Some comments by the architect/designer, Robert Gaukroger:
"Rob Gaukroger tells us how it all came about “it wasn’t a state funded project and the budget has been tight from day one, I didn’t charge a design fee for the three years it took to take this project from an idea, through the planning process to the built solution today. I have constructed a lot of the building myself with a small team of joiners on site. The bursar at the school has kept a tight hold on the purse strings and he has got good value for money."
why are the classrooms raised up? what happens underneath? why tubes with no windows except on the ends? skylights would have been a good way to make them less tube-like.
I was more thinking of the fact that the designer gave away 3 years of time, helped to build the project and then talks about giving the client good value for money...
this should be biologically embedded in every architect's or wannabe's head.
until all designers realize that it is not a responsible thing to do spending the client's money to fulfill your own ego, this profession will die out sooner than u think.
oh, this is NOT sustainable architecture practice. any project can take 2 years even a shed.
the project itself lack natural lighting, which consume more energy to light, heat and cool the interior, and poor indoor air and light quality which may not be the best place to get ur learning done.
btw, i can't tell if there was an elevator. how can a disabled student get up there???
why couldn't this be done with shipping containers clad with shingles?
diabase, you've hit the problem, and zug you've hit the possible answers why an architect would do this.
We're all allowed to perform labors of love, and hopefully we all do it sometimes via pro bono work or losing profit on one aspect of a job that we think is important.
In the long run, no it's not sustainable for a firm. However, lots of firms do have bread and butter work - tenant improvement for a huge company, for example - that pays the bills and allows them to do the work they love at a financial loss. Maybe Mr. Gaukroger has done CDs for 50 Pizza Huts and that's what lets him spend three years hand-building a school.
The danger in this kind of article is if it gives owners the impressions that ALL architects love their work so much that we don't need to make money at it. This is a stereotype we've struggled with since the roots of the profession as a "gentleman's hobby" for the last 400 years up to the Modern era.
By comparison: when lawyers and doctors donate their time, it's very clearly demarcated as "pro bono time" - time they are giving back to their community via their professional skills. When we do it, because of the artistic nature of our work, it's considered not so much giving to the community as giving to ourselves in the form of seeing our "vision" built in the world. I don't know how to change this perception.
I think there's a bit of greenwashing going on here. Elevating the pods on stilts does not increase the insulation. There's insufficient daylighting. Even though there are PV panels on the roof, that doesn't make up for the lack of daylighting. It's not necessarily bad, just not a model of "carbon responsible" design. Also, the ramp does not look handicap accessible.
What do you think of this?
Saw this project on Dezeen.
Some comments by the architect/designer, Robert Gaukroger:
"Rob Gaukroger tells us how it all came about “it wasn’t a state funded project and the budget has been tight from day one, I didn’t charge a design fee for the three years it took to take this project from an idea, through the planning process to the built solution today. I have constructed a lot of the building myself with a small team of joiners on site. The bursar at the school has kept a tight hold on the purse strings and he has got good value for money."
Is this then sustainable architecture practice?
why are the classrooms raised up? what happens underneath? why tubes with no windows except on the ends? skylights would have been a good way to make them less tube-like.
I was more thinking of the fact that the designer gave away 3 years of time, helped to build the project and then talks about giving the client good value for money...
Did they get a fee as a contractor or consider the design fee as a gift to the school?
tax write off/press coverage/etc....
"giving the client good value for money..."
wow what a concept!
this should be biologically embedded in every architect's or wannabe's head.
until all designers realize that it is not a responsible thing to do spending the client's money to fulfill your own ego, this profession will die out sooner than u think.
oh, this is NOT sustainable architecture practice. any project can take 2 years even a shed.
the project itself lack natural lighting, which consume more energy to light, heat and cool the interior, and poor indoor air and light quality which may not be the best place to get ur learning done.
btw, i can't tell if there was an elevator. how can a disabled student get up there???
why couldn't this be done with shipping containers clad with shingles?
both are different
diabase, you've hit the problem, and zug you've hit the possible answers why an architect would do this.
We're all allowed to perform labors of love, and hopefully we all do it sometimes via pro bono work or losing profit on one aspect of a job that we think is important.
In the long run, no it's not sustainable for a firm. However, lots of firms do have bread and butter work - tenant improvement for a huge company, for example - that pays the bills and allows them to do the work they love at a financial loss. Maybe Mr. Gaukroger has done CDs for 50 Pizza Huts and that's what lets him spend three years hand-building a school.
The danger in this kind of article is if it gives owners the impressions that ALL architects love their work so much that we don't need to make money at it. This is a stereotype we've struggled with since the roots of the profession as a "gentleman's hobby" for the last 400 years up to the Modern era.
By comparison: when lawyers and doctors donate their time, it's very clearly demarcated as "pro bono time" - time they are giving back to their community via their professional skills. When we do it, because of the artistic nature of our work, it's considered not so much giving to the community as giving to ourselves in the form of seeing our "vision" built in the world. I don't know how to change this perception.
I think it's a really cool looking project.
I am not sure why he'd/they'd be bragging about not getting paid, that seems a little short sighted.
Either way, as with many that have made a career doing work for no/little pay, he/they are getting money somewhere (family money or otherwise).
I think there's a bit of greenwashing going on here. Elevating the pods on stilts does not increase the insulation. There's insufficient daylighting. Even though there are PV panels on the roof, that doesn't make up for the lack of daylighting. It's not necessarily bad, just not a model of "carbon responsible" design. Also, the ramp does not look handicap accessible.
The company is Kita Design.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.