Design for Childcare within Inner North Neighbourhoods

Architecture & community engAgement:

introDuction pg 02

SECTION 01

rAtionAle for the project pg 03

project Briefing pg 04

— Briefing Event 01 pg 05

— Briefing Event 02 pg 06

— Outcomes from Scenario planning and ‘Ideas Wall’ pg 07—08

SECTION 03

reSeArch & Site ApprAiSAl pg 09

— Site Appraisal, sites A, B, & D pg 10

— Legislation, community need & neighbourhood regeneration in Belfast pg11

SECTION 04

interim feeDBAcK pg 12

SECTION 05

outcomeS

— Phase II Feasibility Design pg 13

— Design Strategy pg 14

— Design Drawings pg 15—20

SECTION 06

AppenDiceS pg 21—25

AcKnowleDgementS pg 01

forwArD pg 01

SECTION 02

con—tentS

Design for Childcare within Inner North Neighbourhoods

Architecture & community engAgement:

The pedagogic value of this ‘live’ briefing & design project to the University of Ulster student cohort could not have been realized without the time and commitment of a number of key people; Paul Roberts, Christine McKeown and Fionnuala Black from Ashton Community Trust, Billy Hutchinson from Mt. Vernon Community Development Forum, and Colin McCrossan from Strategic Invest—ment Board who helped set the wider urban regeneration objectives for the project.

The study could not have moved to Phase II Feasibility design and publication of the study report without the backing of the University of Ulster, and in particular the Provost for the Belfast campus Prof. Alastair Adair; the Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Design & Built Environment Prof. Ian Montgomery, and Prof. Peter Walker, Head of School of Architecture & Design.

Thanks must also be extended to my col— leagues at UU, Paul Clarke and Ciaran Mackel.

It is hoped that the study has been beneficial to the community groups around whom it was first conceived. Lindesay Dawe, School of Architecture & Design, June 2013.

AcKnow—leDge— mentS

for—wArD

The University of Ulster is pleased to support the ‘live’ project work of the M Arch students, and their consultation with community groups in Belfast. We believe this type of engagement helps develop the students’ professional skills, particularly for urban re— generation and design projects, and preparing our students for professional life is the central aim of the University of Ulster.

To the university the pedagogic benefits have been clear, with excellent participation amongst the students when working with community group clients in this way. We hope there have been important benefits to the community groups involved; to our neighbours within Inner North Belfast, and also in East Belfast, and that we can develop further significant projects with Strategic Investment Board, Dept. of Social Develop— ment and others.

Prof. Alastair Adair, Provost, University of Ulster

intro—Duction

This project was initially conceived in 2010 with the ambition of involving University of Ulster Architecture students in a ‘live’ urban or architectural design briefing pro— ject within Belfast or its environs. Discussions with David Gavaghan, Chief Executive of Strategic Investment Board and Scott Wilson of SIB identified regeneration challenges facing a number of important urban sites in Belfast’s inner north neigh— bourhoods (including the North Foreshore site), and with which UU students could work.

In June 2010 Lindesay Dawe of the University of Ulster met with Billy Hutchinson of Mount Vernon Community Development Forum and Paul Roberts of Ashton Community Trust to discuss a possible scope

for a project. From this meeting it was agreed to develop an urban site approximately equidistant from Mount Vernon and New Lodge areas of north Belfast. It was agreed that the project would be situated within what is known by Belfast Regeneration Office as ‘Inner North Neighbourhoods’.

In December 2011 Colin McCrossan, senior project manager at SIB became the point of liaison with the investment body, and following further meetings with UU, Mount Vernon CDF and Ashton CT the scope of the project was refined with the aim developing an outline architectural design brief for a childcare/community facility.

Westlink at Inner North Neighbourhoods, Belfast

Inner North Neighbourhoods, Belfast

02

01

It is important to bear in mind that for the University of Ulster this project was ‘student led’, with post-graduate M Arch (Part II) students within the School of Architecture & Design completing the majority of the briefing work as part of their ARC 722 Professional Context module. As part of the two years of study for their M Arch students are enrolled in this module in ‘year 5’, with the majority of students having completed 12 months in office based practice just prior to this. During their year in practice some will have been involved in client briefing projects and have some knowledge of the process behind setting a design brief.

In setting out the curriculum for Professional Context studies at post— graduate level the School of Architecture & Design at the University of Ulster recognizes that the role of the architect in building design and procurement is in a state of flux, with old certainties disappearing fast and new opp— ortunities emerging. Notwithstanding the key curriculum criteria set by the professional and reg — ulatory bodies for the education of Architects the aim of study in ARC 722 is to develop an understanding of how the demand for new spaces and buildings can be complex and often contradictory—not least in considering issues of sustainable design — and

how architects can mediate between different parties utilizing their unique design skills. The overarching aims for this study module are:

• to set the context for how change through time is endemic in our built environment

• to emphasise the link between user requirements, project briefing and design of space and form

• to give architecture students the intellectual and design tools to respond to this.

To develop practical and meaningful ob— jectives for the collaborative project students are tasked with engaging with ‘users’ of the built environment in a structured, meth— odological approach, and from this to prepare an outline Development or Design Brief in response to an identified development or design need. With the Inner North Neigh— bourhoods project the identified users were Mount Vernon CDF and Ashton CT, and with input at various stages of the project from Belfast Regeneration Office at Department for Social Development, and the Strategic Investment Board.

To tie in with the 2011-12 teaching timetable the majority of the research, consultation and feedback stages of the project ran in the university twelve week semester timetable from February to May 2012.

Those involved in an ongoing capacity in the project during the period February to May were: Paul Roberts, Ashton Community Trust, Billy Hutchinson, Mount Vernon Community Development Forum;

Christine McKeown, Ashton Community Trust; Colin McCrossan, Strategic Investment Board; Michael McAvoy, Belfast Regeneration Office; Lindesay Dawe, University of Ulster. UU Students: Edel Burns, Stewart Cairns, Julian Calede, Lucy Dawson, Shaun Doherty, Matthew Fair, Duane Fitzsimmons, Adam Foster, Louise Johnson, Jayne Martelli, Kezia McCrea, Shane McGinley, Laurence McGowan, Lorraine McMorrow, Mark Mearns, Francis O’Kane, Christopher Quinn, Ignacio Ribera, Pauline Sixt, Natalie Smith, Sherie Smyth, Todor Todorov.

A list of participants in the Briefing workshops is set out in Appendix A.

StuDentS Are tASKeD with engAging with ‘uSerS’ of the Built environment in A StructureD, methoDo —logicAl ApproAch...

for theproject

rAtionAle

03

02

Architecture Endof Year Show, UU

M Arch Urban Design Project Review

Historically Briefing was seen as a process of discrete steps and where design could not begin until the briefing process was complete. In a period from the 1970s to

early 1980s Architects faced with designing a large building had to manage complex technical requirements and activity data sheets were a methodology for capturing data and measuring design performance

(1). The problem with this

mechanistic approach is that it simply identifies design needs as a snapshot in time, with little or no consideration as to what future needs might

be needed by the users and how the building might adapt through time. Today, the process of compiling the Brief is seen as much more of an iterative or ‘emerging’ process, one where design and building aspirations are articulated by the Client and where detail is developed as an under— standing of user requirements, future organizational needs and intelligent use of space through time.

Unfortunately, this ‘fluid’ and iterative approach to developing a design brief can be difficult for others in construction and the ‘supply side’ of building procurement to grasp; understanding that the briefing process is more important than the product that is the Design brief. The construction industry abhors uncertainty and project and construction managers are always happier if prompt decisions are made in a sequential process, even if these decisions are premature or the thinking behind them flawed! Architects through their embedded knowledge and their ability to evaluate and reconcile seemingly contradictory and complex issues are best placed to develop an expertise in managing the ‘fuzzy’ situation that is Briefing. This, coupled with their design imagination and an ethical approach to the built environment, will lead to better buildings.

Briefing is central to the success of any design project — and in architectural terms briefing is the problem to which the building is the answer — but often it is just seen as a schedule of already made decisions delivered by the Client to the Architect and the design team, all neatly contained in a set of ‘signed off’ documents. However, if those already made decisions have not been tested early enough the result can be a design solution that is at best flawed and at worst inappropriate. Given the complexity in the contemporary world of building design and pro— curement (what Jeremy Till eloquently terms ‘contingency’ in the professional life of the Architect) briefing needs to be a process where a deep under— standing of the Client needs emerges through discussion with the design team, and a testing of decisions. In short, Briefing should be seen as a collective problem solving exercise.

in Short, Briefing ShoulD Be Seen AS A collective proBlem Solving exerciSe...

Briefingproject

Interactive Briefing Process— Briefing Event 02.

04

1. ‘Managing the Brief for

Better Design’, A. Blyth

& J. Worthington; Spon

Press 2001

03

To begin the process of defining the project brief and setting out a methodology for the student group to work with, the University of Ulster hosted the first project briefing event at the Belfast campus on 22nd February 2012, to which representatives from Mount Vernon CDF, Ashton CT, Belfast Regeneration Office and Strategic Investment Board were invited (a full list of attendees is included as Appendix A). The purpose of this event was to discuss initial thoughts on the parameters of the project and set out an agreed ‘Statement of Need’ for the project. An agenda for the meeting was circulated prior to the event (see Appendix B), and with the aim of keeping it a fairly informal forum for discussion.

The important issues around which discussion was structured were: purpose of the project, background to the Client organisations, the management context, physical context, time constraints on the project, planning for growth and change, and the requirement for sustain—able development.

The main outcome of this meeting was a clear consensus amongst the parties as to what the Statement of Need should define, in summary:

StAtement of neeD • Purposeisthedevelopmentofa‘sharedspace’ • Provisionofsocialenterprisechildcare • Projectshouldbeacontributortothelocaleconomy • TomeetthechildcaredeficitinpartofN.Belfast • Tohelpdevelopeducationalskills • Possiblearts&educationallearninglinks • FurtherdevelopmentofexistingemploymentoutreachinN.Belfast • Childcareasaprovenbusinesscase • Looktosimilarprovisionforplanning&designguidelines • Bestpracticeinapproachto‘green’designandsustainability

Also at this briefing event a shortlist of possible sites was drawn up, in discussion with community groups and BRO, and these were: Skeogoneill Avenue (Site A), 564 Shore Road (Site B), 704 Shore Road (Site C). Sub— sequent to the meeting a council owned site at the old Grove Leisure Centre, York Road was added (Site D).

event 01 22.02.12

Briefing

05

As part of the project briefing process UU were keen to engage community participants in interactive planning and design exercises, exercises that would allow representatives from Mount Vernon and Ashton CT/New Lodge to explore and test some issues concerning regeneration in their neighbourhoods, and the development of a shared childcare & community facility. The idea at this stage is to make the process as inclusive as possible and to direct participation towards some definite outcomes, even if these are only ‘outline’ or interim ideas. The event was scheduled for 7th March 2012 and held in the McSweeney Centre, Henry Place, Belfast.

The Building Futures Game developed by Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and Centre for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE) is a toolbox for exploring different possible futures for an area — of whatever size — with an aim to “open up conversation between different groups at the start of a local planning, regeneration or development process”

(2). Importantly, issues and aspirations that

come to the fore through the Game can be used as the basis for further consultation and discussion.

the iDeA At thiS StAge iS to mAKe the proceSS AS incluSive AS poSSiBle & to Direct pArticipAtion towArDS Some Definite outcomeS...

event 02 07.03.12

Briefing

‘Building Futures Game — Developing Shared Visions for Neighbourhoods’

On this occasion (Briefing Event 02) UU structured the Building Futures Game so that the scenario planning was enacted by both Mount Vernon and Ashton CT/New Lodge. The objective here was to understand shared concerns and aspirations from both neighbourhoods and to add a level of briefing detail to the ‘Statement of Need’ prepared from Briefing Event 01. Participants were set into two groups and through guidance from the UU team

these groups were asked to consider ‘Likely Futures’ (for their neigh— bourhood), ‘Hoped for Futures’ and the ‘Present’. It is at this stage in the Game that participants then enter into scenario planning whereby they imagine different possible future events and future stories for their neighbourhood. The process for doing this is set out in the guidance for the Game and can be found in Appendix D.

Another interactive exercise run as part of Briefing Event 02 was the ‘Ideas Wall’

(3) a short (45 mins) exercise where participants were asked

to record key issues associated with the project. For this exercise par— ticipants were asked to consider: location & site, building facilities, business case and legal issues associated with a new childcare/daycare facility. Ideas and thoughts from participants are recorded on paper ‘bricks’ and located within the wall. Participants are then asked to rate the importance of these from ‘critical’ to ‘nice to have’.

06

2. ‘Buildng Futures Game— Developing

Shared Visions for Neighbourhoods’

— Building Futures, (RIBA, CABE)

3. Developed by Neighbourhoods

Initiative Foundation

Building Futures Game

Proposal cards, scenario planning, Building Futures Game

From the two community groups taking part in the ‘Building Futures’ scenario planning game (each with four to five participants) a number of shared issues or ‘themes’ emerged around both ‘Likely Futures’ and ‘Hoped For Futures’ for their community (in this stage of the game par ticipants are asked to choose or identify eight statements that they believe will happen to their area over the next ten years). Discussion amongst the groups, where re— presentatives brought differing community and professional views, produced a summary of issues they felt were relevant for the future of their neighbourhood, these are:

liKely futureS • Recognition that govt. funding will be reduced

• Community taking more control over some services & facilities

• Work opportunities will be away from local areas

hopeD for futureS • Local business opportunities and inward investment will improve

• More training & education for local people

• Community control over local activities

• Higher spending on social housing

• Changes to existing housing stock

The next stage of the game asked participants to consider the ‘Present’ situation within their neighbourhood, and to record developments or trends already happening and which might help in achieving community ‘Aspirations’, or conversely be issues that would give cause for ‘Concerns’. Both participant groups were able to record a range of local and community projects reflecting work completed, underway or projected in areas such as infrastructure, neighbourhood renewal and community projects. Examples of these are:

ScenArio

outcomeS from

plAnninggAme AnD ‘iDeAS wAll’

• Neighbourhood renewal/regeneration projects

• Community dev— elopment projects

• NIHE housing strategy

• Employers forum

Shared issues that were raised as ‘Concerns’ were: change in government policy, change in government funding and not enough local employment.

To try and pin down some idea of a shared understanding of what is important for the development of this part of East Belfast participant groups were asked to discuss and consider different possible future events. To kick-start the process the groups could draw upon 56 Proposal Cards from the game, with each card illustrating a possible regeneration project. Each illustrative project also has a set of four distinct ‘values’ which are scored out of ten, and represent each project’s relative economic, environmental, social and ‘iconic’ (or ‘wow’) impact.

A summary of the two group’s scoring is:

GrOuP B— new loDge/AShton ctCost to deliver: 41

Local economy: 52

Wow factor: 36

Ecological footprint: 63

Social capital: 64

GrOuP A — mt vernonCost to deliver: 54

Local economy: 54

Wow factor: 54

Ecological footprint: 52

Social capital : 61

07

‘Ideas Wall’ — Neighbourhood Initiatives foundation

With both participant groups ‘social capital’ scored highest (61 for Group A, 64 for Group B), which reflects clear a understanding within community/neighbourhood rep— resentatives that regeneration projects must be built upon an objective of widest social participation and community benefit for inner North Belfast. An interesting interpretation of the relatively high score within Group A for ‘Wow factor’ is the recog— nition within the community that important new build projects can act as a wider catalyst for regeneration within an area. This was seen as particularly relevant for Mt. Vernon.

During the ‘Ideas Wall’ exercise participants were asked to consider issues for a proposed childcare building under the headings of ‘Building Facilities’, ‘Business Case’, ‘Location & Site’ and ‘Legal Issues (Childcare)’. Ideas were recorded from ‘Critical’ through to ‘Nice to have’. A summary of recorded issues in order of importance is:

BuilDing fAcilitieS • Designated outside play area

• Light airy space for play

• Separate room for babies & toddlers

• Appropriate toilet provision

• Office space & staff room

• Non-slip flooring

• Roof garden, green space adjacent

• Adequate storage space

• Low level windows

BuSineSS cASe• Feasibility study for funding

• Grants for ‘Green’ specification

• Provision for Rentable space

• Allow for age progression

• After schools/learning for older children

• Employment & training for local people

• Social economy considered in running - Fee structure – Govt. contracts - Recycling business integrated - Facilities for a ‘Learning centre’ - Criteria to give local children priority

locAtion & Site • Demand for childcare facility on the Shore Rd.

• Close to motorway links

• Childcare centre on one level

legAl iSSueS (chilDcAre) • Space provision (m2) per child

• No room more than 26 children

• Disability access throughout

• Secure rooms throughout

• High quality safety spec (finishes, fittings)

• 50% of staff to be fully qualified

08

Scenario Planning — Building Futures Game

groupSreSeArch

group c Legislation, community need and neighbourhood regeneration in BelfastIt is the nature of projects such as this that a number of community, city policy and funding interests have to be considered and reconciled in order to get the project realised. Influences upon the project will include: current government policy, legislation, best practice (from similar projects) and funding opportunities. In conjunction with community representatives, service providers, Belfast Regeneration Office and Strategic Investment Board this group were to investigate these important influences and set out how the Architect might negotiate his/her way through them.

group D Methods/tools to use in the community/development Briefing ProcessThis group was asked to research consultation or ‘briefing’ tools that may be appropriate in this study. The group was asked to note that often the most appropriate tools are ‘interactive’ and are designed to include communities and to use methods that the layperson would feel familiar with. Often these take the form of a ‘game’. This re— search group was reminded that no briefing tool is ‘neutral’ and every consultation pro— cess is loaded with meaning, dependent upon how tools are presented and used.

Part of the research work and findings of group is contained in Appendix E, but the key issues as they impact on the overall project are set out below.

At this relatively early juncture in the project the student group were set into four research groups in order prepare both background material to present to the ‘client’ body as part of the interactive briefing process, and also to investigate various methodological app— roaches to that briefing process. These groups were:

group A Best practiceThis group was tasked with researching examples of best practice in community consultation and urban regeneration from the UK or Ireland. Importantly, these should be small and medium sized examples of neighbourhoods within inner cities or inner suburbs. Key things to consider were:

• Demographic within the area

• Mixofuse/activityinthearea(residential,retail, community facilties, business/industry, etc.), is it possible to measure this?

• Streetscape,openareas,derelictareasprior to regeneration

• Urbanandlandscapeproposalsforregeneration

• Whatarethe‘continuities’inthearea?Whathaschangedover its history?

group B Analysis of identified sitesFour alternative sites have been identified in North Belfast for the de— velopment project and this group was required to investigate these through the following:

• SourcedigitalOSmaps

• Confirmsiteboundaries

• ZoningrequirementsunderBMAP

• Visualsurveyofexistingbuildingsonsite

• Visualqualityofthesurroundings

• Localtrafficandpublictransportprovision

• DemographicofsurroundingWards(thisinformationcanbe sourced through N. Ireland Statistics and Research Agency NISRA)

09

Mapping socio–economic conditions — Inner North and adjacent Wards

Analysis of identified sites

04

Site ApprAiSAl

Site B 564 Shore road

Site AreA: 0.42 acres

ADvAntAgeS: Access to a public park and playing/sports fields

Proximity to established transport links (bus routes)

Existing buildings offer immediate premises (subject to renovation work)

DiSADvAntAgeSLimited on site parking

Dilapidated nature of buildings

Unclear ownership of properties

Public right of way runs adjacent to the site

Site D York road

Site AreA: 0.62 hectares

ADvAntAgeS: Large site area

Ease of access for vehicular traffic

Close proximity to city centre and established transport links

Adjacent to established residential area

Lies within future development area/area identified by City Council

DiSADvAntAgeSNoise pollution (surrounded by busy road network)

Road barrier to adjacent green/open space

Existing building unsuitable, demolition costs

Site owned by Council, therefore possible extended time period for sale.

From discussion amongst all parties (Ashton CT, Mount Vernon CDF, Belfast Regeneration Office) the four shortlisted sites identified for appraisal were: Skegoneill Avenue (Site A), 564 Shore Road (Site B), 704 Shore Road (Site C) and York Road (Site D). Each of the four sites was evaluated against the following physical criteria:

• Site area

• Site condition (existing buildings, brownfield site, pollution risk)

• Infrastructure/transport connections

• Access to public parks, playing fields & other open space amenities

• Adjacency to residential areas & proximity to existing schools

Site C (704 Shore Rd.) was removed from the appraisal when the site was sold to a private developer during the study.

Site A Skegoneill Avenue Site AreA: 0.96 acres ADvAntAgeS: The closest site to Belfast city centre and well connected to the motorway (M2 & M3)

The largest site, parking and green spaces could be integrated

Clear vehicular access to the site via Skegoneill Ave (two locations)

Access to a public park and playing/sports fields

Proximity to established transport links (bus routes) but far enough removed to avoid noise issues

Close to nearby primary schools (Seaview and Currie), and leisure/sports facilities

Site located within an established residential area.

DiSADvAntAgeSSite pollution issues to be considered

0.62 Ha

10

Site B

Site D

Site A

An important part of the work of Group C was to investigate and map the existing provision of childcare facilities across Inner North neighbourhoods and adjacent city Wards. Much of this was done with refer — ence to recommendations within NI Ex— ecutive’s Article 20 review of Childcare provision in N. Ireland, and the group identified the following categories of childcare provision:

• Day nurseries

• Pre-school Playgroups

• Crèches

• Parent & Toddler groups

• Childminders

The type of service provided, the hours of operation and the age groups catered for vary across these categories, with Social Services registration not extending to Parent & Toddler Groups (which are seen more as an informal social provision set up within communities, often by parents themselves) or informal Childminders (although Social Services will always encourage parents to use only registered Childminders, who are inspected). The research group mapped the variation in provision across the Wards and this is illustrated in Appendix E.

In association with this research the group looked to map other economic and social data for the Inner North Wards, information drawn from NI census data. This information categorises deprivation across employment, health, education and child poverty and the Multiple Deprivation Measure for Ward areas breaks down as follows* (where 1 is worst and 584 best):

As expressed during Briefing Events 01 and 02, a repeated statement from community participants is the hindrance to a return to employment for parents from lack of provision of suitable (convenient and affordable) childcare in parts of Inner North Belfast. The lack of suitable childcare provision in the geographical area between New Lodge and Mount Vernon (Castleview 1 ward) is evident in the Childcare provision mapping, Appendix E. From this mapping, socio-economic research and the recognition of the wide ranging social need for improved childcare provision – as expressed by community representatives - a strong case can be made that enhanced childcare facilities are vitally important for communities placed in the geographical area between New Lodge and Mount Vernon and along the Shore Road.

cAStleviewMultiple Deprivation Measure: 195 Percentage of population as pre-school: 4.8%

DuncAirnMultiple Deprivation Measure: 12 Percentage of population as pre-school: 5.8%

new loDgeMultiple Deprivation Measure: 8 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.7%

ADjACENT ArEAS:ShAnKillMultiple Deprivation Measure: 1 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.9%

wAterworKSMultiple Deprivation Measure: 16 Percentage of population as pre-school: 7.9%

fortwilliAmMultiple Deprivation Measure: 233 Percentage of population as pre-school: 5.5%

chicheSter pArKMultiple Deprivation Measure: 117 Percentage of population as pre-school: 6.4%

*Northern Ireland Statistical Research Agency

in BelfASt

neeD AnD

legiSlAtion,community

neighBourhooDregenerAtion

11

Socio–economic data for Castleview Wards

Socio–economic data for New Lodge Wards

On 5th April 2012 University of Ulster convened a meeting to present feedback on the work that student groups had been engaged in, this event had representatives from both Ashton Community Trust and Mount Vernon Community Development Forum, as well as representation from SIB. The feedback included student research and appraisal of the shortlisted sites, a summary of outcomes from the two Briefing events and early calculations on predicted space requirement for a new childcare facility.

An important part of this feedback process – and its timing - is to ‘validate’ the briefing team’s interpretation of qualitative data gathered, as well as feedback quantative data that might inform design decisions. The key issues gathered from the two briefing events are described above (see pages 7 & 8) but the aim for this feedback event was to share views around the critical objectives for the project, and agree project values emerging from the briefing work. In any project progressing to design stage this is a key moment, the point where user require— ments and collective aspirations have to be formalized and tested.

A number of important points came out of this feedback session, including the need for the project team to more accurately categorise and map existing childcare facilities across inner North Belfast, and to prepare a design briefing document or questionnaire which would help the Client team consider and prioritise space planning and design requirements, and possible ‘green’ technology issues. It was agreed that these design issues would include building security, provision of outdoor space, space planning and materials & finishes. Subsequently the briefing team prepared a short Design Brief Questionnaire which was issued to the Client team.

At the feedback meeting the Client team discussed the preferred site for the proposed facility, and it was agreed that Site A at Skegoneill Ave would be taken forward for site planning and feasibility design.

DeSign iSSueS for review By the community groupS woulD incluDe: BuilDing Security, proviSion of out— Door SpAce, SpAce plAnning AnD mAteriAlS & finiSheS.

feeDBAcKinterim

12

05

With the preferred site selected and indicative design parameters set out from the feedback meeting, a Design Brief was compiled by the School of Architecture & Design setting out the key site planning and building design objectives (for full design brief see Appendix F). As part of the Design research the Briefing team looked at other purpose built childcare facilities that might be considered as exemplar buildings.

feASiBility

outcomeS phASe ii —

DeSign

SpAce requirement (INDICATIVE)Childcare facilities: 527 m2Business units: 148 m2

Net usable area: 675 m2Fit factor @ 5% 34 m2Total NUA: 709 m2Circulation @ 15% 106 m2

totAl net lettABle AreA: 815 m2Plant room/core @ 17% 138 m2

Gross Internal Area: 953 m2Add external walls @ 2.5% 24 m2

groSS externAl AreA (Building): 977 m2

lAnDScApe & AcceSS: 425 m2

totAl Site AreA: 1,402 m2

13

06

Important internal environmental objectives for playrooms are to provide abundant daylight through window walls and top lighting, and for the scale of fitments and fittings within the room adjusted to suit the size and anthropometric requirements of children of varying ages. Materials and finishes are robust, and selected to have zero volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

Security and controlled access for the building separates the childcare facility from community business units, and where provision has been made to secure the former during out of hours. The community hall space adjacent to the business units has its own access as it is an— ticipated this space will support a range of community requirements including afterschool provision, or ‘homework club’ after 3 pm, and other evening functions.

In terms of the environmental strategy* for the building, key design ideas include:

• Useofbrownfieldsite

• Passiveventilationwhereappropriate

• Insulationstandardshigherthan statutory requirements

• Renewableenergy(proventechnologies)

• Lowenergy&resourceusetechnologythroughout (proven technologies)

• Lowembeddedenergymaterialsinconstruction (sustainably sourced where appropriate)

• LoworzeroVOCsininternalmaterials

Environmental and sustainable technologies within the building design would be developed within a clear and proven operations strategy for the building, developed with project funders and community representatives.

The student design team for Phase II consisted of: Stephanie Magilton, Chris Campbell, and Chris Weir, M Arch Yr. 5 students.

* the environmental or ‘green’ strategy for the building would be developed against life cycle cost analysis, as well as construction cost plan.

Indicative Construction Costs*:

groSS floor AreA (gfA) meASurement: 1,155m2 Childcare facilities, incl community hall: 820m2 Community business units: 335m2 @ £971 per sq.m**: £1.12 million

* Does not allow for ground works to site.

** Includes 5% premium for ‘green’ technologies (renewable energy source, resource recycling, zero VOC emissions, etc)

The preferred site at Skegoneill Ave (Site A) is an urban brownfield site, where previously the Skegoneill Health Centre was located. At this stage there is no anticipation that the site has ground pollution requiring remedial works, and an assumption is made that basic services infrastructure is in place for the site (sewerage, drainage power, water).

The main part of the site (total area: 0.38 hectares) is level but with a significant gradient at its southern and eastern boundaries, where it drops towards Shore Road. Groundworks to deal with this gradient are already in place and it is not anticipated that additional work would be needed. The site is clearly visible from Shore Rd. and has a public path running along southern boundary, which leads to adjacent public green space and children’s play area. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site has been from Skegoneill Avenue, and the proposal is to continue with this.

Key design issues for the site and proposed building are:

• On-siteparkingforstaffandvisitors

• Separateaccess(pedestrian&vehicular)tochildcarefacility and community business units

• Controlledaccesstochildcarefacility

• Provisionofexternalplay&learningspaceforchildcarefacility

• Flexibleplayroomsforchildcarefacility

• Securecommunityspacefor‘outofhours’communityevents

• Designandconstructionspecificationthatpromotesenergy saving and other ‘green’ design & technology.

Orientation of the building on the site centred around creating a secure and inspiring environment for children and staff, with views and access to outdoor green space, some of which would be land — scaped. In recognition of the important developmental benefits of children learning through interaction with nature, the planning of play rooms (4 no.) includes an adjacent outdoor learning space, which is itself also secure.

internAl mAteriAlS & finiSheS Are roBuSt, & SelecteD to hAve zero volAtile orgAnic compounD (voc) emiSSionS...

StrAtegyDeSign

14

15

Key

1. Entrance 2. Parent Pick Up3. Reception/Office4. Playroom5. Learning Garden 6. Landscaped Play/Garden 7. Community Space 8. Community Buisness Units 9. Car Parking

9

3

11

2

6

4 5 4 54 5

79

8

SKegoneill Avenue

chilDcAre fAcility & community BuSineSS unitS — Site/Ground Floor Plan

16

SKegoneill Avenue

8

chilDcAre fAcility & community BuSineSS unitS — plAn Level 1 & 2

17

South Elevation

north Elevation

Section through chilcAre fAcility (Playroom)

18

Playrooms on South elevation and land— scaped external area

19

leArning gArDen Learning garden space to each playroom

20

plAyroom Childcare facility — Playroom

APPENDIX A

BrIEfINg EvENt 01 Participant List — 22nd February 2012Amanda Ashe Jeanette Beattie

Fionnuala Black Billy Hutchinson

Christine McCosh Christine McKeown

Wenda McNeill Katrina Newell

Alex Noble Paul O’Neill

Alan Quail Sharon Rooney

Michael McAvoy

BrIEfINg EvENt 02 Participant List — 3rd March 2012Jeanette Beattie Fionnuala Black

Christine McKeown Wenda McNeill

Christine McCosh Billy Hutchinson

Alex Noble Alan Quail

Sharon Rooney

APPENDIX B

BrIEfINg EvENt 0122nd February 2012

Aim of the event: i) to introduce UU students to the 'Client' (representatives

from Inner North Neighbourhoods) and local community and business groups,

ii) to draft out a Statement of Need with the Client/community groups (the

Client/community groups’ first attempt to define what is required).

The meeting will be chaired by University of Ulster, School of Architecture

& Design.

StAtEMENt Of NEED On a small project such as this setting out the Statement of Need should be a simple and informal affair. It is the first attempt on the Client/community side to define what is required, and from this initial stage it may well evolve as the needs/opportunities/limitations become clearer through further discussion and review.

Key checklist items to be discussed at the meeting (called Briefing event 01):

1. PurPOSE Of thE PrOjEct

• What is the overall aim of this project?

• What are the most important two or three issues relating to the project

(identified demand, 'buy-in' from community/business groups, funding source, etc.)?

2. MANAgEMENt cONtEXt

• Is there community support for such a project?

• Is there local expertise that could become involved in the project?

• Is there a business case behind the project?

3. tIME

• Are there time constraints on implementing such a project (related to funding, neighbourhood renewal projects)?

4. PlANNINg fOr grOwth & chANgE

• What are the potential issues that might make for growth and change

with the proposed site and use (arts/music/performance space)?

5. SuStAINABlE DEvElOPMENt

• To what extent are the client/funding bodies committed to implementing measures for environmental sustainability?

AppenD—iceS

21

APPENDIX c

BrIEfINg EvENt 027th March, 2012

INtErActIvE wOrKShOP/ScENArIO PlANNINg EvENtThe proposal for this second briefing event is to build upon the work of Briefing

Event 01 (22.02.12) and the Statement of Need prepared from that. The

structure of the event is an interactive workshop where groups will use games

and tools to develop some detail on: i) future ambitions & trends for their

community areas (scenario planning with ‘Building Futures Game’), and ii)

ambitions/opportunities/constraints for proposed new facility/space/building

using an 'Ideas Wall'.

PrOPOSED EvENt StructurE

1. INtrODuctION— aims for the event (10 mins)

2. BuIlDINg futurES gAME—scenario planning (1hr 15 mins)

BrEAK (15 mins) for tea/coffee

3. IDEAS wAll (40 mins)

4. SuMMINg uP (10 mins)

Total Workshop Duration: 2.5 hours

APPENDIX D

BuIlDINg futurES gAME1. Likely Futures— 20 mins

In your groups, consider the pack of Statement Cards. Between you, choose

the 8 statements that you think are most likely to happen to your area over

the next 10 years. NB, this does not mean that you want them to happen,

simply that they are likely to. Don’t feel obliged to pick one from each colour. If

you feel that a statement is missing, use a blank card to write your own.

Mark these choices on the Baseline Sheet using blue stickers. Copy any

cards you have written onto the blank spaces in row 8 or 9, e.g. If the card

is HOUSING 4: place a sticker in the red HOUSING column, in row 4. Then…..

Pick up to 4 of your 8 chosen Statement Cards to place in the Concerns area

of your Building Futures Scenario Sheet. These should be 1, 2, 3 or 4 'likely

futures' that you see as problematic in some way. Perhaps you don’t want

them to happen, or are worried about how they will happen. If you are not

worried about any of these futures, leave the Concerns area empty.

BuIlDINg futurES gAME2. Hoped for Futures— 20 minsIn your group, re-consider the Statement Cards. Between you, choose the 8

statements that you would most wish to happen to your area over the next 10

years. If you feel a statement is missing, use a blank card to write your own.

Mark your choices on the Baseline Sheet, this time using red stickers. Then….

Select 4 of the 8 statements and place them in the Aspirations area of your

Scenario Sheet. These should be the 4 'hoped for futures' that you would

most like to see happen to your area.

BuIlDINg futurES gAME3. The Present— 15 minsNow, consider and complete the 2 questions in the top right hand box of

the Scenario Sheet.

1. What projects, developments or trends are already happening in your area

that may help with achieving your Aspirations?

2. What projects, developments or trends are already happening in your

area that are causing you Concerns about the future?

On the city map of Belfast, you may want to mark on the locations or relevant

projects, developments or trends in your area. Together with your identified

Concerns and Aspirations your answers form the 'baseline' on which you will

set out a possible story for the future of your area.

BuIlDINg futurES gAME4. Considering The Future— 5 mins

INtrODuctION—Read this introduction then turn to stage 5.

In 'scenario planning' by imagining different possible future events, businesses/

organisations/community groups can play out a range of different future

stories for their business or area. Building Futures uses elements of this approach

to explore possible future stories for a local area.

These stories are developed from a set of 21 Proposal Cards.

Each Proposal Card illustrates a possible regeneration project and indicates

its score out of 10 for 4 distinct Values. These help you consider and discuss

– perhaps you don’t agree with us – each project’s relative economic,

environmental and social impact, as well as its level of 'wow'.

NB. The 4 Value Cards in the Proposal Card pack explain the ideas behind

the scoring system.

BuIlDINg futurES gAME5. FUTURE STORIES— 15 mins

futurE ScENArIO—You will now create one possible scenario for your area’s future. In considering

this future story keep in mind your identified Aspirations and Concerns. This

scenario will explore how your area might change over the next 10 years,

and how you would like it to change.

As a group, select an initial set of approximately 10 Proposal cards that you

would like to see happen over the next 10 years. You may find the Case Study

booklet useful here.

NB. If there is something that you would like to see happen that can’t be expressed with the existing cards, then use a blank Proposal card to create your own.

22

APPENDIX E

Mapping existing childcare provision in Inner North Wards.

23

Mapping existing childcare provision in Inner North and adjacent Wards.

24

APPENDIX f

uu, SIB, INNEr NOrth NEIghBOurhOODS cOllABOrAtIvE PrOjEct, PhASE 2 — Design Brief

chIlDcArE/cOMMuNItY fAcIlItY – Skegoneill Avenue, Belfast

From the project work carried out and completed as part of ARC 722 IN 2011-12

(participants were UU, Strategic Investment Board, Ashton Community Trust/

New Lodge, and Mount Vernon Community Development Forum) the University

of Ulster, through the office of the Provost, has commissioned the M Arch

(Architecture) programme to develop a site development and building design

proposal for the identified site A at Skegoneill Ave. Belfast BT15. This project

will serve as a feasibility study for a childcare/community facility on the site, and

as developed from the client and community consultation process carried

out by University of Ulster between February and May 2012.

thE BrIEfThe site proposal and building design should make clear reference to the

previous consultation and research work carried out by M Arch students

in early 2012 (information available on USB stick). In summary, two briefing

events held with local community representatives from Ashton Community

Trust/New Lodge and Mount Vernon identified a need for a childcare/community

facility, with a preference for adjoining or adjacent business start up

units to support local entrepeneurship and skills training. A summary of the

expressed community need from the consultation process:

- Purpose is the development of a ‘shared space’

- Provision of social enterprise childcare

- Project should be a contributor to the local economy

- To meet the childcare deficit in part of N. Belfast

- To help develop educational skills

- To develop and nurture local business enterprise.

The planning of the site and design of the building(s) should be hierarchical

and logical and representative of the functions to be accommodated (see

schedule of spaces below). The primary function of the facility, and the raison

d’etre of the project, is the childcare facility. As such the site planning and

architecture should be configured to clearly support the social and develop—

mental needs of the child, as well as the aesthetic and social needs of staff

and visitors.

The childcare facility should provide a safe and nurturing environment with

key consideration given to: planning, configuration and scale of childcare rooms,

access to natural light, access to secure outdoor play area with landscape

provision, and separate and secure entrance from other public and community

facilities. The design team should research elements of current best practice

in early years learning, and the key child development approach of learning

through play, and use this to set out the building space(s) in an appropriate

child-centred arrangement.

The business start up units should consider: separate vehicular access, direct

proximity to public roads, opportunity for shared common facilities (entrance/

reception point, meeting room, etc.), clear physical separation from childcare

facility (they may be adjacent but separated by party wall).

The building(s) should reflect best practice in sustainable environmental

design and ‘green’ technology. Strategies for this should be suitable for

the building function, proven and cost effective.

The planning and design of the site should consider both hard and soft land—

scaping, and look to use this – along with intelligent site planning - to give

a sense of an integrated or ‘whole’ building, even where the architectural

approach might be for building/spatial clusters. Materials used for the building

fabric should be practical, robust but humane, and with some particularly

tactile qualities within the childcare facility. The design team should give

careful consideration to colour, graphics and materials as learning media

and play tools.

thE SItEThe site at Skegoneill Ave. (designated as Site A within the study) is a brownfield

site of 0.38 hectares, on what was previously a 1960s primary school (it sits just

behind the Grove Wellbeing Centre). The site has good vehicular access (from

Skegoneill Ave) and possibly two points of access. The site is in close proximity

to housing along Skegoneill Ave, and consideration should be given to vehicular

access/traffic management onto the site. A pedestrian path runs along the

southern part of the site, and consideration will need to be given to site

security.

Previous research work carried out in 2012 identified key elements of the

surrounding urban context (physical and social), in terms of adjacent housing &

building scale, public transport routes, etc. and the advantages and dis—

advantages of the site, and the design team should refer to this work.

OutPutS rEQuIrED—1 x KEY SITE SECTION @ 1:200 (min)FLOORPLAN LAYOUTS (keyed) per floor @ 1:100 1 x KEY BUILDING SECTION @ 1:1004 no. PERSPECTIVE VISUALS (CAD/PhotoShop rendered) of key spaces

tIMEScAlE —INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT Brief: Monday, 18th February, 4.00 PMCOMPLETION OF OUTPUTS: 22nd MarchCOMPLETION OF PROJECT REPORT: Week Commencing 25th March

SPAcE StANDrD M2 NO. totalchIlDcArE— External Play Area 175 1 175Play room 0-2 yrs 43 1 43Play room 2-3 yrs 43 1 43Play room 3-5 yrs 52 1 52Toilets + Nappy room 9.6 2 19.2Toilets 7 2 14After School room 45 1 45Hall/Reception 37 1 37Sleep room 9.5 1 9.5Dining room 22 1 22Store 6 3 18Office 9.5 2 19Staff room 18 1 18Staff toilets 12 1 12Sub total (Childcare) 526.7 BuSINESS uNItS— Secure business unit 30 4 120Meeting room 8 1 8Kitchen 6 1 6Toilets 14 1 14Sub-total (Business units) 148Net usable Area 674.7Fit factor @ 5% 34total Net usable Area 708.7 Add circulation @ 15% 106 total Net lettable 814.7Plant room/core @ 17% 138gross Internal Area 952.7 Add External walls @ 2.5% 24gross External Area (Building Footprint) 976.7 lANDScAPE & AccESS— Car parking (18.8m2 per car) 18.8 8 150.4Cycle parking 9.7 1 9.7Access road/drop-off 265 1 265 Sub-total (L’scape & Access) 425.1 tOtAl SItE ArEA 1401.8

*The planning and design requirements for the areas scheduled should be checked with relevant data sections of the New Metric Handbook

SchEDulE Of ArEAS*—

25

PuBLICATION DESIGN By KArlA BurnS