Professional Studies Report: John Hope Gateway Building

Royal Botanical Gardens

Edinburgh

Besnik Abdiu 77090598

Dan Calverley 77012268

Valbona Canolli 11176420

Lee Wade - 33195415

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

Project Description Architect: Edward Cullinan Architects Ltd Construction Cost: 10.7m Year of Completion: 2009 Client: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh Quantity Surveyor: David Langdon Structural Engineer: Buro Happold

Building Location

Services Engineer: Max Fordham LLP

Landscape Architect: Gross Max Project Manager: E C Harris

Main Contractor: Xircon

The John Hope Gateway is home to Edinburghs botanical gardens. Building was designed by Edward Cullinan Architects and was completed in 2009. The building is situated to the north of Edinburgh city centre. The building beautifully fits into its surrounding environment making for a stunning link between nature and architecture. A sustainable, low-energy, minimum-waste approach to the building's design became part of the message the Garden wished to convey to its visitors.

Botanical Gardens

Bus Station

Queen Street Gardens

Monument Hill

Edinburgh Station Princes Street

Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Castle

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

1.1.1 Use The John Hope Gateway provides a facility in which the user can discover the world of plants through interactive experiences and activities. To create such a facility the building consists of the following uses: Exhibition Space Toilet
First Floor Plan 5.

8. 7. 2. 10. 6.

9.

Shop
Studio Biodiversity Garden Education Room Restaurant Terrace Offices Kitchen
Ground Floor Plan 2.

4. 1.

3.
3.

2.

1.1.2 Amount The Ground floor footprint of the building is 1,950m2 / 20980 Ft2 The overall building floor area is 2,250m2 / 24210 Ft2

Building footprint within site boundary

1.1.3 Layout

Axis from Inverleith Park up to Inverleith House

1.1.3 Layout

Pedestrian Access

1.1.3 Layout

Vehicular Access

1.1.3 Layout

Internally, routes and views across the building radiate from a double height central hall to the landscape

1.1.3 Layout

Building Cuts into landscape

1.1.3 Layout

Public and private accommodation locks around a first floor void

1.1.4 Scale Supporting text

Approx. 95m

Proposed South East Elevation

Approx. 10m

Approx. 86m

Proposed South West Elevation

Approx. 10m

1.1.4 Scale

Inverleith House

John Hope Gateway Building

Proposed Part Site Section

1.1.5 Landscaping Max Gross Landscape architects were commissioned to design the landscape strategy for this project. With the project being within an existing garden the purpose of the proposed landscaping was to create a transition between the landscape and the built form. There are various pieces of landscaping created in attempt to achieve this transition. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Existing Gardens Bio-diversity Garden Stepped Water Feature Terraced Event Space Outdoor Restaurant Outdoor Sales Area The Circus

1.

2.

5.

3. 4.

7.

6.

1.1.5 Landscaping Bio-diversity Garden The main aim of the biodiversity garden is to bridge the transition between nature and manmade, between the existing gardens and the building. The garden succeeds in this by stepping down the site both in level changes and through the scale of planting from the existing trees to the algae of the water feature. The garden also creates a new haven for wildlife and organisms to grow and thrive.

1.1.5 Landscaping Hard landscaping Similar to the soft landscaping of the gardens, the hard landscaping also strives to create the seamless transition between the building and the landscape. This is evident through the use of timber cladding finish to the surfaces of the Terraced event space, connecting the building with the landscaping and landscaping with nature. On the reverse of the this, the use block paving and stone to the front of the building and landscaping allow for a visual connection with the landscaping off-site and the contextual built fabric.

1.1.6 Appearance

Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Timber curtain wall & window system Random, Stratified course stone wall Horizontal Softwood timber cladding Vertical Softwood timber cladding Timber Glu-Lam Beams Faceted Curatin wall glazing system

7. Stainless Steel encased boiler flue and kitchen extract 8. Glass Balustrades with brushed stainless steel supports and hardwood handrail

Glazing Detailed Section 1.1.6 Appearance Glazing System Large amounts of glazing have been used to enhance the visual interaction between the internal and external spaces. Frameless curtain wall glazing has been incorporated within elements of the scheme in order to create a more sympathetic elevation in relation to the external spaces.

1.1.6 Appearance Glu-Lam Timber A glue laminated structure has been incorporated due to excellent structural and sustainable factors but mainly to create a direct link with the landscaping externally.

Roof Detailed Section

1.1.6 Appearance Timber Cladding Similarly to the use of Glu-Lam, the incorporation of timber claddings represents very ecological properties. The key behind its use in this instance is it bridging the gap between the built form and the natural environment surrounding the site.

1.1.6 Appearance Stone Work The use of stone is incorporated substantially to the North elevation. The use of this material enhances the buildings connection with the contextual buildings of Edinburgh. The use of a random, Stratified course allows the material to connect with the environment giving the feeling of natural development of the stone.

1.2.1 Vehicular access & transport links Pedestrian Access With the buildings proximity to the city centre the majority of people access the garden walking and there are various paths throughout the park, however, bicycles are not permitted to use the paths but there is a cycles store provision Public Transport The garden is located on a major bus corridor being served by four bus routes. Vehicular Access There is limited parking on site with the majority people using the building and gardens parking within the local residential area. Service Vehicles Service Vehicles can access the building via the service yard accessed from
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
3.

Image
Entrance
2. 1. 6. 1. 2.

4.

5.

Bike Racks Disabled Access Coach Drop-off Staff Parking Service Yard Bus Route

1.2.2 Inclusive Access Access to the main body of the building is provided via a level approach (1) with an internal ramp (2). Alternative access to the building is provided from the street side to the outside shop via a ramp (3) with level access into the main space from that level. Staff access is provided via a ramp (4) from the staff car park. Public disabled access to the first floor and to the terrace is provided via a lift (5) within the main space of the building. A separate staff lift (6) is provided within the staff area of the building. Level access is provided throughout the building.
2. 5. 6.

1.

4. 3.

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

3.1. Planning Guidelines 3.1.1. Unitary Development Plan (UDP)/ Local Development Framework (LDF) The development plan The two local plans and the Structure Plan together make up the development plan for Edinburgh. The local plans provide a clear basis for determining planning applications. The Edinburgh City Local Plan sets out the Councils policies to guide development in the city.

Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan area

Edinburgh City Local Plan area

3.1. Planning Guidelines

Relationship of Edinburgh City Local Plan with Other Plans and Strategies

National Planning Policy Guidelines, Scottish Planning Policy, Circulars and White Papers supported by Planning Advice Notes

National Planning Framework

Edinburgh and Lothian Structure Plan

National Waste Plan

Edinburgh Community Plan

Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan

Adopted South East Edinburgh Local Plan and other previous local plans

Edinburgh City Local Plan

Edinburgh Area Waste Strategy

Edinburgh Air Quality Action Plan

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (soon to be adopted)

3.1.2. Local Planning Policy / Environment Policy Env 7 - Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes
Development will not be permitted which would have a detrimental impact on the character of a site recorded in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, upon important views to, from and within the site, or upon component features which contribute to its value. The restoration of Inventory sites will be encouraged.

Royal Botanic Garden

Policy Env 11 - Landscape Quality

Planning permission will not be granted for development which would damage or detract from the overall character and appearance of the Areas of Great Landscape Value shown on the Proposals Map, prominent ridges, or other important topographical or landscape features.

Policy Env 12 - Trees

Development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree or trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order or other trees worthy of retention on or around a proposed development site, unless necessary for good arboricultural reasons. Where such consent is granted, replacement planting will be required to offset the loss to amenity.

World Heritage Site

Designated Conservation Area Historic Garden/Designed Landscape (Env 7)

Policy Env 15 - Sites of Local Importance

Development likely to have an adverse impact on the flora, fauna, landscape or geological features of a Local Nature Reserve or a Local Nature Conservation Site will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: a) the reasons for allowing the development are sufficient to outweigh the nature conservation interest of the site b) the adverse consequences of allowing the development for the value of the site have been minimised and mitigated in an acceptable manner. http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/contents.htm

Green Belt
Area of Great Landscape Value (Env 11) International and National Heritage Designations Local Nature Conservation Site (Env 15) Local Nature Reserve (Env 15)

3.1.2. Local Planning Policy / Environment

3.1.2. Local Planning Policy/ Building Design 1. Height and form Match the general height and form of buildings prevailing in the surrounding area. Where new developments exceed the height of neighbouring buildings ensure they enhance the skyline and surrounding townscape. 2. Scale and proportions Harmonise the scale of buildings including their size and form, windows and doors and other features by making them a similar size to those of their neighbours. 3. Position of buildings on site Position new buildings to line up with the building lines of neighbouring buildings. Where building lines do not exist, position new development to engage positively with streets and spaces and where the surrounding townscape character of the area is good, reflect it. 4. Materials and detailing Harmonise materials on new development with the materials used on surrounding buildings. Use sandstone where sandstone is the commonly used building material. Where alternative materials are used, these should either harmonise or provide a striking contrast. Keep the number of materials on new development to a minimum.

3.1.2. Local Planning Policy/ Building Design 5. Minimise energy use Minimise energy needs through a combination of energy efficiency and the incorporation of low or zero carbon equipment. Ensure low and zero carbon equipment is sensitively integrated into the design. 6. Adaptability and mix of uses Ensure buildings are adaptable to the future needs of different occupiers. If appropriate, create a mix of uses. 7. Ancillary facilities Integrate refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, telecommunications equipment, plant and services into the design of new development. Ensure cycle parking is secure and under cover.

8. Daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook Design the building form and windows of new development to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have reasonable levels of amenity in relation to: daylight; sunlight; and, privacy and immediate outlook.

3.1.2. Local Planning Policy/ Building Design 9. Community Safety Create active frontages directly onto important streets and publicly accessible routes and spaces. Provide main door access to ground floor properties from street side. Ensure all external spaces including pedestrian and cycle paths are overlooked. Use lighting to help community safety.

entrance

3.2 Building Response to Planning Guidelines 3.2.1 Building Response to UDP/LDF Development within a conservation area has been permitted because they guaranteed by consent application to the Development Quality of the Planning Committee. They did preserve the special character and appearance of the conservation area and were consistent with the relevant conservation area character . They did preserve trees, hedges, boundary walls, railings, paving and other features which contributed positively to the character of the area and demonstrated high standards of design and utilised appropriate materials to the historic environment.

lnverleith House Royal Botanic Gardens

JOHN HOPE GATEWAY

3.2.1 Building Response to Planning Council Meetings &/ or Local Planning Policy Listed Building Consent Application Reference No: 04/021 OG/LBC Has been submitted by THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL 25 June 2004.
Main report: Site description This application relates to the site occupied by the Royal Botanic Gardens. The proposals relate specifically to the area around the West Gate entrance on Arboretum Place and includes the single storey buildings grouped to south of the entrance gate. These buildings are not specifically mentioned in the list description but are regarded as buildings within the cartilage of lnverleith House which is listed category B. The gardens are within the Inverleith Conservation Area. Development It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey buildings grouped around the west entrance to make way for the construction of a new visitor facility with a studio and exhibition space, a new bio-diversity garden, shop and cafe with external terrace, supported by WCs, stores and offices. In addition to the new build element, it is proposed to replace the existing railings with a new form of enclosure, re-locate two of the existing stone gate piers and landscape the semi-circular areas in front of the entrances to the gardens and to lnverleith Park.

lnverleith House Royal Botanic Gardens

JOHN HOPE GATEWAY

3.2.1 Building Response to Planning Council Meetings &/ or Local Planning Policy ASSESSMENT
To address the determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether the proposals have an adverse impact on the character of the listed building. The new building cannot be built without the complete demolition of the existing buildings grouped around the West Gate. These buildings are all single storey, some stone built, and have been substantially altered over the years. As a consequence, the contribution of these buildings to the built environment of the gardens is minimal and their replacement with a high quality building is acceptable. The replacement of the railings and the resurfacing of the circus area will create a generous and animated gathering space which will provide an enhanced sense of arrival and orientation which can only benefit this currently underused and unimpressive space. Furthermore, the repositioned gate piers will acknowledge the whole circus area as an 'entrance' to the garden. The removal of the railings is therefore justified in this case. The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory policies and have no adverse impact on the character of the listed building. There are no other material planning considerations which outweigh this conclusion. It is recommended that the Committee raises objections to the proposals, subject to conditions. Alan Henderson Head of Planning and Strategy

lnverleith House Royal Botanic Gardens

JOHN HOPE GATEWAY

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

4.1 Finance and Costing

The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) sponsored and supported financially by the Scottish Government's Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (RPID). It is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by Scottish Ministers. The organisation comprises over 200 staff drawn from a variety of occupations and disciplines, contributing in many different ways to its overall objectives and functions. The Garden is organised in four divisions: Science, Horticulture, Corporate Services and Enterprise.

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDEN FINANCE

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

PUBLIC

4.1.1 Finance

Building Size=2,250m Building Cost=10.7m Cost per m=10.7 / 2,250=4755p/m

Funding The Visitor Centre Started on site late August 2007 following confirmation of 10m funding From the Scottish Executive, Environment & Rural Affairs department

4.1.1 Costing for Construction Main material contributing to the building cost is timber. Three types of engineered timber were used in the buildings construction:

Glulam timber, used for the primary and secondary beams to the first floor and roof, is European whitewood from Sweden, formed into glulam beams by Cosylva in France, using 45mm thick Laminations. First floor and roof decks are of cross laminated spruce panels manufactured by KLH in Austria. Exposed partitions are also made of these panels.
Douglas fir structural veneered lumber (SVL) from Germany, supplied by Woodtrade, was used for the mullions and transoms of the timber-framed glazing system. To maintain a consistent palette of materials, SVL was also used to construct the helical staircase and major items of furniture such as the reception desk and bar. SVL is made of thin veneers of timber (approx 2mm wide), glued together to form large sheets. Cost=800.000

4.1.1 Costing for Construction

Another main material contributing to cost is: Concrete Slab 150mm 59-74 p/m
Ground floor 1,950m2 67.00 x 1,950m2 =130.650

Total Cost=130.650

4.1.1 Costing for Construction

Another main material contributing to cost of the design is: Glazing ranging from curtain wall , roof light etc.
12mm thickness 200-250 p/m

Cost around =600.000

Images above demonstrate Glazing System

4.1.1 Costing for Construction

Also as a main material contributing to cost of the design is: External Stonework walls The Stone selection and quality control were of high importance to the project.
Cost 160.00-200.00 p/m

Overall Cost around =200.000

4.1.1 Costing for Construction

Building costs according to SPONS

Below is a table showing various components in the building. Using the SPONS 2012 estimating cost guide, the cost per component is shown below.

Component Foundations Concrete Slab Concrete Screed Limestone Foam board insulation Steel columns Timber joists Solid Oak Floor finish Glazing etc

Quantity/ Size m (X50) 150mm 75mm 170m 40mm (x50) 400mm(x250) 129x3400x22mm(x3200) 10-12mm(x120)

per m 63-130 59-74 17.70-24 160 7.47 1400-1600 per tonne 25 220 220

4.1.1 Costing for Construction Building cost per Functional Unit. To calculate the building cost per functional unit: see sample below, Cost per Functional Unit= Total cost / number of Hotel rooms Unit Cost Model = Cost of Hotel room x number of rooms

Using Spons 2012, it is possible to find the building cost per functional unit by using the maximum capacity of each room in the building and the price range used for the room based on its intended function. The functional unit cost however does not include VAT of 20% so this must be added on afterwards. The preliminary costs in 2012 edition are +11% which is included in the functional unit cost. The location of the building must be added. By using Spons , a percentage is added to the cost of the building based on its location.

4.1.1 Costing for Construction Building cost per Functional Unit Function Exhibition Space Toilet Shop Size m 250 38 50 40 200 35 220 150 80 56 Capacity range per m 4000- 5000 450-600 2000-3000 3000- 3500 1500 -1700 3500-3700 2200- 2800 850 -1100 1500-1700 1500 - 1700 Total cost= VAT Professional Fees Location +20% +15% +15% Total=Size x Mid 1.125.000 19.700 125.000 128.000 300.000 122.000 506.000 150.000 120.000 84.000 2.679.700 535.940 401.955 401.955 Functional Unit cost = 4.019.550

Studio
Biodiversity Garden Education Room Restaurant Terrace Offices Kitchen

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

5.1 Critical Response The success of the building lies within its connection with the surrounding environment, built fabric and landscaping. The building provides a viewing platform of the gardens that is previously unprecedented, enticing people to explore them, whilst navigating them through the building and into the gardens The building is very economically responsive incorporating, materials of low embodied energy, large amounts of natural lighting and thermal mass Risk to health and safety has been minimized through application building regulations during the design process and the consultation of CDM coordinator Buro Happold. The building was delivered for 10.7m with 10m being the initial budget provided by the Scottish Executive, Environment & Rural Affairs department, although the success of the building since opening would make this budget overrun more palatable, than if it was unsuccessful.

5.1.2 Critical Response Design and Access I feel the design of the building sits within the existing and proposed landscaping very comfortably. This is achieved through clever material choice such as timbers and natural stone which interact with the surrounding built fabric and landscaped environment. This is also complimented by the form of the building harnessing the topography of the site, creating a prominent frontage to the road whilst intersecting the building and ground plane at the same point to the rear, creating a minimal interact between the two. (Fig 1) My Only criticism would be with regard to the ground floor arrangement and the location of the main entrance. The Entrance leads you into a small lobby with ramped access to the main exhibition space to the right and toilets to the left. (Fig 2) I feel the design restricts the feeling of any entrance to the space whatsoever. Fig 2

Fig 1

5.1.3 Critical Response Health & Safety Risk to safety was largely addressed during the design process. The use of off-site constructed components minimized the requirement for manual labour in uncontrollable conditions (i.e. Adverse weather) and the reduction of floor levels minimized the amount of working at height. Design considerations have also been made to ensure the safety of public and people within the building i.e. providing balustrades at high levels, smoke extracts to allow for clear exists in the event of a fire, etc. The only issue I see with the health and safety aspect is in terms of maintenance. The maintenance strategy to access the roof is through the use of a cherry picker. This would be adequate under normal circumstances but this buildings is within a lush treed area and access to the roof will be needed regularly to clear fallen debris and maintain the sedum. Therefore I feel the incorporation of an (internal or external) access stair to the roof with a none fall safety system (i.e. man safe) being provided at roof level safe walk areas. I feel this would prevent the requirement for additional expense (the cost to buy or rent a cherry picker) in the long run and would allow for the flex ability to access the roof when required.

5.1.3 Critical Response Planning The building sites within the Inverleith Conservation area. In order to be granted permission there were certain aspects that the design achieved in order to meet the planning policy for this area: The Scale of the building is kept to a minimum and does not exceed that of the surrounding context. The positioning of the building has been chosen to sit over that of the existing building which was deemed to be of low architectural value. Material choice of Stone create a connection between the new building and the surrounding built fabric whilst the use of timber and a sedum roof create a connection with

the landscaping of the gardens and the surrounding context. Minimizing the impact upon the environment is achieved through the implementation of renewable energy resources, materials of low embodied energy, large amounts of natural lighting and thermal mass. Ensuring the future of the building by creating an open floor plan by allowing the loads to be supported by columns, ensuring future adaptability.

5.1.3 Critical Response Finance Through implementation of renewable resources such as a sedum roof, wind turbine, natural lighting, photovoltaic and solar thermal panels, biomass boiler and rainwater harvesting minimize the financial outlay for energy over the lifetime of the building. Approximately 1.8m of the overall cost consisted of high end, quality materials. I feel this was a very good investment, given the success of the materials allowing the building to sit successfully within the landscape and interact with the context. Although the cost of materials does amount to nearly 20% of the overall cost, the majority of these materials selected were all pre-finshed. Therefore these materials will only require minimum upkeep over the life-span of the building. The glu-laminated timber structure will require minimum upkeep and was prefinished. The glazing system will require a cleaning but that is kept to a minimum through self cleaning glass. The use of polished plaster prevents the requirement for annual painting.

Contents Intro 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Project Description Design and Access Statement Health and Safety Analysis Planning Statement Financial Analysis Critical Response References & Bibliography

6.0 References & Bibliography http://www.architecturetoday.co.uk/?p=13289 http://www.architecture.com/SustainabilityHub/Casestudies/5-RoyalBotanicGardenEdinburgh.aspx http://www.edwardcullinanarchitects.com/projects/jhg.html http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/royal_botanic_gardens.htm