJM) chosen and a feasibility study for thenew building undertaken. A vacant site,currently used for car parking in the centre ofthe campus, was chosen for the project. At thisstage the merger was still under discussion anddetails had not been finalised.

The feasibility study generated a requirement for£12 million or about £1,700 /m2. This was tooexpensive for the university. At this time the St.Andrew’s building came on the market. It hadpreviously been used for catering training byGlasgow Caledonian University, and, despitebeing rundown and of piecemeal design, thebasic pattern of accommodation fitted thedesired needs well. The site also provided apossibility for future development so the projectwas adapted to this new opportunity.

Briefing

The estates department took a major lead in thisproject together with the dean of the faculty andthe merger implementation group.

The job architect from the estates departmentprepared the preliminary brief from the existingteacher training college staff. Riach and HallArchitects were also employed to carry out

briefing at Bearsden and for other potentialoccupiers of the building already on the maincampus.

The brief that was originally drawn up wasbased on the assumption that there would be anew building. Space calculations were based onthe typical space provided on the main campusas the norm. No special space efficiency targetswere specified in the brief.

Eventually, as the project changed, the userrequirements had to be fitted to the existingbuilding and to the somewhat constrainedproject budget.

RMJM, originally chosen for the new buildingproject, was retained to design this project. Itsbrief was now to accommodate the new facultyin the existing building, and in doing so torationalise the circulation, address therequirements of the Disability Discrimination Act(DDA), and improve the appearance of thebuilding. RMJM’s solution was to remove themost inefficient space (the 1930s block) and linkand unify all the others with a new ‘front’ to thebuilding, thereby changing the main entrance toface the street frontage, rather than the park.

The building was to accommodate a wider groupthan those coming from Bearsden, and severaldifferent groupings were proposed, seeking a‘best fit’ with available space and synergiesbetween groups.

Cultural and ‘political’ issues about the mergerand the move meant that the project team wasreluctant to be too prescriptive about specificlocations and floor layouts for particular groups.

The dean of the new faculty, a member of theBearsden team, took a major role and signed offthe stacking plan, which determined which partsof the building would be used by each group.Decisions were made in a series of short, sharpmeetings. Detailed space planning, deciding whowould go into each office and how the spaceswere to be laid out, was left to the groupsthemselves. This helped to ensure that even thosewho were most reluctant to move would havesome control over how they would work in thenew environment.


The various phases of buildingsince 1913

Diagram: AMA

ProcurementThe university estates department preferred totake a traditional procurement route. Theintention was to start in September 2001 andfinish by August 2002.

Due to problems with the existing building fabric(asbestos and rot), difficulties with groundconditions, and an increased scope of works thatresulted from decisions to provide higherstandards than originally specified, the projectoverran in terms of time and budget.

The project was separated into batches so thatparts of the building could be used as they werecompleted, given the considerable time pressureto complete before the start of the new academicyear.

The relationships with the contractor on thisproject were poor. The estates department hadregular disagreements about the amount ofmoney due for payment each month, and had totightly monitor the works. For example, theuniversity’s clerk of works found that on manyoccasions there was a disparity between thenumber of workers supposed to be on site andthe number of workers’ certificates presented forpayment.

The building was not completed until May 2003though staff and students were able to move inand start to use the building in August 2002,albeit without access to the new Battery Pack.

Costs

Due to the nature of the construction work it isdifficult to accurately assess how effective thecapital expenditure has been on this project. Theoverall construction cost of £519/m2 is relativelylow due to the low scope of works across a largerefurbishment area. Unfortunately, the capitalcost information available is not detailed enoughto establish reliable £/m2 specifically for therefurbished areas and the new build extension.

The brief for the project was to provide a facilityfor the new Faculty of Education to workeffectively in one building. In comparison to theoriginal complete new build proposal of£1,700/m2, the construction cost of this projectwould appear to have maximised value formoney. It also compares favourably with abenchmarked average of £900-1,200/m2 for anew build facility.


Level four of the St. Andrew’s building– shaded area shows new extension

Diagram: AMA

The construction cost excludes the purchaseprice of the existing building and land as thisinformation is not available. This shouldhowever be considered for a true comparisonwith the original new build proposal which wasto be constructed on land already owned.

The Bearsden suburban site was initially due tobe sold to finance these works. This site has nowbeen retained and leased out. No incomeinformation is available for this arrangement andits impact on either the capital expenditurebudget or the relative benefit of this additionalincome to the university.

From the EMS data received from the Universityof Glasgow (2002-03) we have calculated theaverage running cost per m2 of non-residentialspace to be £94/m2 per year. In comparison, thenew St. Andrew’s building has a running cost of£91/m2. This difference is attributable to lowerutilities costs.

There was no building specific informationwithin the EMS data, all costs are campus-wide.However, it is reasonable to anticipate that therunning costs for the St. Andrew’s building maybe slightly higher than the university average asit has its own building superintendent due to itsremoteness from the rest of the campus.However, the cost impact of this cannot beestablished.

There is insufficient information availablespecific to the original St. Andrew’s building onthe Bearsden campus to compare the totalrunning cost of the two facilities. The averagerunning cost across the campus for all non-residential accommodation of £94/m2 can becompared to an industry norm for this type offacility of £80-150/m2.

A direct comparison can be made on the utilitiescomponent of these costs. On the Bearsden siteutilities costs were £12.70/m2 per year and onthe new St. Andrew’s building the costs are£7.29/m2 per year. This reduced expenditure islargely due to more efficient heating methodsthan the combined heat and power plant usedpreviously.

The EMS data received from the University ofGlasgow (for 2002-03) identifies an averagemaintenance cost across the non-residential spaceof £39/m2 per annum. There is insufficientinformation available specific to either theoriginal building on the Bearsden campus or thenew facility to analyse this aspect in greaterdetail. This can however be compared to anindustry norm for this type of facility of £25-50/m2 per year.


St. Andrew’s building: space breakdown by type



Research 4%



Student amenity 5%

Circulation 33%

Core 7%

Other 4%

Post project

Use

The building was acquired to house theeducation faculty for teacher training, continuingprofessional development (CPD) for professionalteacher training, and continuing adult educationcourses, which were already part of theuniversity’s offering.

There are approximately 1,500 FTEs scheduledinto the 9am to 5pm teaching space facilities inthis faculty.

The estates department has the impression thatthe building is ‘working hard’ in relation to areaper person.

Utilisation

The university monitors teaching room use. All46 teaching rooms in this building have beenadded to the university’s pool of shared roomson the central booking system. They representnearly a quarter of the total number of sharedteaching rooms.

So far, the use of these new rooms is lower thanthe university’s target of 50%. Utilisationmeasured by building, taking into account boththe number of times used and the approximateamount of use of the full capacity of each space, is 28%.

Some rooms are recorded as being used verylittle, for example those used for CPD forteachers working out in the field. However, theserooms are used extensively at certain times. It ispossible that the utilisation observation surveytook place during a period of inactivity in CPDdelivery. Rooms lower down the building areused more than those higher up.

Other faculties may be reluctant to use thesespaces as the building is further from the centreof the university than other available teachingrooms.

User viewsThe users were initially reluctant to leave theirself-contained and peaceful suburban campus.However, now, as part of the University ofGlasgow and with easy access to publictransport, the students are able to integrate morefully into a mixed university population as wellas live in the city. Previously most had to live onsite as there was limited public transport to theold location.

There has been no formal evaluation of userviews. Heating and air circulation issues havearisen as a result of enclosing one side of thebuilding with the new Battery Pack. This hasbeen the trigger for additional construction workthat has been done since completion.


Corridor in the Battery Pack

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Staff

We contacted several members of staff to discovertheir views on the building and the process. Someare more positive than others, but despite this,the views expressed cover the same points.

There is general disappointment that thedepartment did not get the new building that ithad originally been expecting. Most staff feel letdown, some very badly, by the fact that theiroriginal understanding of the proposals for thecurrent building included a rather larger versionof the Battery Pack that suddenly disappearedfrom the proposals.

They keenly feel the loss of the additional officeand teaching space and the possibility that somestudent social space would have been included.There is thought to be too little space overall,contributing to poor relations between differentgroups of staff. One difficulty is that the facultyhas grown faster than expected. This made theproblems related to trying to save money and cutback on the project as it was being constructedmore critical.

The memory of the unpleasant experience ofmoving into an unfinished building has not yetfaded.

Some people who moved in early acquired‘squatters’ rights’ which is not popular. Mostpeople mentioned the shortage of student socialspace. The cafeteria is small and not well locatedor welcoming. The site is a long way from othercampus facilities and there is not enough timebefore, after and between classes for students toget refreshments, especially a hot meal. As thereare very large cohorts this is particularly felt tobe a problem.

There is no space large enough for very largegroups of students but it has been appreciatedthat the university is taking action promptly toremedy this by converting further space nearby.

The faculty generally appreciates having abuilding that is ‘its own’, where all departmentshave been brought together, at the same time asbeing part of the university.

The teaching spaces are appreciated as beinglight, bright and pleasant. Some staff offices are

pleasant, but on the sixth floor they are ‘morelike cupboards’. Staff do not like those officeswhere four to five people are sharing. Some ofthe offices only have secondary borrowed lightand very poor ventilation.

Although the Battery Pack has improvedcirculation, the building is still an amalgam ofseveral different buildings and better signage isneeded to ensure people unfamiliar with thespace can find their way around.

Students

We asked several students their views about theSt. Andrew’s refurbishment in an impromptumanner. The views expressed were varied but wehave detailed the common comments, bothnegative and positive, below.

Nearly all students interviewed expressed theirdesire for a larger coffee area. There is also awish that food were subsidised.

Given the building’s remoteness from the rest ofthe campus, including other campus amenities,most students questioned agreed that the St.Andrew’s building was greatly in need of socialareas, particularly when there is a fair amount oftime between classes. Using the cafeteria as studyspace has been frowned upon and signs on thetables clearly indicate this sentiment: ‘Whilst weappreciate that seating space within the buildingis limited, please do not use these tables forstudying. Due to limited space available, thetables are required for paying customers only.’


Aerial view of the Battery Pack(shaded)

Diagram: AMA

The lack of social space has led some students touse computer clusters, seminar rooms and thegeneral circulation as social and eating spaces.Chairs and bins are not permitted in the BatteryPack on the grounds of health and safety.Additionally, students voiced a desire for displayspace.

In general, students feel the distance between themain library and the St. Andrew’s building is toofar, and suggested a more localised book ‘dropoff’ point for greater convenience.

There have been generally negative commentsabout the booking system. Classrooms are notsubject specific on the central booking system, sothe system is not adequate.

There is a lack of IT equipment in theclassrooms: ‘classrooms mostly have just desks’.It was felt that classrooms are not set up well. Ingeneral, better computer access is needed. Somefelt that the technology in classrooms was ‘OK’.

The quality of the space has been widelycriticised: students have commented on the poorventilation, mentioning the building is either ‘toohot or too cold’, and conditions are ‘worst in thesummer’.

There have been some positive comments relatedto the atmosphere in the new building: ‘we likethe fact that you know lots of people in thebuilding… staff [are] very pleasant and knoweveryone’s faces’.

Building managementThe university estates department manages all thebuildings and as this one is slightly remote, onthe edge of the campus, it has its own buildingsuperintendent responsible for running it.

Lessons learnedThis project had some straightforward goals,which have been met and which focus on therequirement to improve some aspects of theexisting building. The Battery Pack provides aclear and simple circulation pattern, similar forall floors. Despite minor level changes theextension provides compliance with DDAthrough use of lifts, and makes it easy to movearound the building. The circulation zones on

each floor also provide small drop-in computingfacilities for students.

The project demonstrates how a proactive estatesplanning programme can maximise the benefitsfor the university through solving theaccommodation needs of a particular group. Thestrategy for this building has added functionalitythrough a minor new build. Unlike formeradditions to the building, this has been designedto create additional generic space, which willhelp future adaptability.

The university has acquired a potentialdevelopment site, as well as bringing the teachertraining department to a location where the staffand students mix more with the university as awhole and share general resources. The specialistlibrary, for example, has been housed on onefloor of the main university library, and themajority of catering and social space is elsewhereon the campus. The gymnasium, on the otherhand, is available for use by other students andstaff when not booked for teacher training.

The briefing process was less successful than itcould have been once the project changed frombeing a new build project to one ofrefurbishment. Given the known reluctanceamong the main occupiers to make the move tothis building, more information giving thereasons for the change in plans would have beenhelpful.

The move process contributed to some badrelationships between the faculty and theuniversity. It could be that this was inevitable,but more open communications as slippageoccurred in the timetable and budget possiblywould have created an atmosphere of greaterunderstanding. Budgeting to ensure that moneywas spent where it would be appreciated couldhave prevented some of the relatively minor, butvery real, current user dissatisfactions.

Collection of real data about actual problemsand a more formal feedback process about thesuccesses and failures of this project could haveprovided lessons for other projects, at the sametime as helping the occupants to make thedifficult transition to becoming a new faculty ina different location.


Project summary


St. Andrew’s Building, University of Glasgow

Building use: Faculty of Education

Student FTE 2003: 1,273

Location and type of site: Constrained site on edge of city centre

Campus type: Urban

Type of build: Refurbishment and extension


Team responsible: Architect, Structural and M&E Engineering: RMJM. Cost Management: DLE

Brief Brief established by whom: Estates department, dean of faculty and the merger implementation group

Space standards specified: Mixture of UGC, PCFC and space weightings

Procurement route: Traditional


Area NIA: 10,676 m2

Area NUA: 8,102 m2

Efficiency

Area/student FTE NIA building: 6.4 m2

Area/student FTE NIA campus (EMS): 11.8 m2

Area/faculty FTE NIA: 6.7 m2

Utilisation target (teaching): 50%

Utilisation actual (teaching): 28%

Cost Cost total – construction (year): £5,000,000 (2003)

Cost/GIA – construction: £519/m2 (based on 7,735 m2 refurbishment and 1,897 m2

new build, total 9,632 m2 GIA)

Cost/GIA – running: £91/m2

Cost/GIA – maintenance £39/m2

Case study 4


Foyle ArtsBuildingUniversity of Ulster The refurbishment has brought fourdisciplines together in the new Faculty ofArts, providing multifunctional space,improving course offerings and acting as atemplate for space efficiency in ongoinguniversity rationalisation.

Overview The Foyle Arts building is on the Magee campusof the University of Ulster, on the edge ofDerry/Londonderry close to the banks of theriver Foyle. The university has four maincampuses, Jordanstown (10,513 FTE) nearBelfast, Belfast (1,136 FTE), Coleraine (4,873FTE) and Magee (3,018 FTE). These campuseshave different educational origins and werebrought together as the University of Ulster in1984.

The Foyle Arts building is a listed building fromthe early 19th century, originally Foyle College,which was closed in the 1960s. The building wasthen acquired by the City Council for officespace and some performing arts uses. It hasbasement, ground and two upper floors and is atthe bottom of a steeply sloping site.

The building has been renovated to provide ahome for three schools within the Faculty ofArts, which were previously accommodated onthree separate campuses. Art and design (largelygraphics) has moved from another building onthe Magee campus, performing arts has comefrom Coleraine, and music from Jordanstown. Inaddition dance has been added to the faculty forthe first time. Fine art remains in Belfast.

The objectives of the Faculty of Arts and thephysical resources team have been effectivelybrought together in this project. The Faculty ofArts wanted to bring separate functions togetherto exploit overlaps, synergies and the possibilityof offering a more attractive course toprospective students. The physical resourcesteam has been pursuing its aim to achievecontinuing general improvement in the efficientuse of space across all the sites.

There has been a strong focus in this building onchanging the way the department uses space.The building provides, as far as possible,multifunctional spaces used by the differentschools occupying the building, and theacademic staff occupy open plan areas, againemphasising appropriate sharing of space.


Objectives

University and departmental motivationsinformed this project. The university wanted toincrease the number of students on the Mageecampus and Derry has a strong culturalemphasis on performing arts, which indicatedthere was an opportunity to attract morestudents from the local area. The various

Photo: AMA

departments wanted to bring courses togetherand the physical resources team aimed to utilisespace well. The site was a natural choice whenthe opportunity arose to acquire it, due to itsperforming arts history. The site was also anobvious extension to the campus as theuniversity had recently acquired the Aberfoylesite situated between the older parts of thecampus and the Foyle Arts building.

The co-ordinated objectives of the faculty andthe physical resources team were important inthis project. The dean of the faculty wasinfluential in ensuring these goals were met whenthe inevitable problems arose connected withuprooting various groups and changing theirworking patterns.

The project was part of a wider initiative torationalise space for several differentdepartments, which have been similarly broughttogether from disparate sites.

Briefing

The physical resources team took the lead inestablishing the outline of the brief, talking tothe dean of the faculty and to each of theseparate schools. The team prefers to start theprocess, before a design team focuses on thedetailed brief, to ensure that the overarchingobjectives of the university are fully integrated

with those of the proposed users. The capitalprojects team sees it as important that users donot introduce unattainable ‘wants’ into the‘needs’ picture.

The initial client team consisted of ‘fourdetermined people’ led by the dean of the faculty.Plenty of enthusiasm and rapid progress ensued.

There were a number of iterations, initiallybetween the faculty and the physical resourcesteam, to clarify the vision behind the project andensure that available resources could meet this.Later, the architects were brought into theprocess. It was an intense but rapid process asthere was very little time in which to completethe project.

The emphasis on flexibility and shared use ofspace came from both the dean’s vision and fromthe requirements to increase efficiency. Themusic recital room has a sprung floor so that itcan be used for dance, and rehearsal rooms canbe used by anyone. One existing large room hasbeen equipped with a dividing partition allowingit to be used in two parts. Some new space wasadded, filling in a ‘C’ shaped part of theperimeter at ground and basement level.Foundations have been designed to allow thisadded area to be extended to the full height ofthe building if expansion is needed in the future.



Foyle Arts building: space breakdown by type



Circulation 19%

Core 14%

Other 5%

Procurement

The procurement process was traditional, with afull design developed by the architectural teamand tendered on a bill of quantities. This processis regularly used by the university and workssatisfactorily. The project cost was £1.4 million,for 2,713 m2 GIA.

Once the project was well-defined, anarchitectural firm with appropriate performingarts experience was selected from the eight firmsin the university’s framework agreement, in placesince 2001. Other consultants were similarlyselected to build up the team.

The designers did the work at risk (beforeplanning consent had been achieved) because ofthe tight time scale, and were finished before thepurchase was finalised. Completion of the finalpurchase was only achieved late in the process,and contractors started on site the next day.

Main and secondary uses were establishedduring a site walkabout when drawings weresigned off. Details were resolved beforeconstruction started. Room data sheets wereprepared by getting the key stakeholders arounda large version of the plan and brainstorming fora couple of days with all the relevantconsultants. These were then signed off as partof the co-ordinated design stage – stage D. Therewere no user-led changes after stage D.

The building programme was fast: the buildingwas purchased in April 2003, and occupied inSeptember 2003.

The contractor was very carefully chosen inorder to meet the tight timeframe.

Costs

The project comprised the refurbishment of anexisting building, including a small amount ofnew build. For benchmarking purposes weconsider this to be a refurbishment project.Looking at the construction costs, forcomparison purposes based on current day pricelevels, the construction costs are £610 per m2

GIA, which compares very favourably withbenchmark data of £585-905 per m2.

One of the main cost drivers behind the projectwas the level of specification adopted by theuniversity and the inventive use of the existingbuilding (acoustic studios in the basement).Together, these issues contributed to an efficientproject.

One issue that arose during our visit, and thathas been discussed as part of the case study, isthe requirement within the building for socialspace/interaction areas. The lack of these areasmay also have contributed to the relativelyefficient capital expenditure. We are not awareof any plans to include these areas in future.


First floor plan of the Foyle Arts building shows the new build extension (shaded)

Diagram: AMA

The running and maintenance costs for thebuilding have been calculated on a pro rata areabasis based on the overall campus. While theyshould reflect the costs incurred (the remainderof the campus is also relatively lightly serviced)they should still be considered indicative.

One area that we will need to review further ishow the EMS data is collated to allow for theanalysis of individual buildings and perhapsspace uses.

Post project

Use

The building is only partially occupied. Thedifferent campuses of the university are so farapart that students who began their studies onone of the other campuses are finishing theircourse on the campus on which they started. Atthe time of writing, there are two year cohorts ofstudents in the building, and the third year is onanother campus, with staff having to commuteand manage teaching on both campuses. This isinevitably complicated.

Two schools within the arts faculty – performingarts consisting of music, drama, dance, and artand design (part of which is at Magee and partin Belfast) occupy the building.

Utilisation

The physical resources team, which is in chargeof timetabling the use of teaching space, followsutilisation patterns closely. It ambitiously targets80% use and 80% capacity giving 64%utilisation. This is measured across a 12-hourday – 9am to 9pm. Utilisation figures for 2004-05, taking the percentage of capacityoccupied into account, are:

• teaching rooms – 38%

• specialist rooms – 22%

• computer labs – 51%

• overall – 38%.

The physical resources team is more focused onuse than on capacity measures when timetablingspaces. It attempts to plan appropriately forcapacity, but cannot control whether or notstudents actually attend classes.

This building cannot yet match targets owing tothe incomplete nature of the current occupation.

Only three or four representative spaces aresurveyed in this building as part of the routineutilisation studies that are undertaken eachsemester. To do more would present timingdifficulties as the building is somewhat distantfrom other buildings being surveyed by the sameteam.

User viewsNo formal surveys of user views have beenundertaken. We have obtained anecdotalevidence from the physical resources team andduring site visits.

The courses being offered in the new centre arebenefiting from the synergies between differentareas, and are attracting even more students thanhad originally been predicted.

The building is generally very well-liked. Staffand students made the following suggestions forimprovement:


Folding partition walls allowfor flexible use of space

Photo: AMA

• space may become very tight when all threeyears of students and an increased staffbody are in occupation

• there is no space for students, or studentsand staff, to gather informally, norelaxation areas or places to eatlunch/snacks between sessions

• students want somewhere to buysandwiches and hot drinks

• there is not quite enough storage space,especially for drama

• some miss the theatre at Coleraine (but inmany ways its absence is positive as severalDerry theatres are very co-operative inhosting student projects)

• students would like internet access.

Staff

Staff were positive about the open plan workareas. These have been successful in helping tocreate the right atmosphere for teaching andlearning, and have not had the problems thatpeople may have anticipated:

‘It’s OK to be creative. Creativity takes skilland application and (here this) becomesvisible which generates collective energy.’

‘In separate offices you become veryisolated. (Here) you see who’s about, it givesyou a chance to speak to your colleagues,swap DVDs etc. It’s a good collegiateatmosphere.’

‘I don’t mind losing a square yard of space,because you can actually talk to people.’

‘We need to evolve ways to exploit the freeflow of space (for) real serendipity.’

‘It’s a light and airy building, not likeColeraine. There are high ceilings which isvery important for the performing arts.’

Students

We contacted students on a random basis. Itbecame clear that they are not familiar withother parts of the campus: ‘We could go toMagee – (for food).’

More surprisingly, those we talked to were notfamiliar with students or spaces used bydisciplines other than their own, despite theintegrated courses.

They commented on positive and negativeaspects as follows:

‘The space may get tight for drama nextyear, but it’s nice that there are lots of musicpractice rooms.’

‘I want internet access in the practice rooms– then I could listen to the music I amworking on.’

‘We need food here, a café or a sandwichbar like in the learning resource centre.’

‘There’s no common room to hang about –there’s only 15 minute breaks (betweenclasses).’

‘The studios are great, better than before,with more modern equipment.’


Staff work in open planoffices with storage used tocreate privacy

Photo: AMA

‘Heating and air-conditioning are not good.’

For graphics students: ‘there is nowhere forindividual study – if there’s a class in here(graphics studio) we have to leave.’

‘There’s no access to the web.’

‘The building is new, has a greatatmosphere, it’s calming and cosy, not likethe rest of the campus, which is dull.’

Building managementThe physical resources team manages all theuniversity buildings. The team is based with therest of the administration on the Colerainecampus, but has some staff on the Magee site.

Space charging has been used for some time andis effective in getting faculties to plan to usespace efficiently and in balancing the use ofspace by different schools within faculties.

More complete information about the cost ofspace, such as translating the under-use ofteaching rooms into the cost per annum, isproving effective in creating changed behaviourand has improved the efficiency of space usage.

There are penalties for booking but failing to useteaching rooms.

Overall, the university space is not lavish – thespace per FTE overall is 6.9 m2. This variesconsiderably between the different campuses andis largely achieved because of the large numbersof students at Jordanstown who use on average5.3 m2 per FTE. The Foyle Arts building hasbeen based on 6 m2/FTE, and is in line with thecurrent figure for the campus of 6 m2/FTE. Thisis reasonably efficient for performing arts uses.

Lessons learnedA clear approach to briefing and procurementwas a great help in enabling this building tointroduce a changed approach to teaching andlearning in this faculty.

A good choice of building has helped achieve theaims of the faculty and physical resources team.

The building was naturally well-suited to theuses now accommodated, with high ceilings andlarge rooms. This made it easier to keepmaximum open plan and shared areas. Only inthe basement, where there is no natural light, hasthere been any significant subdivision of space tocreate small music practice rooms. Unnecessaryintervention in the existing fabric was avoided,which helped to keep costs down.

Open plan working is appropriate for staff areasand supports collaboration. The emphasis onworking more co-operatively, sharing space andbringing different groups into closer contact witheach other has proved successful from the pointof view of the physical resources team. A similarpolicy is now being pursued with other groupssuch as media, history and law, andadministration. The university is undergoing alarge number of moves and rationalisations of asimilar sort, to bring groups together currentlyseparated on different campuses. Lessons fromthis project are being used to help continue topress for space efficiency.

Collecting views of users in a structured way willhelp ensure that future changes meet theirperceived needs.


Flat screens save space in thegraphics studio

Photo: AMA

Project summary

Promoting space efficiency in building design 55

Foyle Arts Building, University of Ulster

Building use: Centre for the creative and performing arts – art anddesign, performing arts, music and dance

Student FTE: 643 (building)

Location and type of site: Edge of city campus

Campus type: Semi–urban, one of a number of dispersed campuses

Type of build: Refurbishment

Completion date: September 2003

Team responsible: Architect: GM AssociatesPhysical resources and Faculty of Art

Brief Brief established by whom: Physical resources team

Space standards specified: Space weightings

Procurement route: Traditional


Area NIA: 2,345 m2

Area NUA: 1,773 m2

Efficiency

Area/student FTE NIA building: 3.7 m2

Area/student FTE NIA Campus (EMS): 7.6 m2

Area/faculty FTE NIA: 7.9 m2

Utilisation target: 64%

Utilisation actual: 34% (Magee campus)

Cost Cost total – construction (year): £1,539,500 (2003 price levels)

Cost/GIA – construction: £567 m2 GIA

Cost/GIA – maintenance: £21.44 m2

Case study 5


NanoscienceResearch CentreCambridge University The building has fostered interactionbetween researchers from variousdisciplines, and provided a state-of-the-artfacility that has enabled the department toexpand.

Overview The University of Cambridge’s West Cambridgesite is dedicated to science faculty buildings,largely engineering. A master plan has beenprepared for this site to improve and extend thescience facilities. The Nanoscience ResearchCentre is one of the projects undertaken as partof the plan.

The building is single storey in three distinctparts: a group of about 10 specialist laboratoriesfor delicate equipment requiring vibration-freeconditions; a suite of ultra-clean rooms; and awrite-up and office area. This last area is slightlyseparate, lower, partly because it is withoutextensive plant, and partially sunk into the bundthat has been created to protect the views of theneighbouring residential area. It looks out ontoan attractive courtyard garden and is surroundedby landscaped areas.

The building houses nanoscience research. Theresearch unit is a joint venture between theEngineering and the Physics departments, and runby Professor Mark Welland. A multidisciplinaryteam works at the site as the research pertains toareas relevant to other sciences.

The procurement process made it possible tomeet the user’s exacting requirements and at thesame time to cut almost one-third off the initial

contract price, which had exceeded the strictlylimited budget.

Design process The need to expand an important subject area,which had already outgrown inadequatepremises, was the main driver for this project.The head of the unit was instrumental both insetting the requirements and in structuring thecomplex funding which made it possible.

The availability of Joint Infrastructure Fund(JIF) funding triggered the scheme, whichobtained planning permission in 1999 as part ofthe JIF process. Funding was ultimately securedat a later date and the project recommenced inMay 2001.

The Estate Management and Building Services(EMBS) department of Cambridge Universitywas in charge of the construction project. Basedon the initial brief, EMBS sought a design teamthrough the OJEU process. Building DesignPartnership was selected, in part for its strengthin providing a fully multidisciplinary team,including specialist experience of vibration-freedesign. This was important to the project teamas the building had many stringent requirementsand a single point of responsibility was desirablefor risk management purposes.

Photo: AMA

The client comprised senior staff in four differentspecialisms. EMBS required certainty over thebrief and the different client teams jointlycommissioned a facilities expert to carry out thisrole and establish the definitive detailed brief,including fitting out the office furniture.

The project was procured through a two-stagemain contractor tendering process, ensuring earlyintegration of design and construction teams andthe parallel design and tendering of workpackages. The ECC Contract Option A (fixedprice contract with activity schedule) was used,with wholehearted adoption of ‘the spirit ofmutual trust and co-operation’ that it advocates.This proved to be very beneficial, with savings of£1.5 million – almost one-third of the budget –as the project neared the fixed price stage. The‘open book’ approach was an important factorin achieving this.

In order to achieve the cost savings both thecontractor and the mechanical and electricaldesigners scrutinised their costs. The buildingelements and finishes were each scrutinised andwere the source of half the cost reductions. Theservices were redesigned radically to take

advantage of hitherto unrecognised opportunitiesfor synergies between groups that were comingtogether for the first time. These modificationswere achieved through a very intensive period ofiterative design and costing exercises. Theresulting changes all had to be agreed by theclient, but this process enabled the project teamto deliver the building within budget, withoutreducing any of the essential high standards, orlosing space.

At all points the head of the research unit,Professor Welland, was of prime importance indetermining needs, agreeing designs andorganising funding. Experienced projectmanagement by EMBS provided the essentialframework in which the project could be realised.

Evaluation The users have been provided with a buildingthat meets their very specific needs and greatlyimproves their facilities. Groups with hithertoseparate premises now share space.

The fact that there were few difficulties duringthe settling in period, despite the complexity ofthe building, is a testimony to the success of the


Plan of the Nanoscience Research Centre with laboratories onthe west side and offices on the east side

Sketch: AMA

project. The building has allowed the researchunit to grow and there is talk of futureexpansion, possibly creating office space on theadjacent site. Formal reviews of satisfaction anduse patterns have not been carried out, but aproject review workshop was held with the project team identifying lessons for futureprojects.

The users wanted space where people doingindividual, highly specialised work could interactand benefit from contact with others whosebackground disciplines might be different. So thewrite-up area is open plan for most researchers,with some small offices for senior academics.The desks are large but the space is notextravagant. There is a small meeting/socialspace outside the access doors to the laboratoriesand clean rooms.

Growth in nanoscience has been made possibleby this building and further additions could beaccommodated in the specialist areas, simply byexpanding the office provision. The clean roomblock is designed to be extendable, should theneed arise in the longer term.

Co-ordinated briefing, using a specialistapproved by all the participating groups, and acareful procurement process, helped this becomea building that serves its users well and shouldcontinue to provide a base for ground-breakingresearch into the future. The ECC contract usedwas not wholly suitable for a project wherechanges were taking place in the design after thecontract had been let, but the co-operativeapproach made the changes possible. The budgetcontrol and cost savings were achieved withoutlosing space.


The corridor linking the labswith the study/office area

Photo: AMA

Open plan office space

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Nanoscience Research Centre, Cambridge University

Location and type of site: On a separate science campus to the west ofCambridge

Type of build: New


Team responsible: Professor Mark Welland, Cambridge EstatesManagement and Building Services

Building Design Partnership, and CRC forspecialist clean room and services design andbuild contractor

Main contractor – Shepherd Construction

Campus type: Campus on the edge of Cambridge

Building use: Nanoscience research unit

Cost total (year): £5,470,000 (excluding VAT and fees) (2003)

Cost/m2 GIA: £2,809.45

Area GIA: 1,720 m2

Area NIA: 1,569 m2 (91% of GIA)

Area NUA: 1,134 m2 (66% of GIA)

Case study 6


ChemistryResearchLaboratoryOxford UniversityThis new state-of-the-art building replacesseveral smaller, older, inefficient facilities,and incorporates write-up space adjacentto the labs and suitable areas for highprofile presentations.

Overview The site is an infill plot in the science area of theuniversity. The laboratory is on five floors, withplant on the roof of one part of the building.Two of the laboratory floors are below groundand the building steps down in three sectionsfrom the street frontage to the back of its site, tomake an appropriate juxtaposition with adjacentsmaller buildings. The building is subdividedinto a narrow block of offices, joined to themain laboratory block by a long, thin atrium.

The laboratories are organised as eight-personareas, where each person has a fume cupboardopposite a work bench, and immediately outsidehas a desk in the open plan write-up area, wheredesks are clustered in groups of four – twogroups per lab.

A number of chemistry labs for differentspecialisms – inorganic, organic, physical andbiological chemistry – are grouped in this buildingfor the postgraduate research teams. Seniormembers of the chemistry department have officesin the building. The building brings togetherfacilities that were housed in a range of smaller,older buildings of varying levels of efficiency,some of which were even potentially unsafe.

This building has provided very modern researchfacilities in 48 separate labs, some with highly

specialised equipment. The research students aregenerally grouped in areas of 48 desks, giving amuch greater sense of spaciousness than iscommon and providing concurrent write-upfacilities immediately adjacent to the labs, whichis very convenient.

Design process The existing facilities were outdated with splitfunctions and inefficient space. Researchers hadspace in small group rooms, which were oftenremote from their labs. This meant they oftendid their write-ups in the labs – not a desirablepattern of work. Additional space was neededfor prospective growth and more futureflexibility was required. The availability of JointInfrastructure Fund (JIF) funding was a factor,and the university sanctioned a new building onthe available site. The need to present thedepartment’s research to high profile commercialvisitors, such as potential investors in researchand spin-off companies, was also something that could not easily be accommodated inexisting space.

Photo: AMA

The university commissioned a space review byRMJM, which recommended wholesalerationalisation. This could not be done in theexisting space. RMJM interviewed key occupiersand then prepared an initial feasibility study. TheOJEU process was used to select the individualmembers of a joint, experienced team. The finalteam included RMJM with its experience of theusers, and Faber Maunsell and Turner andTownsend for their experience of the newchemistry lab at Southampton University.

The new chemistry labs at Southamptoninfluenced the ‘diagram’ for the arrangement oflabs and write-up space at Oxford. Creating twobasements has increased the use of an atriumwhich has been maximised as social space. Glassfronted lifts and bridges to link the offices to thelabs help visual communication.

The procurement process was carried out via atwo-stage traditional contract. The initialfeasibility planning took place in 1998-89. In1999 the design team was appointed, practicalcompletion was achieved in September 2003,and the lab was occupied in January 2004.

The department academics were the mostimportant people in shaping the project.Professor Richards, the Chair of Chemistry, andsenior members of the different specialistdivisions, as well as departmental administrators,

formed a vital team bringing both vision andrealism to the briefing and detailed designphases. The various funding organisations alsoinfluenced the process and outcome.

The university charges the department for space,which encourages efficient space use. Thisprocess has meant that, for example, while someprofessors were reluctant to put eight researchersin a laboratory, they were less able to fund the


The Chemistry Research Laboratory

Sketch: AMA

The south section housesprimarily offices, and the north side labs and researchdesk space

Sketch: AMA

project with fewer and so generally they all usethe space very effectively. A building manager onsite, employed by the university, is responsiblefor day-to-day facilities management. The estatesdepartment looks after the M&E throughvarious maintenance contracts and in-housedirect labour. An administrator is responsible forthe building as a whole, managing it as a‘research-hotel’.

Evaluation Overall, the feedback is that the building is verywell-liked. A formal post-occupancy evaluationhas not yet been carried out, but is beingconsidered. There are some issues resulting fromthe complexity of the building infrastructure, butit is so much better equipped than the oldaccommodation that users are generally satisfied.

The building accommodates 400 researchers andappears to be fully occupied except for one ortwo spaces that could be laboratories and havenot yet been used as such (one currently houses alibrary).

The building is bigger than the areas vacated, inorder to accommodate anticipated growth. Thedepartment has reviewed its space holdings andis considering giving up more existing space inother buildings because the new building canaccommodate more people than originallyplanned. The building appears to have a lownet:gross ratio – a result of incorporating risers,plant and separation areas that will contribute tofuture flexibility.

Bringing people together from many buildings toshare common resources – stores, meeting areas,and social space – enables more efficient use ofthese resources and more interaction betweendifferent groups. The atrium functions as a socialspace and on each floor there are ‘office style’break-out lobbies with comfortable furniture andkitchenettes. These areas provide the rightatmosphere for hosting influential visitors.

Flexibility has been built in, allowing thebuilding to be subdivided both by floor and byvertical quadrant should future developments inthe chemistry department make this necessary.

The building services manager who runs thebuilding was recruited a year before practicalcompletion. This made the moves and initialoccupation much smoother than might otherwisehave been the case.

The site has been well-used, but the constrainednature of the area has meant that the labs arenot the most ideal size (as seen at Southampton)though this does not seem to be causingproblems.

There was good co-operation with thecontractors. A much desired feature – a glasswall to the laboratories suitable for making notesand communicating diagrams between teammembers – was preserved because thecontractors took trouble to find the mosteconomical suppliers when high costs made itvulnerable to being axed.


Photo: AMA

Typical eight-person laboratoryadjacent to write-up space

Project summary


Chemistry Research Laboratory, Oxford University

Location and type of site: Part of the science area in an urban campus

Type of build: New


Team responsible: Architects: RMJM,

Faber Maunsell,

Turner and Townsend

Academics – faculty head and heads of departments

Managed through the university and an on-siteadministrator

Campus type: Single; a department within a collegiate organisation

Building use: Chemistry postgraduate research

Cost total: £62,000,000 (inc. works, fees, VAT, furniture, fixtures andequipment)

Cost/GIA: £3,043 m2

Area GIA: 14,178 m2



Case study 7


Owen BuildingSheffield Hallam UniversityThe cluster arrangement of academicoffices and multi-use teaching areas in therefurbishment have helped deliver greaterspace efficiency. Large 60-studentlaboratories mean two classes can betaught simultaneously.

Overview The Sheffield Hallam City campus is an urbansite close to Sheffield’s main railway station, andis one of the university’s five campuses. TheOwen building was constructed in the 1960s, aslab block 12-storeys high, approximately 18 mwide and 110 m long. It is a column and beamstructure with a self-supporting skin. Thebuilding sits across a sloping site with its mainentrance on the fourth floor and all floors belowonly lit from one side. The new building hasbeen located on the lower side of the Owenbuilding and a five-storey atrium containingcatering and retail outlets connects the old Owenbuilding to the new one.

At the entrance level there is a lecture theatreand gathering areas used for conferences as wellas student teaching. The upper floors houseseveral different schools, each with areas foradministration, academic offices, research andteaching. The teaching spaces range from generallecture and seminar rooms to specialisedlaboratories.

This building has been undergoing a floor-by-floor refurbishment for the last eight years. Inthis process, design concepts have beendeveloped for efficient, effective space planning –especially the ‘clusters’ of academic rooms andmulti-use teaching spaces, which have beenprogressively refined and are now being trialledin the new Health and Welfare building on theCollegiate campus (see case study 2).

Design process The services in the 1960s building were coming tothe end of their useful life and needed fullrenewal, despite having been modified severaltimes. Many of the areas had not been renovatedfor 15-20 years and were not functioning well.There was a recognised need for specialistequipment, to be provided in a more integratedway.

The staged renewal meant that the variousschools occupying the building would be dealtwith in sequence. Sue Holmes, Head of FacilitiesPlanning, outlined the brief from the inputcollected from the relevant staff in eachdepartment. Once a project was underway, thestaff worked with the estates department’sproject team and the designers to refine thebrief. The departments were given freedom toarrange the office areas in ways to suit their ownneeds, within the standard clusters. Office areaswere planned mostly to suit the building design.Additionally, the clusters of academics chose thefurniture layout and type.

The estates department, well aware of currentgood practice in office space, was seeking tocreate generic, adaptable areas, able to

Photo: AMA

accommodate a range of departments withpossibility for growth, as well as providing anenergy efficient solution. The departments arecharged for the space they use so they werewilling to contain their areas to a workableminimum. They sought to establish open planareas for administration, group offices for mostacademic staff, and teaching areas that could beused more intensively and flexibly.

Early in the design brief process, those involvedhad to look at the consequences of a faculty losingfive staff, or gaining five staff. The design briefcontained built-in contingencies for both staffgrowth and reduction. The rooms were designedgenerically, and electrical and data pointsprovided for the maximum assumed number ofpeople to use a particular room, plus one.

Each stage of the refurbishment followed asimilar process. Once a sufficiently detailed briefwas assembled, a team of consultants – architect,

mechanical and electrical engineers, planningsupervisor and quantity surveyor, and any othersrelevant to the specific project – were selected ona fixed fee after tender basis. This teamdeveloped a detailed design. This was thenincluded as a part of the final tender informationfor a design and build contract with aguaranteed maximum price. The contractor inthe various projects usually continued to use thedesign team, but was not obliged to do so. Theplanning supervisor and quantity surveyorremained employed by the client throughout.This process has regularly delivered projects totime and budget.

Senior members of the estates team have a rangeof knowledge and experience about facilitiesmanagement and good practice in space planning.

The estates department manages the building.

Evaluation Regular surveys of staff and students providerelatively little feedback about buildingaccommodation. The estates department listensto and acts on informal comments. For example,


The new atrium linking theOwen building to the Harmerbuilding, with shadingindicating the refurbishment

Five-person office module withvarious furniture arrangements

Diagram: AMA

Plans: Sheffield Hallam University

positive feelings about wide corridors in aparticular conversion, contrasted with negativeones about a relatively new building, have led toa policy to ensure generous spaces for studentmovement between classes. Some staff havefound the move to open plan difficult, but it hasbeen generally accepted. In turn, these staff havebeen used as sources of experience for other staffgoing through the refurbishment.

Utilisation of teaching rooms is monitoredregularly, but not of staff offices.

Across the estate, the average space per FTE hasgreatly decreased. In 1996 the area GIA per FTEwas around 10 m2, and in 2003 it had droppedto around 8 m2/FTE. This is paralleled by costefficiency, which improved from about £50/m2

to under £32/m2 per annum.

The space planning in the Owen building,incorporating cluster arrangements for academicoffices and multi-use teaching areas has helpedto deliver greater space efficiency. Deep andnarrow one/two-person offices have beenreplaced by wider five-person rooms, orshallower three-person rooms with small, quiet,bookable interview rooms beside them, saving 1 m2 /person or more, in more flexible andattractive spaces.

Sheffield Hallam did not have a history of singleoffices. Office planning also involved clarity onstaff and student interface and reception points.

Teaching spaces have been enlarged. In place ofthree or four small labs, large 60-studentlaboratories have been organised so that twodifferent classes can be taught simultaneously.This economises on space and, for example, ontechnician time and effort. Teaching spaces alsoallow for some peripheral research activity totake place all week.

On the services side, energy economy wassought, particularly in the new ‘smart’ lightingthat was installed. The system uses movementdetection to operate lights only when the room isin use. The lights automatically turn off after 30minutes if no activity is detected.


The new atrium entrance andsocial area linking the Owenand Harmer buildings

Photo: AMA

The School of Sport andLeisure Management hasdifferent kitchen styles in onelarge space

Photo: AMA

The building has the ability to attract research,enterprise and consultancy works related toaccommodation, and there have been visits fromother institutions and organisations with aninterest in space management.


AV equipment can be hidden,allowing a complete change ofmood in the room

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Owen Building, Sheffield Hallam University

Location and type of site: Central Sheffield, sloping site


Completion date: 1996-2004 various phases

Team responsible: Estates department

Campus type: Client building management organisation

Building use: Several different design teams

Urban, multiple campus

Primarily a teaching building. Also includes: conference,catering, biology, chemistry, physics, food and leisure

Area GIA: * 10,323 m2

Area NIA: * 8,491 m2 (82% of GIA)

Area NUA: * 7,621 m2 (74% of GIA)

* These figures represent the area of the floors that havecompleted refurbishment and not for the entire 12 floorbuilding

Case study 8


J Block University of Glamorgan,PontypriddJ block has been revitalised by new,cheaper-to-maintain cladding and roofing,while providing more space for growingdepartments and several open accesscomputer areas.

Overview The University of Glamorgan started as a schoolof mines and later became a polytechnic. In1992 it became a university and is now on twosites, ten minutes apart on either side of theRiver Taff, near Pontypridd. Several otherinstitutions are affiliated to the university orhave their courses accredited, as part ofGlamorgan Outreach. J block is on the mainGlamorgan site and dates back to the 1970s.The university was facing a backlog ofmaintenance, and has therefore upgraded manyof its older buildings. As a result of growth insome areas, such as electronic music, more spacewas needed to accommodate the expandeddepartments so a new extension was added tothe rear of the building.

The site slopes, and the building is made up of aseries of distinct but linked blocks, of fourstoreys at the back and front, linked by a two-storey centre section. The adjacent buildings Hand G blocks are all system-built Consortium forLocal Authorities Special Programme (CLASP)buildings, two with concrete floor slabs, and onewith timber floors.

The building houses teaching, administrationand academic offices for the department ofelectronics and the department of computing, aswell as providing accommodation for theuniversity’s e-learning and corporate ITdepartment. Also housed in the central section of

the building is a suite of lecture theatres andother centrally timetabled classrooms. Severalteaching spaces have specialised equipment forelectronics and digital music.

Design process J block was ‘grey, dark and dingy, and notenticing for students’. It was also reaching astage where maintenance costs were heavy andthe accommodation was outdated. This projectfollowed on from one for G block, also aCLASP building, which the estates departmentre-clad with white Bauclad resin-based sheets tobrighten up the external appearance and reducelong-term maintenance. The new ‘rain screen’panel system is not entirely weatherproof, so thejoints between the CLASP panels were sealedbefore re-cladding. New roofs with curvedprofiles have been added, as part of the J blockproject, in order to reduce the need to repair theoriginal flat roofs, which have provedtroublesome. An additional lift has been locatedin a new dedicated entrance to the south end ofthe building.

As part of a general trend the university isproviding computers for open access in eachdepartment or building, including J block. Fewstudents have their own laptops so these roomsare heavily used.

The estates department compiled the initial brieffrom the heads of the user departments, andthen a user group was set up to provide moredetailed briefing.

Photo: AMA

A design team was selected by competitiveinterview process, following an advertisement.Once an acceptable design was agreed, a designand build contract was tendered by fourcompanies, to be carried out in stages, takingone of the linked blocks at a time, to minimisethe decanting problems. The competing firmswere expected to follow stage one with thesubsequent two phases. The winning contractorwas a local firm that had been incorporated intoWilmott Dixon but still traded under its earliername of E. Turner and Sons. The universityprocurement group insisted that each phase beseparately tendered, but they were actually allwon by the same contractor.

All the projects were completed as design andbuild, and carried out while departments were inpartial occupation, with the use of someportacabins, and there was a phased handover.

The estates department plays a major role in allcapital projects. Prior to the refurbishment, theuniversity had been striving to catch up with therepairs and upgrades needed. It is an expanding

institution and increasingly short of space, withaverage space per student of 4.2 m2/FTE NIA,down from 5.1 m2 in 2002.

The estates department maintains and managesthe building, with a building caretaker assignedto each building or group, to deal with day-to-day problems. The cafeteria on the ground floorof the second phase is one of two similar onesand there are also two larger restaurantselsewhere in the university, managed by in-housecatering.

Evaluation The university has not routinely sought userviews in the past but it is now introducing apost-occupancy evaluation system for significantdevelopments. The refurbished building appearsto be well-liked, the cafeteria is busy and theopen access computer rooms are well-used. Theavailability of more, properly equipped space hasbeen very popular and has allowed acomfortable increase in student numbers.

A utilisation study of shared bookable teachingspace is carried out annually by the firmproviding the space management system, andthere are plans to extend the survey to all theopen access computer rooms. Overall utilisation


J block’s new curved roof andcanteen extension (shaded)

Diagram: AMA

Specialised electronicslaboratories in the upgradedspace

Photo: AMA

for all the rooms surveyed in J block is below26%, however there are a number of computerlabs in J block where utilisation is 65% – theywere occupied at all the survey times, oftenabout half full or more.

The building has been successfully altered andupgraded to be more functional. The decisionwas made to retain as much as possible of theoriginal buildings, though many internal wallswere removed and new metal stud andplasterboard walls were put up, which can beremoved and altered if needed. Enclosed officesare now generally occupied by two or morepeople except for the most senior academics whohave single offices.

The estates department has recruited a spacemanager to help ensure space is efficiently used,and is preparing guidelines for the amount ofspace required by different user types. Thesehave not yet been fully resolved but comparativemeasures found in other universities are beingconsidered.

The process used was efficient. Old stock can beeffectively renovated with minimal disruption.

The cladding is a cheap way of giving acompletely new look to the building. It has notcaused any problems with the re-clad areas asthe existing walls are still intact andweatherproof.


Ground level cafeteria withcourtyard seating

Photo: AMA

Computers are available close to each subject area and are heavilyused as many students do not have their own computers

Photo: AMA

Project summary


J Block, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd

Location and type of site: Small town, split campus in a steep-sided valley


Completion date: 1997, 1999 and 2002 for the three phases

Team responsible: Architect: Wigley Fox Partnership

Design & build contractor E Turner and Sons (Wilmott Dixon)

Building use: Teaching, administration and academic offices forelectronics, computing and IT department

Cost total (year): £6.4 million (1997–2002)

Cost/GIA: £776/m2

Area GIA: 8,238 m2

Area NIA: 5,882 m2 (7,114.7 m2)


Case study 9


Malet StreetConsolidationProjectBirkbeck College, LondonThe Malet Street consolidation projectincludes the infill of the existing courtyard,and addition of two floors as well as therefurbishment of the existing building –boosting floor space by 45%.

Overview Birkbeck, which became a college of theUniversity of London federal system in 1920,specialises in the education of part-time andmature students, as ‘a college specifically forworking people’. The Malet Street consolidationproject is located at the main body of BirkbeckCollege’s buildings. The Birkbeck campus is incentral London. The college occupies severalbuildings, mostly around Torrington Square,beside the University of London and UniversityCollege London, but with some more remotelysituated buildings.

The Malet Street consolidation project isoccupied by a range of disciplines anddepartments: economics, mathematics andstatistics, geography, biology, chemistry,psychology, central computing services, generalteaching, catering, administration and the collegelibrary. The original brick building has beenextended from six to eight storeys. The newglazed addition, an infill within the arms of a C-shaped building, accommodates one extrafloor because of reduced storey heights.

The glazed addition houses an extension to thelibrary on floors 1-4 which has consolidatedthree previously separate libraries and meant the

college has been able to terminate the lease onits Gresse Street building. The ground floorcontains the entrance area, and the top threefloors are laboratory and general teachingspaces. An enlarged basement areaaccommodates four new lecture theatres. Theconsolidation adheres to the strategy of reducingthe number of buildings held by the university.

The project has added 45% additional floor areaon the existing site. The incorporation ofmultidisciplinary laboratories has made itpossible for the university to stop leasingserviced laboratory space in UCL laboratories.Open plan offices have been promoted generallythroughout Birkbeck, and these were used here,where appropriate. The college has made otherconsolidation savings such as reducing thenumber of trips being made between sites.

Design process The Malet Street consolidation project had somemajor objectives for Birkbeck College:

• to create a new ‘Heart of Birkbeck’ byexpanding central facilities to accommodatethe needs of additional students

Photo: Birkbeck College

• to consolidate the most remote teachingsites onto the centralised campus

• to create an integrated teaching/librarycentre for use seven days a week.

The project involved the demolition of 1,400 m2

of poor quality, inefficient area, and replacementwith a 6,500 m2 extension coupled with asignificant refurbishment of the existing building.

The college also targeted cutting its dependenceon space it did not own: to stop leasing 973 m2

from UCL and to terminate the lease on the4,825 m2 building in Gresse Street which thecollege had previously sold and leased back –approximately 5,800 m2 in all.

The main people driving this project were thethen Master of the College, Professor TimO’Shea, and the Chair of Governors, DameJudith Mayhew, supported by the college’s senioradministrators.

An estates strategy group carried out theplanning and budgeting of the project followedby the space planning phases, to see what

properties could be released or altered, and toassess consequent moves. Governors wereconsulted very early in the project.

In order to ensure the correct provision ofclassroom sizes and configuration, academicschools affected by the move, the facilities office,and the librarian were all consulted at an earlystage of the design process.

Birkbeck obtained funding of almost £8 millionthrough HEFCE’s poor estates grant and asimilar amount from selling existing sites. Theprocurement was initially traditional using aJoint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract but waschanged to design and build during the tenderstage. After reviewing tenders for JCT one of thelay governors (a property developer) suggesteddesign and build would provide better value.Tenders for both approaches were received andthe construction project used a guaranteedmaximum price (GMP) design and buildapproach. The fit-out did not use GMP, and inthe event exceeded the budget.

The day-to-day maintenance of the Malet Streetbuilding is managed in-house. Specialitycontracts for lifts, cleaning, night security andcatering are outsourced.

Evaluation The completion of the Malet Street projectprovided space for 900 FTE students/staff fromoutlying sites as well as the release of the GresseStreet building.


Generic lab design allows foreasy use by multiple disciplines

Diagram: AMA

Aerial sketch indicating theinfill extension and newly builtupper floors (shaded)

Photo: AMA

In 2000 central management informationservices (CMIS) software was implemented forbooking purposes. All timetabling, booking andinvoicing are now accomplished through thissystem. The system shows positive gains forroom utilisation and income.

Although there are fewer teaching roomsavailable now than when the Gresse Streetbuilding was leased, more students can beaccommodated due to better accessibility andmore efficient design.

Multidisciplinary laboratories are designed toaccommodate biology and chemistry students.

Birkbeck serves a student body where themajority of teaching is concentrated in theevenings while research activity continues duringthe day. Excess daytime teaching space is used byother institutions and provides £1 million perannum revenue. The university has been activelyencouraging Friday evening teaching and has hada positive response, leading to an increase ofroom utilisation college-wide.

The provision of additional office and laboratoryresearch space has eliminated Birkbeck’sdependence on buildings belonging to other localcolleges.

The use of up-to-date technology, such as flatscreen computer monitors, allows for desks witha narrow depth to be used in place of thetraditional deep work surfaces for computerrooms and research students. Open plan areasare being used for staff and researchers.

Responses from both students and faculty staffhave been positive and most agree there aredefinite benefits to the newly refurbished MaletStreet location. Students and staff previouslylocated at the Gresse Street building wereisolated from the rest of the student populationbut are now accommodated close to all centralfacilities. Due to the delays the fit-out stage tooklonger than planned which drew negativefeedback from staff and students.

There are plans for a post-occupancy evaluationof the Malet Street building.

Intervention in an existing building, making themost of a new addition, has fulfilled many of thecollege’s aims. The change in floor-to-floorheight between the existing building and theglazed library extension may reduce futureflexibility but allowed an extra 1,400 m2 to bebuilt on the site.


Photo: AMA

The central booking systemshows positive gains forroom utilisation and income

Project summary


Malet Street Consolidation Project, Birkbeck College, London

Location and type of site: Central London

Type of build: Refurbishment and extension


Team responsible: Architects: Richard Hopkinson of Nick Evans Associates

Contractor: D+B Miller Construction

M&E Initial Design: Chapman Bathurst

Structural Engineering: McBains Cooper

Project Manager: Kevin Whitehead

Campus type: Urban, scattered building

Student FTE campus: 7,300

Building use: Multidisciplinary

Cost total (year): £15,000,000 (2003)

Cost/GIA: £1,944 /m2 [including upgrading of existing buildingfacilities]

Area GIA: 7,715 m2


Case study 10


Canal Side EastUniversity of HuddersfieldThe East Mill refurbishment provides flexiblespace, enabling the education department totake over space previously allocated toengineering.

Overview The University of Huddersfield is located on asingle main campus, within the town centre. Overthe last 12 years the university has invested over£30 million to improve the academic propertyportfolio. This development was part of the workto consolidate the campus onto one central sitefrom a previously sprawling campus, by therefurbishment of derelict buildings, and newconstruction.

The East Mill building is a 4,460 m2, five-storey,grade II listed, former mill building. Originallybuilt in 1865, East Mill has retained historicalfeatures while undergoing major changes. Rooflights were installed in order to provide goodnorth light for art and architecture studios.

More space was needed than was available, sothe building was lengthened by a small extensionthe full five storeys high, and a 120-seat lecturetheatre was built on the footprint of a formerloading bay. A new lift tower was also added.

The conversion works were designed andundertaken to complement the earlier conversionof West Mill. This extension has a curved frontand was built using reclaimed stone from a similarbuilding, so it blends with the existing stone.

The East Mill is a flexible building and occupantshave already made minor changes since completion,in response to careful biannual monitoring of theamount of space each faculty needs. The groundfloor now houses education, the first and second isoccupied by computing and engineering and thethird and fourth by architecture. A refectorylocated on the second floor caters to the people onthis part of the campus.

Design process The campus strategy called for the improvementof derelict buildings and the consolidation ontoone site. The mill buildings were one of only a fewplaces for expansion on the main university site.

From early design stages and right up to the fit-out stages of the project, the university consulteda user group to ensure an appropriate overallbrief, as well as to decide how space would besubdivided for the different departments. Theuser group was made up of the architects,members of the estates department andrepresentatives from the building users(architecture and engineering respectively).

The design and procurement stages followed avery precise schedule. A budget was formulatedbased on the space requirements arising from thebrief and an anticipated cost per square metre. Astrategy team consisting of the estates director,the vice-chancellor, the pro vice-chancellor forfinance, and a dean from one of the faculties (arotating position) managed the processes,procurement and construction throughout theproject. This group made the overall decisionsand formulated the general project direction andbudget. Based on the broad brief, a designer andthen contractor were selected.

The strategy team used a guaranteed maximumprice, as well as an open book, policy for thisproject. The client provided incentives to ensurethe project cost met budget – if the final costscame in below target, the university and the

Photo: University of Huddersfield

contractor would split the balance. The rationalefor this approach was based on the university’spoor experiences using traditional methods ofprocurement in the past. The universityprioritised cost control as a vital component ofthe success of the project.

The building is managed in-house using in-houseand outsourced service providers (security andcleaning).

Evaluation Due to the open plan nature of the originalstructure, the space is flexible and can withstandinternal modification and change. Raised floors,cooling and easily removed stud partitioninghave further future-proofed this development.The focus on providing generic space, that couldeasily be changed to suit a different department,is being actively implemented in other buildings.

This generic space is managed by biannualdepartmental evaluations that have become asuccessful method in allocating the appropriateamount of space to each department. Theuniversity’s strategic space management grouptake into account yearly growth of departments,as well as the level of earnings the departmentgenerates relative to the space they use. Shouldan assessment indicate that a department is usingspace poorly, it is reallocated. The East Millbuilding provides an example of reallocationsince space originally provided for engineeringhas been taken on by education.

The procurement method selected ensured thebudget was met. The same process has now beenused several times with all projects coming in at,or under, budget.


Second floor plan: shaded areas indicate the newbuilding, including a new lecture theatre in a narrowfull height extension

Diagram: AMA

Shaded areas indicate newextensions including rooflights to illuminate thearchitecture department

Diagram: AMA

The investment in the estate and theconsolidation strategy has succeeded inimproving the space efficiency of the entirecampus. While gross internal area increased by22% over this period, the number of studentFTEs over the same period increased by 89%.This was achieved by centralising all academicactivities on a single campus, creating a singlelibrary and so avoiding duplication, improvingthe suitability of buildings, demolishing unviableproperty, and through new build andrefurbishment. The University of Huddersfieldwas able to demolish two, six/seven storeytowers (late 1950s and early 1960sconstruction), upon completion of the East Millrefurbishment.

The university has not formally assessed userviews. While there have been some minorproblems, the users are generally very satisfiedwith the facility. Single person offices aremodestly sized at 10-11 m2 and many offices areoccupied by two people. Offices are used forstudent ‘face-time’ and small group teaching.


The new north lights introducedaylight without compromisingthe old structure

The entrance area exploits thebuilding’s historic character

Photo: University of Huddersfield Photo: AMA

Mobile dividers provide displaysurfaces and allow flexible useof the open plan areas

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Canal Side East, University of Huddersfield

Location and type of site: Constrained site centrally located within town



Team responsible: Architect: Allen Tod Architect

Construction: Jarvis Construction

Project Manager: A. Johnson, University of Huddersfield

Campus type: Town centre campus


Building use: Multidisciplinary – education, computer engineering, art,architecture and design

Cost total: £4,100,000 (exc. VAT)

Cost/GIA: £980 /m2 (exc. VAT)

Area GIA: 4,187 m2



Case study 11


Clarendon andStudent ServicesbuildingsUniversity of Teesside,MiddlesbroughA new block links the two upgradedbuildings, improving pedestrian circulationand utilising courtyard space and openplanning to promote space efficiency.

Overview Teesside University occupies a site close toMiddlesbrough town centre. It began as atechnical college in 1930, later became apolytechnic, and then the University of Teessidein 1992. In the 1970s, Basil Spence designedseveral buildings conforming to an estate planfor a grid of three-storey buildings filling severalcity blocks.

The university has now refurbished two of thesebuildings, the former library, and the Clarendonbuilding. As was common for buildings of theirperiod, pedestrian circulation was separatedfrom ground level road traffic, with mostactivities located on the first floor and above,with plant and car parking at ground level.

A new circulation link has been added betweenthe two buildings, providing more accessibleground level access with convenient lifts. Theformer library, built in 1978, has become astudent support centre with a cafeteriaincorporated.

The Clarendon building, built in 1973, providesoffices and teaching space for the businessschool and for part of the school of socialsciences and law.

The former library, a largely open plan building,had been vacated. This provided an opportunityfor re-use as the student support hub where themajority of staff work now in open plan officespace. The Clarendon building, a deep buildingwith two open courtyards, was no longer anacceptable space for work or teaching and it hadconfusing circulation giving very little sense oforientation, as well as having heating problems.

The two consecutive projects have created moreaccessible space, and an efficient location for allactivities supporting the student body. Theuniversity has introduced more open planworking and more efficient space standards forenclosed rooms for academic staff, as well asproviding shared interaction space with futureflexibility, for both students and staff.

Design process These redevelopment projects were started whenTeesside became a university in 1992. The oldlibrary was redundant and this provided an openplan area for the first project – a new studentservices hub using open plan offices. Theuniversity was keen to use what it learned fromthis first project on the adjacent Clarendonbuilding. Both projects allowed the university tobring these premises up to standard for DDArequirements.

Photo: AMA

The initial move for the first project was to lookfor an architect with a suitable approach. Theuniversity sought a firm with a track record inuniversity buildings and with appropriate designideas. After holding competitive interviews itidentified a Sheffield firm, Bond BryanPartnership.

Student support needed an effective, efficient, co-ordinated location to serve a larger and growingstudent population, and to help attract the localstudents that Teesside wanted to serve, whomight otherwise not attend university. Legislativedrivers and staff expectations were becomingmore demanding so higher performance withinthe same building was needed.

The initial project was traditionally procured. Inthe Clarendon building project, the same architectwas used but a construction company was given adesign and build contract with a guaranteedmaximum price. The university had the chance toacquire an inexpensive office building when thelocal authority structures changed. This provideddecant space that has continued to be used forsubsequent projects. This office building wascheap, has had little spent on it, and is likely to beretained for car parking.

The university secretary has been instrumental inensuring that everyone is aware that Teessidecannot afford to have buildings that are inefficientor underused. The estates director of the time wasa strong proponent of open plan offices.


Second building plan: Clarendon building (left) and student supportbuilding linked together (blue shading indicates the new extension,while the green shading the former atrium space). Most of studentsupport area is open plan and can be easily reconfigured.

Diagram: AMA

Additional floor space capturedby reducing the courtyard size

Photo: AMA

The snack bar in the student centre is one of fourcampus-based catering facilities that are managedby the department of campus facilities, togetherwith all the buildings.

Evaluation The university held regular user group meetingsduring the project and 18 months after, to seek theviews of the users. There have been fewcomplaints and anecdotal evidence suggests thestaff using the Clarendon building prefer the newfacilities. The new covered atrium that is used asan open plan office area has presented a fewpractical problems such as access andmaintenance, glare, dripping water (condensationor rain) and noise disturbance.

Specialist space on campus is surveyed over a one-week period in each semester, as set out in the EMSdata gathering guidelines. The new sharedinteraction areas are generous, for students and inthe secure staff areas. There is space to incorporatemore of the facilities housed in these areas: meetingtables, drop-in computer terminal clusters, casualcomfortable seating etc. The snack bar is well-used,with students tending to congregate on the lowerlevel and staff upstairs.

The Clarendon building has an increased floorarea, as the old courtyards are now atria withsmaller footprints. This has also meant there is nowless external perimeter to maintain. Staff offices aresmaller in the Clarendon building than previously,and in the student centre are largely open plan.Typical footprints have therefore been reduced andan efficient precedent has been set.

The average size of a single person cellular officehas decreased in size, from 16.8 m2 NIA for theold Clarendon building, to 13.2 m2 NUA in theClarendon refurbishment.

More benefit could probably be gained from thesebuildings if the university captures more factualinformation about user preferences and utilisationof the shared and office areas.


Open tables at the Clarendon first floor entrance,for social interaction andcollaborative work

Open plan work area in thestudent support building

Photo: AMA

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Clarendon and Student Services buildings, University of Teesside,Middlesbrough


Location and type of site: Urban campus



Team responsible: Director of estates

Client: Student services, school of social sciences and lawand Teesside business school

Architect: Bond Bryan Partnership from Sheffield

Campus type: Urban, compact, single site


Building use: Student services, offices, teaching, computer laboratoriesand snack bar

Clarendon only Cost total (year): £5,300,000 (1999)

Cost/GIA: £1,144/ m2

Area GIA: 1,088 m2 inc. ground level parking

Area NIA: 6,599 m2 (59.5% of GIA)

Area NUA: 5,470 m2 (49.3% of GIA)

Case study 12


HolgateYork St. John UniversityCollege, YorkThe refurbishment creates additional spacewithin an existing building footprint byroofing over the open courtyard.

OverviewYork St. John University College (YSJ) campus islocated just outside York city centre. TheHolgate building, originally built in the 1850s asthe Archbishop Holgate School, was bought in1962 by the college. Holgate comprises a main,grade II listed, school building, a smalleradjoining ‘Head Master’s House’ and numeroussmall extensions spread over two storeys.

Previously a multifunctional university building,Holgate had housed administrative facilities, alibrary, IT, reception and porter’s lodge. The newrefurbishment is a ‘one stop shop’ for studentservices consolidating all student supportsystems, such as student records, finance, andcampus reception, into one location in the centreof the campus. Holgate will also house theuniversity’s international teaching department.The refurbished building completes a walkwaythrough the campus connecting one side of thecampus to the other, as well as the new ‘heart’.

The design brief sought to improve the buildingenvironment by removing the library,consolidating different student support officesinto one central location, and ‘the use of openplan offices where possible’ – quite a radicalapproach relative to YSJ’s history.

The refurbishment of Holgate creates additionalspace within an existing building footprint bythe simple method of roofing over the opencourtyard. The teaching spaces are generic, so awide range of departments can use them. Theopportunity is being taken to focus internationalteaching in newly upgraded space, as thisdepartment produces a very good stream ofincome for the college.

Design process The Holgate refurbishment project was madepossible when the library was moved. Theestate’s strategy was consolidation, and thevacant Holgate site presented an ideal solutionto meet its needs.

Members of staff in student services expressed adesire to consolidate all student support into asingle building and believed that a review ofstudent services was needed. In the early designstages a strategy committee of user groups wascreated to identify key necessities for therefurbishment. Visiting other universities withsimilar ‘one stop shop’ facilities helped todevelop the initial brief in more detail.

Although the building is essentially cellular, theworkspace provided in new additions is for openplan offices. The chief executive of the collegeand the estates director emphasised the necessityof moving in this direction as growth is plannedand the college cannot afford excessive increasesin office space. The consolidation projecttargeted 67% less space with 16% morestudents for the university as a whole.

A two-stage tender process with a guaranteedmaximum price was chosen for the project,based on the successes of other recent projectsthat utilised the same procurement route.

Photo: YSJ

Evaluation The consolidation of student support onto onesite is expected to be a time efficient measure forstaff and students. This project was completed in2005 and the college will be seeking the views ofusers.

It is anticipated that external contracts will usethe teaching space for about 50% of the time butthat it will be available for other users for therest of time.

The project is part of a staged upgrade of thebuilding, and this first phase provides space thatwill give the college an improved image, cateringfor the immediate needs of students in a strategicand central location on the main pedestrianroute through the campus.


The student centre has gainedadditional space by filling inthe courtyard and building amodern glass extension(shaded)

Diagram: AMA

Photo: YSJ

The ground floor centralcorridor creates a link throughthe campus: and housesstudent services in an openenvironment

Photo: YSJ

Typical multi-person officespace

Project summary


Holgate, York St. John University College, York

Location and type of site: Located in York town centre



Team responsible: Architect: Bond Bryan

Mechanical and Electrical Engineering: Black & Veach

Structural: Jacob Gibb

Cost Consultancy: Iddion and Dodd Partners + College Estates

Campus type: Small city single campus


Building use: International teaching department, and student supportservices ‘One Stop Shop’ including reception, centralstudent services, student finance and accommodationoffice

Area GIA: 4,745 m2

Area NIA: 4,123 m2 (86.9% of GIA)

Area NUA: 3,229 m2 (68.1% of GIA)

Case study 13


The Michael A.Ashcroft BusinessSchoolAnglia Ruskin University,ChelmsfordThe new Ashcroft building is significantlysmaller than the building it replaced buthouses the same number of students withspace for more in the future.

Overview Anglia Ruskin University’s Chelmsford campusis at the edge of town, a short distance from thetrain station. It is one of two Anglia campuses,the other being in Cambridge. Previously apolytechnic, Anglia became a university in 1992and the majority of its students are maturelearners. The university is gradually releasingbuildings elsewhere in Chelmsford andconcentrating on a single Chelmsford site.

The Ashcroft building creates a new ‘front door’to the campus. Connected at one end to the‘green’ Queen’s building, the Ashcroft was alsodesigned with an environmental agenda usingthe latest in energy efficient technology.

The building houses the business school. It is onfive storeys and contains administrative officesfor the business school, a small café and a largerrefectory, with the general reception andinformation on the ground floor. Generalteaching spaces are located on the first andsecond floors, staff offices are on the third, andon the fourth there is an open plan flexible spacefor conferences and business clients. There is alsoa large lecture theatre over the entrance area.

The Ashcroft business school decided on roomsizes by consulting a user group of faculty andestates directors, in order to assure properlysized teaching spaces and to achieve high

utilisation. Both administrative and academicstaff, including the dean, work in open planareas, where the only assigned cellular office isthat of the dean’s personal assistant. As a newmain entrance, the building gives the university abetter image. The building is significantlysmaller than its predecessor but accommodatesthe same number of students and still haspotential for student numbers to grow.

Design process Anglia received a generous donation for theproject, and the donor stipulated the newbuilding must be for international business, aswell as a landmark building. The universitywanted to create a new front door to the campusand saw the Ashcroft as a good opportunity todo so.

The university completed a space evaluation andtimetabling analysis early in the design stages,and a strategy committee of user groups wascreated in order to identify key necessities forthe refurbishment. A two-tier projectmanagement and project steering group wascreated. Members of the first tier included thevice-chancellor, director of estates, director offinance and the donor. The second tier includedrepresentatives of staff and students.

The procurement route was initially a singlestage ‘develop and construct’ job, which,through extensive value engineering, essentiallybecame a two-stage process. Wilkinson Eyre,

Photo: AMA

architects, were selected through an internationalRIBA design competition, with the rest of thedesign team being selected initially through anOJEU notice and final selection throughinterview. The interview panel did not know thecandidates’ fee information so selection had tobe based upon ‘value and competence’.Construction was funded through privatedonation. The project was 95% designed to abudget set by the university before going totender and then according to the amendedJCT98 contract with the contractor’s design.

The Ashcroft is mainly managed in-house, withmaintenance and cleaning outsourced.

Evaluation A user group of faculty and estates directorsdeveloped a series of teaching room sizes, basedupon a combination of both academic practiceand theory applied at other HEIs, creatingclassrooms of 15, 25 and 50 person teachingcapacity. Some reconfigurable partitioning wasused, and rooms can be expanded toaccommodate 75 people. Utilisation initiallyincreased by approximately 5–10%. More recentchanges to the booking/timetabling process havefurther increased utilisation. The university willdetermine the exact increase in utilisation whenit carries out further surveys.

Open plan office space on the third floor hasonly one private office for the PA of the dean.Provision is made for student and facultymeetings in small cellular spaces dividing thestaff area from the primary circulation. Staffwho require privacy or need to maintainconcentration also use these. Student interviewsmust be pre-arranged and are carried out inthese rooms. However, due to the popularity ofthe open ground floor refectory and coffee shop,student faculty meetings are often conductedthere.


Third floor plan illustrating open plan office space and studentinterview rooms

Sketch: AMA

The new business schoolprovides a new front door tothe Chelmsford campus

Photo: AMA

There was initial great resistance to the move toopen plan among the faculty. Although there isstill some resistance, the overall methodologyand approach to working has changed and staffare beginning to accept the move. The deanhelped make open plan a more acceptableworking system, by setting an example of hisworkspace.

The functional approach to space provision,along with the faculty move from an inefficientgrade II listed building, has resulted in increasedspace efficiency and cost savings in bothrecurring revenue and capital costs. Theuniversity will conduct more detailed analysisthrough post-occupancy evaluation.

Overall, the building has been received well byits occupants. However, users have not yet‘grown into’ it and there is much to be improvedin terms of room booking and utilisation.


Photo: AMA

Third-floor open plan academic office space with adjacent singlerooms for student/faculty meetings and individual faculty work

The main reception providescomputer terminals foraccess to general information

Photo: AMA

Project summary


The Michael A. Ashcroft Business School, Anglia RuskinUniversity, Chelmsford

Location and type of site: Edge of town location alongside River Chelmer

Type of build: New build


Team responsible: Architect: Wilkinson Eyre

Structural engineer: Buro Happold

Contractor: William Verry

Services engineer: Atelier 10

Project manager: Gardiner and Theobald

Campus type: Small city multiple campus

Building use: Business school

Cost total (year): £6,445,000 (2003)

Cost/GIA: £1,471 m2

Area GIA: 3,675 m2

Area NIA: 3,130 m2 (85.2% of GIA)

Area NUA: 2,383 m2 (64.8 % of GIA)

Case study 14


The HarrisonLearning CentreUniversity ofWolverhamptonThe building extension provides aprestigious new entrance, lots of daylightand additional study spaces incorporatinginnovative sunflower study pods.

Overview The Harrison Learning Centre is a four-storeybuilding on the City Campus South, in thecentre of Wolverhampton. The campus has hadto improve its building stock and spaceefficiency, having been in a bad enoughcondition to qualify for poor estates fundingfrom HEFCE.

The Harrison Learning Centre (HLC) underwenttwo major refurbishments in 1998-89 and 2002,resulting in a new look and refurbished interior toa 1970s library building that no longer met theuniversity’s needs. HLC absorbed the art and lawlibrary in 1996-97 (about 900 m2, 45,000volumes and 90 seats). The first HLC extensioninvolved the addition of a triangular portion to theeast of the building, incorporating an atrium andcreating a new entrance and circulation space.

The closure of the Dudley campus including itslearning centre (about 1,900 m2, 107,000volumes, 20,000 journals, 339 seats) required anexpanded provision at Wolverhampton tosupport the school of humanities, languages andsocial sciences. This is incorporated into thesecond extension. This extension faces west andextends the full width of the building. It is anarrow 3m strip atrium, rising the full height ofthe building with a fully-glazed front elevation.This provides a prestigious new entrance andmore daylight as well as additional study space

to the building interior. These extensionstogether with other new buildings create acentrepiece to the campus, providing animproved image for the university.

In 2004 the contents of three smaller libraries onhospital trust sites were divided between HLCand the Walsall Campus Library (total about615 m2, 25,000 volumes plus journals, and 143seats) when the nursing and midwifery educationprogrammes were moved onto the campuses.

The four-storey structure houses the refurbishedlearning centre, which has consolidated severallibraries into one location over the two projects.The refurbishment altered the old library byincluding new IT-enabled study areas, bothindividual study and group study, some withwireless access, as well as additional space forbook stacks. The building also includes acovered street (complete with bookshop,copy/print shop, hairdresser, computer/mobilephone outlet), enhanced by its co-location withthe students’ union, and has ultimately become awell-utilised social space.

The project creates a ‘new’ building, and hasimproved its image quickly and cheaply. It aimsto persuade staff and students to teach and learndifferently as part of a more extensive, universitychange agenda.

Photo: University of Wolverhampton

Design process Since 1998 the University of Wolverhampton hasbeen engaged in a major strategic regenerationproject named New Horizons. This academicallydriven project includes provision to improve thebuildings on all its campuses (Wolverhampton,Walsall, Telford and Compton Park – the Dudleycampus was closed as part of this initiative). Itaddresses the issue of the poor condition of theestate. A lack of investment in the physicalinfrastructure of the university meant that cashreserves had been preserved. The new Pro Vice-Chancellor, Roy Newton, has been playing amajor role in the conception and implementationof this project.

A strategic assessment of the estate concludedthat the University of Wolverhampton had toomuch space of poor quality. As a result of theNew Horizons project, the university has beenequipping its campuses, with major new build

and refurbishment projects, some of which havebeen completed while others are in progress. Thestrategy initially sought to invest £60 million,which grew to a projected estimate of £120 million, over a seven-year period.

The redevelopment of the Wolverhamptoncampus, including work on the HarrisonLearning Centre, was driven by several factors:

• the necessity to improve a much neglectedand deteriorating campus

• the need to eliminate the 25% of the totalestate deemed unnecessary

• and the need to improve the image of theuniversity.

Additionally, with respect to the HarrisonLearning Centre, some outdated infrastructurealso needed to be upgraded – heating andlighting had to be improved to acceptablestandards. The university also believed thatbuildings are an important part of what auniversity has to offer and they have a role toplay in marketing: ‘You can’t compete in themarket without proper buildings’.


Ground floor plan withshading indicating the newextensions to the building

Sketch: AMA

New west extension providingadditional study space andample natural lighting

Photo: AMA

The procurement of the project was traditional,with architects selected using the OJEU process.

Furniture was procured by working withsuppliers to create designs and systems thatwould meet the needs of the users.

Evaluation To date, the university has reduced its estate byapproximately 12%, nearly half of its NewHorizons objective of 25%. This project hasplayed a role in this by bringing a variety ofdifferent libraries into this single location.

The merged libraries have improved buildingefficiency, allowing the university to releasesurplus property and reduce maintenance costs.

In order to keep the building flexible and allowfor further changes in future, the lighting in theold part of the library which needed to beupgraded was re-orientated on a 45º angle. Thiswill allow book stacks to be arranged in severalways on the floor without tall shelves castingshadows.

The Harrison Learning Centre has successfullybecome a more attractive learning environment.It explores the merits of a new prototype for ITlearning in its use of desk pods or groups. Thispod shape, also referred to as ‘sunflower’ and‘dog-bone’, allows both group interaction andindividual research as required. There is an

extensive wireless system, allowing students andstaff greater mobility. The combination of theuse of wireless and flat screens has helped tomake it possible to use furniture with a small‘footprint’, which has further improved spaceefficiency.

The new extension has provided a goodenvironment for study – brighter and more openthan before. It also creates a new face to projectto the city. The façade incorporates exteriorlighting giving the university an attractive city-facing image, while the courtyard-facingextension reorganised and rationalised anotherwise uninspiring building. Overall, theHarrison Learning Centre extensions andrefurbishment give the perception of a newbuilding. This approach is not only cheaper thana complete new build, but also easier and fasterto design and deliver.


Sunflower learning clusters

Photo: AMA

West extension

Photo: AMA

Project summary


The Harrison Learning Centre, University of Wolverhampton

Type of build: Extension and refurbishment


Team responsible: Architect: Bond Bryan Partnership

Campus type: Rural, multiple campus

Building use: Learning resource centre

Cost total: £4,797,597

Cost/GIA: £1,263/m2

Area GIA: 10,980 m2 (total including existing)



Case study 15


Great CentralWarehouseUniversity of LincolnThe award-winning refurbishment of aderelict building to house combined librariesincorporates wireless technology and spaceefficient interiors.

Overview The University of Lincoln’s Brayford Poolcampus is located at the fringe of Lincoln citycentre. A rail line and major road intersect at thecentre of the campus creating four distinctquadrants. The Great Central Warehouse(GCW), is located in the south-east portion ofthe campus and houses the university library. Itis a refurbished, redbrick structure, originallybuilt in 1907 as a goods and grains warehouse.The refurbishment, completed in 2004, includesa new two-storey glazed extension on the northfaçade as well as the reconstruction of ‘loadingbays’ to the south side.

The library contains open study areas, workrooms for quiet or group study, operation areasfor learning support, IT provision, a vendingarea and ancillary support facilities as well as120,000 volumes arranged over four storeys and5,000 m2.

A major element of all the current projects onthe Brayford Pool campus is the use of spacemodels to predict needs. The importance offlexibility has also been stressed, resulting in aparticularly space efficient campus. The GCWrefurbishment was designed for futureexpansion, with phase two already planned, andprovisions made on site for the future extension.

The development of the new library withpedestrian links to Brayford Wharf East willcomplete accessibility throughout the campus,linking all developments and campus entrances.

Design process The university has been engaged in a majorcampus development programme since 1996,when the first building was erected on this site.In relation to the GCW, the university intends tolink the development with the remainder of thecampus and the city as a whole.

In 2001, as part of a review of the university’sstrategy (which HEFCE supported through theRestructuring and Collaboration Fund), RickMather Architects undertook a review of the

Photo: Andrew Weekes

Typical floor plan showingthe new extensions (shaded)

Diagram: AMA

Brayford Pool campus. The motivation for thiswas twofold:

• the rationalisation of the university’sprovision in Hull (in partnership with theUniversity of Hull, Hull College andHEFCE) relocating elements of the Hull-based provision onto the Lincoln site

• the need to improve the facilities of the sitefor the purpose of creating a greater‘student identity’.

The original learning resources building had thedisadvantage of also being a faculty building. Itwas recognised that this mixed use was notsuitable for an expanding campus and thatspecialist buildings for faculties and services wereneeded.

As the GCW project was approved, theuniversity estates committee assigned a clientgroup including the director of information andlearning services as chair, representatives fromthe estates department, clients of the building,and associated staff. In the early design phase,the client group visited other universities withsimilar facilities such as Sheffield Hallam, DublinCity, Loughborough and the Open University.This allowed the client group to see what wasavailable in terms of design, and to learn from

the successes and pitfalls of some relatively newand innovative buildings.

The University of Lincoln funded the projectwith grant assistance from HEFCE.

Evaluation The project has been successful in that it wasdelivered both on time and on budget.

The university is planning a formal post-occupancy review, to be chaired by the directorof information and learning services, following asuitable period of operation.

The GCW is now partially using wirelesstechnology and has the ability to be fullywireless in the future.

The building is space efficient as a result of theinterior design layout for stacks, study spacesand computer points.

The simple mechanical service systems haveproduced a building with efficient operatingcosts. Efficient use of space is achieved by theuse of compact study desks and the latestcomputing technology with minimal furniturefootprint areas.

The GCW is well used and has become abustling part of the campus. It meets the needs of


The extensions to the oldgrains warehouse

Diagram: AMA

Making use of structuralcolumns by turning them intocomputer clusters

Photo: AMA

users and enhances the image of the university. Itis a successful reuse of a derelict warehousebuilding and has incorporated the need forfuture expansion in its design.

The University of Lincoln has a very spaceefficient campus, which is being developed witha planned average of 6.5 m2 per student FTE asa target.

In 2005 the Great Central Warehouse wasawarded a gold in building conservation and asilver in regeneration by the Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors (RICS). The judges madevery positive comments regarding the project:‘This important building was in serious dangerdue to neglect, vandalism, misuse and theft, andhas now been restored to become a focal pointof the university campus. The new use of thebuilding, as a library, does not appear at allcontrived and the intensity of use and itspopularity make the conservation even moreworthwhile. The technical restoration work andthe retention of original features have beencarefully combined with the requirements of ahi-tech work and study environment’.


Self-issue and return desksimprove efficiency

Photo: AMA

Quiet and group study roomslocated in the reconstructedloading bays

Photo: AMA

Project summary


Great Central Warehouse, University of Lincoln

Location and type of site: Urban, new campus



Team responsible: UL Architects University of Lincoln


Building use: Learning resource centre

Cost total (year): £5,000,000 (2004) – not including fit-out costs, fees or VAT

Cost/GIA: £962/m2

Area GIA: 5,063 m2



Appendix: Area definitionsFive definitions of floor area are used inconstruction projects in HEIs: gross external area(GEA); gross internal area (GIA); net internalarea (NIA); net usable area (NUA); and balancearea. It is imperative that any area stated isqualified by one of these definitions. Thefollowing guidance and Figure 11 are derivedfrom the ‘RICS Code of Measuring Practice: AGuide for Surveyors and Valuers’ 5th edition,and the Estates Management Statistics DataDefinitions.

GEA – gross external area (for planningapplications)

The area of a building measured externally ateach floor level, including all spaces within thebuilding, and perimeter wall thicknesses, externalprojections, loading bays and garages. Itexcludes open-sided balconies, fire escapes,canopies, and roof terraces.

GIA – gross internal area (for building costsestimation)

The area of a building measured to the internalface of the perimeter walls at each floor level. Itincludes all spaces within the building, internalstructure, walls and partitions, loading bays andgarages. It excludes perimeter wall thicknessesand external projections, external balconies andvoids over atria.

NIA – net internal area (equivalent of netlettable area)

The area within a building that comprises usableareas and primary horizontal circulation. Itincludes all usable spaces, kitchens and built-inunits and cupboards that occupy usable areas,and horizontal circulation. It excludes commonentrance halls, atria, landings and balconies;toilets, toilet lobbies, bathrooms and cleaners’rooms; plant spaces (lift rooms, plant rooms,risers, duct rooms, tank rooms and fuel stores);vertical circulation (stairwells, lift-wells andassociated lobbies); internal structure (structuralwalls, columns, piers etc); and loading bays andgarages.

NUA – net usable area (area available inrooms for people to use)

The area within a building available for peopleto use. It excludes primary horizontal circulation(major horizontal routes that link fire escapes) inaddition to all of the above.

Balance area (areas to enable the building tofunction)

The floor area planned to enable the building tofunction. It includes stairwells; entrance lobbies;atria and foyers where the function is solely orprimarily for circulation; lifts and lift lobbies;lavatories and toilet lobbies; cloakrooms;cleaners’ stores and cupboards; plant rooms,tank rooms, boiler houses, calorifier chambersand fuel stores; loading bays and ducts, thatotherwise are included with gross internal area.It includes primary horizontal circulation, firecorridors and smoke lobbies that otherwise areincluded within net internal area. It excludeseverything that is net usable area.



Figure 11 Diagram illustrating area definitions

Plant, risers, ductrooms, tank rooms,fuel stores, loadingbays, garages,vertical circulation,stairwells, lift-wells,common entrancehalls and lobbies,toilets, toiletlobbies,bathrooms,cleaners’ rooms

List of abbreviations

AMA Alexi Marmot Associates

CLASP Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme

CMIS Central management information services (software)

CPD Continuing professional development

DDA Disability Discrimination Act

EMBS Estates Management and Building Services department

EMS Estate Management Statistics

FTE Full-time equivalent

GCW Great Central Warehouse, University of Lincoln

GEA Gross external area

GIA Gross internal area

GMP Guaranteed maximum price

HE Higher education

HEDQF Higher Education Design Quality Forum

HEI Higher education institution

HLC Harrison Learning Centre, University of Wolverhampton

JCT Joint Contracts Tribunal

JIF Joint Infrastructure Fund

M&E Mechanical and electrical

NIA Net internal area

NUA Net usable area

OJEU Official Journal of the European Union

PCFC Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

POE Post-occupancy evaluation

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

SAF Sir Alexander Fleming Building

SHU Sheffield Hallam University

SMG UK Higher Education Space Management Group

SMP Space Management Project

UGC University Grants Committee

YSJ York St. John University College

uk higher education space management project promoting space

Documents