The document provides an evaluation report of design proposals for a university building project. It ranks 10 design criteria and scores three design proposals - Hydrodynamic, Neoteric, and Encapsulated - on how well they meet the criteria. The Encapsulated design scores highest with 381 points out of 550. The report also summarizes the designs' programs and costs. It recommends the Encapsulated design to the client based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis.

2. Task 3: Evaluation Report
Loughborough University in
collaboration with Coventry University
Jack Pennells, Josh Brooks, Ben Ormsby,
Benjamin Balint, David Vede and Vladi Perta
Encapsulation

3. Contents
Page
Executive summary 1
1.0 Design Criteria Rank Justification 2-3
1.1 Collaboration………………………………............................. 2
1.2 Space allocation……………………………………………………. 2
1.3 Al Fresco………………………………………………………………. 2
1.4 Social……………………………………………………………………. 2
1.5 Nucleus………………………………………………………………… 2
1.6 Heritage……………………………………………………………….. 2
1.7 Sustainability………………………………………………………… 2
1.8 End user………………………………………………………………. 3
1.9 Functionality………………………………………………………… 3
1.10 Acoustics…………………………………………………………… 3
2.0 Table of scoring for each design proposal 4
2.1 Hydrodynamic performance justification….…………. 4
2.2 Neoteric performance justification ……………………… 5
2.3 Encapsulated performance justification ………………. 5
3.0 Comparison of programmes between design proposals 6
4.0 Comparison of costing between design proposals 7
5.0 Final proposal Justification 8-9
Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current designs that have been created and put forward to
the client by MEA consultants. The objective of this report is to propose a recommendation of design to the client
by evaluating the suitability of each proposal that has been put forward.
Methods of analysis include;
Quantitative Summary:
The ranking of each proposal against set criteria which allow the designs to be compared and evaluated accurately
and fairly in order to produce a fair report. The scoring criterion was produced with an importance ratio of 1-10 set
against each of the design criteria. The design proposals are each scored according to the set criteria with a realistic
view towards how they will perform in real time. The cumulative figures of each design proposal can then be
compared to enable a decision to be made into which design we will recommend.
Qualitative Summary:
Once each score has been produced we used qualitative summaries to inform the client about the design,
provoking further critical discussion. The positive and negative aspects of each design criteria are discussed with a
view to provide sufficient reason behind the set score.
(All scoring Data can be found in table 1 with a series of summarized discussions below.)
This report summarizes the underlining differences between each design proposals programme and costing
allowing MEA to arrive at a well justified recommendation of design.
Programme Comparison Summary:
This provides the client with an inside view on how the construction process operates and the factors which can
affect the change in the critical path of each of the projects. Each design proposal is examined in detail, describing
the separate components of the design which add or reduce the time aspect of the construction programme. As
the programme is a calculated estimate, reasoning is given to the client as to why some activities may carry a
higher risk; thus potentially negatively affecting the operations of a design proposal.
Cost Comparison Summary:
This provides the client with an explanation into how the costing process was achieved in order to arrive at a price
for each of the design proposals. Each proposal is then summarized in detail as to why the cost is what it is. This
includes the types of materials used, methods of construction taken on and even pays attention to the effect
geographical location and inflation can have upon a project.
Final Design Recommendation
The report arrives at a justified recommendation of design for the client to take into consideration. Images and
concepts are included to give reason to explanation as to why the design has been chosen. This report finds that
the encapsulate design has the qualities and features according to the qualitative and quantitative analysis to meet
the needs and wants of the client.
Page 1

4. Collaborative space design
requires large open areas
with unique table designs
Table design to facilitate collaboration
(conforms to hexagon theme)
1.0 Design Criteria
Justification of Ranking position
1.1 Collaboration
During the site visit there was a heavy emphasis on collaborative working, a key
consideration closely acknowledged by the recently constructed ECB. As our design
aims to take inspiration from the ECB, it should influence not just the way that the
classrooms are designed, but the building layout as a whole. The current layout of SJL lends little of itself to collaborative
working, with restricted work space, poor space allocation and below par facilities. Although little can be done during
construction to facilitate collaboration the influence it had on many of the other design criteria has resulted in it being
given the main criterion title.
1.2 Space Allocation
As the faculty stated that the aim over the next few years was to expand the civil and
building department, it meant that our design had to consider all potential users of the
building. Space allocations should be flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of demands
of a new way of teaching. Space allocation should aim to make navigation around the
building easier for all, with emphasis towards disabled users. This involves producing a
logical layout, taking in to account; natural lighting, sound infiltration, grouping of activities
and space priority amongst other factors. Flexibility meant being able to lecture, discuss,
collaborate and socialize all in the same space, meaning high amounts of consideration was
required. All of the above reasons resulted in Space allocation becoming a crucial key design
criterion.
1.3 Al Fresco
The written brief expressed that there should be external spaces that relate directly to the functions of the building. One
of the facilities functions is to provide social areas for collaboration, relaxing, socializing and expression. Relaxation
spaces should be provided, to not only give an external space to invite students within, but also link the building with the
Richard Crossman Courtyard which is also stipulated in the brief. Hence forth this is a fairly important design criterion.
Rank of Criteria
(1 most important 10 least)
1. Collaboration
2. Space allocation
3. Al Fresco
4. Social
5. Nucleus
6. Heritage
7. Sustainability
8. End User
9. Functionality
10. Acoustics
Current narrow
corridors
1.4 Social
Socially the SJL building is currently inadequate as it does not provide space for students to congregate outside of the
learning environment. As one of the aims of the university is to provide a building that should accommodate all of the
needs of the students, it should include recreational space as well learning facilities. The balance between social and
learning environments should be given equal consideration in order to become the heart of student experience.
1.5 Nucleus
The Nucleus, refers to the main entrance including the atrium, this was one of the
key features described on the site visit and included within the brief. The idea of a
focal point for the building, is a criteria that should influence the design heavily, as
it lends itself towards the iconic nature of the design. This was another statement
of the design brief which did not become a Design criterion but was influential
throughout the process. The nucleus is central to the workings of the building
providing a central control area which all sub components are controlled from. For
this building it was to be the area where room bookings are made, directions are
provided and general information about the facility can be obtained.
1.6 Heritage
The theme of heritage is one that has been followed through the design of
Coventry after being bombed in WW2. It was made sure that the
redevelopment of Coventry would try to keep any old buildings intact, with the
aim as to preserve what heritage that was left. On the redevelopment site, a
mediaeval ruin is exposed outside of one of the entrances. The design should
aim to keep and preserve the building not only to meet the regulations of listed
buildings but as part of the culture of Coventry itself. Even though not as
important as collaborative working it important and therefore makes it a
relatively high design criteria.
1.7 Sustainability
Although there was not specific attention given towards the
sustainability of the design of the building as a team we decided that
due to the current position of the Economic and Natural climates
sustainability should be a factor to consider. Due to the minor attention
in the design brief, this criterion has been ranked relatively low although
the strong beliefs in the group have meant it is still of particular
importance.
Page 2

5. Current Acoustics result in noise
effecting staff offices and lecture space
NOISE
1.8 End User
Throughout the site visit it was acknowledged that there was no clear
identity of specific end user, with areas being scattered throughout the
building. This coupled with the desire, in the design brief, and verbal
request, by one of the key end users, it made the criterion become an
important consideration. The aim was to group facilities based on the
type of user e.g.: student, lecturer, maintenance or visitor. Limited
access would be provided to certain users allowing facilities for only
the desired user possible. The design of the building should think
about this which could lend itself to access only floors for the intended
end user. This consideration should be thought about in the design but
perhaps not in the same nature as collaboration therefore is ranked
considerably lower.
1.9 Functionality
The site had few limitations with an essential factor being the positioning of the Hydraulics & Structural Labs. This
became an influential condition due to the consequences it had on other criteria. It is also mentioned within the brief
and on a number of occasions during the site visit. However it was stated that the Labs could be repositioned off-site
during construction. Although this would still have considerable influence on the overall design it became a key design
consideration which was not of critical importance in comparison to other design criteria.
1.10 Acoustics
During the site visit it was noted that the current layout of rooms did not consider acoustics in their design. The noise
disruption coming from the laboratories was noticeable throughout the building and therefore it became a key
consideration. Having said this, it does rank lower than other items as the design of other criteria may take noise
disruption in to consideration, the space allocation of
these laboratories, along with functionality of rooms
should aim to eliminate the clash of room types, namely
laboratory work spaces and lecture rooms. Between the
two, there has been a lot of analysis as to which rooms
are grouped together in order to minimize the
influence of noise throughout the facility.
Restricted access
to Staff space
Card authorization
required
Page 3

6. The following table shows scores allocated to each design proposal as determined by the Design team. The
table is interpreted by; giving the most important criteria (Collaboration) a score of 10. Each design is then
given a value from 1 to 10 in terms of how well this criterion was met. The two numbers are then multiplied
to give a sub total. The sub totals of each design produce a grand total, showing which design has performed
best in terms of meeting the criteria.
2.0 Table of scoring for each Proposal
Rank/Design
Criteria
Importance
score
Hydrodynamic
Score/10
Sub-
total
Neoteric
Score/10
Sub-
total
Encapsulated
Score/10
Sub-
total
1.Collaboration 10 7 70 8 80 7 70
2.Space Allocation 9 5 45 6 54 8 72
3.Al fresco 8 8 64 8 64 6 48
4.Social 7 7 49 9 63 8 56
5.Nucleus 6 9 54 7 42 6 36
6.Heritage 5 3 15 7 35 7 35
7.Sustainability 4 7 28 8 32 7 28
8.End User 3 4 12 8 24 6 18
9.Functionality 2 6 12 4 8 6 12
10.Acoustics 1 6 6 7 7 6 6
Grand Totals (Max. = 550) 355 409 381
4 storey atrium
2.1 Hydrodynamic Design Performance
The main feature of the Hydrodynamic design proposal is the 4 storey
height glass atrium that enhances the overall look of the building and
provides a unique space that also divides the existing building from the new
extension. The overall score of the Hydrodynamic design proposal against
the 10 design criteria is 325 out of a total of 550, making this design the
least efficient of them all.
Collaboration is outlined as the most important design criteria. The
Hydrodynamic design scored 7 points out of 10 because the existing building
imposes major restrictions in terms of space allocation for efficient group works. However, the class rooms and computer rooms will
provide efficient group work through the layout of the rooms, and the design offers the maximum amount of group work area
possible with spaces allocated both at ground floor level as well as at first level for ease of access purposes.
In terms of space allocation, this design scored 5 out of 10 because of the overall layout of the building. The corridor space
is wide and facilitates access for disabled users, however a negative is the positioning of the elevator, located in the new extension
wing which may restrict access for disabled users, especially at first floor level, where the
connection between the two buildings is via a narrow walkway.
Al Fresco criteria relates to the connection of the exterior spaces to the interior
functions of the building. Hydrodynamic design does that by providing a large open plan
area towards the newly redeveloped courtyard at the north side of the building that links
John Laing Building to Richard Crossman building. The design incorporates a
Costa/Starbucks café in that area as well this enhancing the relationship between outdoor
space and indoor space connection.
Socially the design meets the criteria through the allocation of open spaces for
students such as the café space that connects the courtyard with the interior
space, this creating the illusion of a much bigger space that in reality. This is very
important because of the site and space restrictions. Also, the large glass atrium
provides sufficient space for open group work or socializing. Thus, Hydrodynamic
scores 7 on this criterion.
Nucleus: this design reflects best this criterion because of the large four
storey height atrium that serves as the main entrance with the main reception and
also as a connection between the two distinct buildings. It is the focal design
element that provides a natural flow to the overall aspect of the building.
The Heritage aspect of this design is not as clearly emphasized as the
other two proposals as it does not incorporate the ruin into de actual building. It does however connect it visually through the large
glass atrium making it a focal point, thus a mark of 3 out of 10 was awarded for this criterion.
Another important aspect of the design is the sustainability aspect. This building will incorporate high performance
technologies such as rain water harvesting, triple glazed widows, sustainable urban drainage systems and others. By redeveloping
the building, instead of completely rebuilding it saves in terms of building materials used and the CO2 produced. Locally sourced
materials will be used as much as possible to enhance the sustainable aspect of the design.
Hydrodynamic design scores only 4 points in terms of End user criterion because of the layout of the internal spaces. Being
a redevelopment of the existing building with an extension, space restrictions apply, thus the spaces are not as clearly divided in
terms of the users. Special considerations towards access for designated users have been implemented into the final design.
As the brief requirement was to maintain the position of the double-height Structures laboratory, Hydrodynamic was
designed around that. It scores only 6 because the Hydraulics Laboratory was moved, this creating some issues that in the end do
not affect the overall viability of the project and its functionality.
Acoustics is not an imperial criterion, therefore it does not weigh as much as other criteria above listed. However special
considerations have been taken into consideration in terms of space allocation, by placing all laboratories at the ground level,
separately from the class rooms and lecture theaters. Hydrodynamic scores 6 points out of 10 for this section.
Café opening out in
to Courtyard
Atrium/Nucleus of
the facility
Page 4

7. 2.2 Neoteric Design Performance
The new build proposal, Neoteric, can easily be considered the
option with the most collaborative space allocation out of the three
options. As stated in the Design Criteria report, Neoteric was partly
inspired by the look and feel of the Coventry University’ Engineering
and Computing Building, thus focusing on effectiveness and the
engineering spirit. Each floor was designed to accommodate group
working spaces/ rooms both for students and members of staff
alike, in order to provide a friendly and valuable experience.
Allocating the space represented a priority during the design stage
due to the need of generating enough spaces both for every public
building and for faculty specific need. Due to the machinery and relevant equipment needed, the lab spaces (rooms), the
maintenance, reception, administration offices, cafeteria and care (first-aid) facilities were placed on the ground floor. The computer
rooms, lecture spaces and group work rooms were allocated to the floors above. By preserving the ECB theme, the staff and PHD
rooms/ spaces were allocated to the top floor, thus providing the needed privacy during their off- hours. The group work rooms,
classes, lecture theatres and offices were designed to have the maximum amount of natural light, i.e. optimum lighting.
Being a new build, the design allowed large improvements in comparison to the existing Sir John Laing building, which included the
faculty specific external spaces, such as hang-out areas and a balcony on the first floor and two on the third and the fourth floor.
Socially, Neoteric was designed to provide a
space for the students where they can meet
regardless of their timetable, either for working
on their projects or using the time and facilities
to relax and socialize. The space allocated
mainly for the purpose of socializing and
relaxing was designed to be placed on the
ground floor around the current ruin, with an
area of ~550 m
2
of computer desks and sofas
orbiting a Costa or Starbucks Coffee Shop.
As opposed to the current layout of the SJL building where the two entrances are both confusing and clustered in term of access
space, during the redesign process, another aspect that was highly considered was the openness of the main entrance and ease of
access to each of the areas. This criterion was met by providing an atrium/nucleus over a two-floor height and an area of ~350 m
2
where the reception and the administrative space are.
The heritage aspect of the building was covered by the
inclusion of the medieval ruin in the design with the
potential of reviving the interest in art and history, thus
remembering the old and bridging the gap between
two different worlds.
Another important aspect considered during the design
stage was the impact of the new build on the
environment, social life and on its initial and
maintenance costing, i.e. its sustainability. During the
construction phase, the building will be developed
using both old and new techniques and technologies,
thus maximizing the effectiveness of the process and recycling as many materials as possible. One other aspect that Neoteric
ensures is the preservation of green spaces (partly green roof, partly PVs- solar panels) and higher efficiency than the previous build.
Example of collaborative
seating area located around
the historical ruin
Sustainability aspect
Green
Roof
Space for
PV cells
Balcony space, extending internal spaces outdoors
3
rd
floor, utilizing internal and external
glazing through open space planning
2.3 Encapsulated Design Performance
“Encapsulated” design is an overall outstanding proposal. It takes into
consideration all of the design criteria set in the preliminary stage of the
project.
One of the most important issues addressed by the design was the
collaboration aspect. It achieved a high performance score by incorporating
several student work rooms and internal glass walls for light flow.
Encapsulated achieved the highest score out of all three designs in
space allocation criteria. This is due to the layout of the building. Special
consideration was given to disability access as well and fluidity throughout the
proposed building making good use of wide corridors. The high score can also
be attributed on the account of number of study rooms, classrooms and PHD
and research designated areas.
The proposal incorporates two entrances offering access towards the
courtyard leading to Richard Crossman building and the surveying area towards
Much Park Street. The room for improvement in the al fresco criteria consists
of the fact that more attention could have been given to the design of the exit
towards Richard Crossman and the space adjacent to it.
Recreational space for students to socialize in, outside the learning
activities, is taken into careful consideration within the encapsulated design
hence achieving a high performance score from a social point of view. By doing this, students would have a better feel of a more
wholesome experience of university life.
The atrium/nucleus that enclose the main entrance in the building, facing Much Park Street, is indeed the main feature of
the building however more attention could have been given to it which is why it does not score as high as the other two proposals.
This design achieved a score of 7 out of 10 for the heritage aspect in the performance section due to the fact that not only
does it preserve the historical value of the medieval ruin on the site but it actually encapsulate it, turning it into an attraction point, a
feature of the structure thus motivating students and visitors in developing an interest in the history of Coventry.
Encapsulate design proposal addresses the issue of sustainability by making good use of light, environmentally friendly
materials, proposed modern methods of construction and low maintenance layout for the structure. Other ways by which this
proposed design achieves good standard of sustainability is by providing good insulation and efficient heating system.
The present design proposal scores just above average in respect to end user consideration criteria because although
student and staff needs are clearly a priority (and that is shown in the spaces allocated and design style) there is room for further
improvement.
Functionality of the proposal consists of the fact that structures lab is kept in its original location and only the hydraulics lab is
slightly altered. That decision however was based on the idea of grouping the laboratories together for an improved practicality and
functionality.
Encapsulate design takes into account the acoustics criteria
and propose a massively improved acoustic insulation compared to
the original structure but is falling short however by comparison
with the Neoteric complete redevelopment. There is also good
consideration given to the location of rooms in terms of grouping
those which create noise and relocating those which require quieter
surroundings. A clever room layout, keeps noise producing
activities close to areas which aren’t influenced by noise eg
toilets and facility management.
Large central atrium, with central lift
and open, easy to navigate corridors
Logical space design
LABS
Toilets
LABS
Facility
management
rooms
Page 5

8. 3.0 Comparisons of Programmes between concept Designs
The programmes of all the projects were an estimate at this stage and based upon estimations of the
construction process and will be subject to change when the concept design is developed further.
The programme has been compiled from an estimation of the working practices that will take place
during the construction period of each concept. These are based on site based knowledge and the study of
previous programmes. The durations are only an estimate at this stage as the internal finishes have not been
approved by the client. These initial concepts show the construction process with and aim in each case for the
buildings to be complete by the start of October 2014 which will be when the intake of new students arrives at
the university. This should hopefully be possible for the two of the designs, however as one is a complete
rebuild there it will take slightly longer but this should be complete for the second semester starting after
Christmas 2014.
Hydrodynamic is a similar extension as it utilized a previously unused area of land to the south of the site,
which means work should progress quickly with minimum disruption to users of the existing building. This is
also the shortest programme, finishing at the start of August 2014 which should give enough time to get the
staff settled into their new offices before students arrive. The atrium, at 52 days construction, is the longest
activity by duration. As this activity proceeds, the work on the façade can progress parallel. Segregated work
areas; one for the extension and the other for atrium erection mean that works can progress quickly,
overlapping only where the concrete frame of the extension meet the steel frame of the Atrium.
Completion date
01st
AUGUST 2014
Completion date
15th
AUGUST 2014
The Neoteric programme is the longest of all, with the major component being the concrete
frame at 100 days duration. This is based on large pour amounts and the majority of formwork being an
engineered formwork method as opposed to timber. The façade system is based on the Mero Schmidlin’s
design and the durations associated with its construction process. Naturally this design will take the longest to
produce as there will need to be extensive ground works before the superstructure can proceed. The
production rate should be quicker than the other designs as the whole building except structures lab will be
demolished which means machines will be able to move around the site easier increasing production rates.
This means that even though this concept is a complete rebuild it should only take around six months longer
construction time.
Encapsulate aims to finish in the middle of August to give time for the facility to be tested before the new
students arrive. This programme charts the same design phase length as Neoteric and Hydrodynamic. As this
design concept is based on an extension to multiple sides of the building, the programme is slightly longer
than Hydrodynamic. The building will remain fully functional for the majority of the build and means the
internal works, at 51 days duration, is the longest activity. This is the only activity that will require the closure
of the Sir John Laing Building.
Completion date
30th
December 2014
Page 6

9. 4.0 Cost Comparison between designs
The cost per m² for all the projects were calculated by using the BCIS online database which gives a price for
works that have been completed on a comparative project in terms of size and specification. The prices are
then rebased to give a price which accounts for the effect of inflation and geographical location throughout
the country. This should give the most accurate price for our project at this concept stage. This method also
allows for the shows distribution of for elements within the design.
One element where costs varied substantially was the substructure. For Neoteric at £79,275 the largest
amount for foundations it accounts for piles and beams to be poured to take the loadings of the new concrete
frame structure. This amount is £14,249 greater than substructure of encapsulate. Still a relatively large
amount for sub structure works but this amount has to incorporate a large extension on multiple sides which
makes the logistics difficult therefore increasing the cost of these works. For Hydrodynamic the substructure
works are only worth £7,839 this is based upon a small amount of foundations work that will have to be
completed for a small extension and steel frame atrium.
Superstructure is the other item where the cost of concept designs differs substantially. The cost of the
encapsulate extension at £1,191,428, relatively low as the reinforced concrete frame is the cheapest option,
but this figure also includes a large amount of glazing for the existing renovation as well as the extension
superstructure work. For Hydrodynamic the price for the superstructure is £969072 and even though a
considerably smaller extension the cost of a steel frame and concrete frame are both included as well as the
cost for a new façade system on the existing building. The Neoteric design costs £10,075,905 a major cost but
as this design accounts for a whole new structural frame that is to be exposed fair face concrete the cost per
m3 for formwork increases dramatically increasing the cost. This superstructure figure also accounts for the
demolition of the existing building and the specialist façade system that is to be installed on this design.
Therefore even though the cost for Neoteric superstructure is greater than the others it incorporates a high
quality finish and extra work specific to this design.
The total costs are as follows;
Neoteric £19,604,671 Hydrodynamic £3,143,917 Encapsulate £5,242,825
In comparison, all three options
give value for money and even
though there is one considerable
difference in cost for Neoteric, the
method of construction would be
equally different. The cost of
Hydrodynamic gives the best value
per m2 of floor area but this
concept only adds a small extension
to the existing building. In contrast,
Encapsulate has a higher build cost,
but has to contend with multiple
extensions and construct over the
mediaeval structure, which explains
the higher cost. This design would
also protect the structural integrity
of the mediaeval structure whereas
hydrodynamic does not which a
client can only answer as to
whether the extra cost is worth it.
The cost of the project will depend upon preference of design from the client but all the concepts designs
show different options of extension, with the differences in cost associated with those designs included. The
ultimate decision will depend upon different factors that are yet unknown and can only be answered by the
client as to how much funding is available and how the university would like to spend it.
Page 7

10. Extension that will house cafe
and open out in to the courtyard
creating a connection
5.0 Final Solution Justification
Design Justification
From the entire analysis, it has been decided that, the Encapsulate
concept shall be the proposal which is carried through to stage D,
Design Development, of the RIBA Plan of Works. Although it did
not score the highest in all areas, it is the most consistent and
provides the greatest value for money. Features from both the
Neoteric and Hydro-Dynamic concepts will be included in the
design. Thus the final concept shall be a combination, infused to
create a modified Encapsulation concept.
Justification in choosing Encapsulation, as the primary concept, comes
from the design agreeing with the criteria which were ranked of greatest
priority. Collaboration was a key element, met by the design through
providing large communal spaces inviting users to work collaboratively.
Externally the building looks to have a large mass with internal areas
which may struggle to access natural light. However this is not the case
due to clever space and circulation design. As can be seen from the
adjacent floor plan, the majority of rooms are only ever one unit deep,
thus most have windows (orange) to outside and all connecting
corridors have natural light infiltration (green).
The only spaces without external windows are the toilets (red L-shape)
and four group class rooms, although they still have the light coming through the
open floor ruin area, due to the extensive use of glazing in this area. There has
been consideration to keep the labs all located on the 1st
floor with teaching,
group and staff space all located on the 2nd
floor, with the Architectural studio and
Drawing room situated on the 3rd
floor, allowing users to draw on inspiration from
their elevated perspective of the surrounding location (see adjacent view).
The fluidity of the building also lends itself to follow a precedent set out within
the ECB, with wide corridors and open spaces, encouraging ease of flow throughout the building. This will allow users to
navigate their way around the building more easily without the need to look at signs within the building.
Landscaping will be utilized to alter how the building interacts with the surrounding facilities,
with a small extension, taken from the Hydro-dynamic design, added to the design.
Incorporating a café, that will have a sliding curtain-wall, opening out in to the courtyard;
will enhance the space,
providing a clear link to the
Richard Crossman building.
Encapsulation
KEY Circulation
space
window
No light exposure
ruin
Main entrance
Elevated
3rd
floor
position
Fluidity provided via large
corridors facilitating easy
navigation of facility.
External
curtain-walling
Encapsulation of ruinThis design not only kept the ruin intact, but also encapsulated the
structure, producing a wide communal space. By encapsulation, the
ruin is preserved for the future and encourages interest in the heritage
of Coventry and the university. This historical monument will
potentially influence future building environment students, providing
inspiration in designs and concepts. The concept shall be modified to
include the curtain-walling of the Neoteric creating a recognisable link
to the ECB façade. The Atrium area provides a focal point where users
can arrange to congregate and use as a Landmark within the building.
This aspect gives the facility a unique identity. It is important to point
out, that all curtain walling shall utilize the design from the Neoteric
concept, linking the entire school discipline throughout the campus.
The design matches all of specified room requirements
determined by the university. The staff room and offices are
allocated on the 1st
floor, in close proximity to rooms/spaces
used by students. By including a security access door to the
staff space, it means that this area will be segregated and only
authorized users may enter, this idea is taken from the success
of the system utilized at Loughborough. The area outside of
staff offices will allow students to interact with teaching staff in
collaborative form, eliminating the confinement to individual staff
offices. This should allow easier communication from teacher to
student. All these features result in an enhanced experience for the end
user.
Extensive insulation throughout the building means that there will be
minimal loads on the heating system and improve energy efficiency.
Due to the design the building will not rely on lights within the building
as natural light should enable low dependency on electricity. In
addition, the design shall be modified to include a green roof, feeding
rain water into a grey water recycling system. This will not only meet the
requirement for SUD’s for the project, but reuse rainwater to flush toilets thus
reducing water consumption as well.
The acoustics for the building were addressed by logical location of the rooms
where high noise levels occur. These spaces are located on the ground floor with
addition acoustic panels in surrounding rooms, identical to those used in the
ECB.
Potential for
Green-roof with
access via 3
rd
floor studio
Page 8

11. Programme and Costing Justification
The programme of works for this design allows construction to finish at the end of August this will allow the building to
be fully functional for the start of the new academic year. As this design has multiple extensions, the programme of
works will be altered to only partly close areas within the building and thus should cause minimum disruption for the
users of the building.
Encapsulate at £5,242,825 is not the cheapest option suggested but it does give a much larger extension than proposed
in the Hydrodynamic design and a much cheaper alternative than the Neoteric design. The prices M+E for the building
will change due to the use of passive stack ventilation and the use of brise soleil, which both help to provide a
comfortable building without relying upon mechanical heating or cooling. Money saved on these items will account for
the small extension that will house Starbuck’s as well as the green roof on the main structure of the building.
The proposed design aims to exceed the universities expectations, providing a learning facility that meets the needs
of today whist keeping the requirements of the future firmly in mind.
Page 9