portfolio

12 13
LIST OF WORKS
PROJECT AWARDS & PUBLICATIONS
CHICHESTER FESTIVAL THEATRE
RICS South East Conservation Highly Commended 2015
RIBA South East Building of the Year Award 2015
RIBA South East Award 2015
RIBA South East Conservation Award 2015
RIBA South East Sustainability Award 2015
Civic Trust Commendation 2015
Dezeen Magazine, July 2014
Wallpaper, July 2014
RIBA Journal, September 2014
Architects Journal, July 2014
BBC Radio 4 Front Row, July 2014
The Guardian, July 2014
The Sunday Times, July 2014
COLSTON’S GIRLS’ SCHOOL
RIBA Excellence in Architecture South West Award 2012
BCSE Award for Large Projects (Refurbished) 2012
Architecture Today, June 2012
GALLERY OF BOTANICAL ART
Civic Trust Award 2010
RIBA Excellence in Architecture Award Shortlist 2008
Architects Journal, April 2008
Architecture Today, June 2008
CONSORT ROAD
Building for Life Silver Standard 2009
British Homes Award 2008
RIBA Excellence in Architecture Award Shortlist 2008
Key Urban Housing of the C20th, Hilary French
Architects Journal, December 2009
Architecture Today, February 2008
THE OSLO SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 2015-2016
“Teaching Timber: The role of the architectural student and studio course within an interdisciplinary re-
search project”
Article: Main author
“What will the “timber city” look like?”
Exhibition: Curator
“Potential for, and positive climate effects of, an increased use of timber in building projects in Oslo and Akershus”
Article: Co-author
“The new timber city: Architectural and urban implications of Norwegian fire regulations on urban timber buildings”
Article: Main author
“Urban transformations in timber” master course, Institute of Architecture
Teaching: Teaching assistant
Diploma Projects, Institute of Architecture
Teaching: Main supervisor (2 students), assistant supervisor (21 students)
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCE (NMBU), 2015
“Bygg og Miljø”, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology (NMBU)
Teaching: Course leader
MOMENTUM ARKITEKTER, 2013-2015
Kirkenes Hospital
Architecture: Technical architect - detailed design of facade
Bayer pharmaceutical laboratory redevelopment
Architecture: Project architect - concept design through to construction
HAWORTH TOMPKINS, 2011-2013
The Shed 2
Architecture: Sustainability advisor - concept design
Hallsville Quarter (BREEAM Excellent)
Architecture: Technical architect and sustainability advisor - detailed design
Chichester Festival Theatre (BREEAM Very Good)
Architecture: Technical architect and sustainability advisor - detailed design
Welbeck Abbey Competition
Architecture: Project architect - concept design
WALTERS AND COHEN, 2006-2011
Colston´s Girls´ School (BREEAM Very Good)
Architecture: Project architect - conceptual design through to completed project
Gallery of Botanical Art
Architecture: Site architect - detailed design & construction
WALTER MENTETH ARCHITECTS, 2003-2006
Consort Road Housing Scheme
Architecture: Architectural assistant - detailed design & construction
Princess Louise Building
Architecture: Architectural Assistant - detailed design
19 Russell Road
Architecture: Architectural Assistant - concept design
INDEPENDENT COLLABORATIONS, 2011-2016
“Living in a shrinking world”
Book: Co-author
Appropriating Oslo
Urban design: Lead co-ordinator & co-designer - concept design
Europan: Ripples Inbetween
Urban design: Co-designer - concept design
Madteatret
Architecture: Co-designer - concept design
Motorcycle Showrooms
Architecture: Lead co-ordinator & main designer - concept design
“SIMPLY OUTSTANDING: The Transformation of Colston’s Girls’ School”
Pamphlet: Main author
* Projects in bold text are presented in my Portfolio

14 15
WHAT WILL THE “TIMBER CITY” LOOK LIKE?
Exhibition curator, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design
This exhibition showcases the complete set of student projects produced during the six masters studios in Urban
Timber, running from autumn 2013 to spring 2016 under the guidance of professors Marius Nygaard and Børre
Skodvin. The exhibition was curated to communicate the volume and variety of work produced in the studios,
showing the flexibility of timber in many different urban situations. In addition the exhibition displays new timber
solutions developed in detail by the students, with integrated acoustic, fire and service strategies. The exhibition
plays a key role in the dissemination of the results from the research project.
Above: Photograph from the “What will the Timber City look like?” exhibition, AHO works June 2016 Above: Photographs from the “What will the Timber City look like?” exhibition, AHO works June 2016

16 17
Above: Photographs from the “What will the Timber City look like?” exhibition, AHO works June 2016 Above: Photographs from the “What will the Timber City look like?” exhibition, AHO works June 2016

18 19
TEACHING TIMBER
Main author, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design
1New Trajectories in Academia: Contested Settlements Cross-Americas: Probing Disglobal Networks
In 2013, the Wood Be Better (WBB) interdisciplin-
ary research project was established, with the
principal goal to produce and publicise knowledge
that would facilitate the increased use of wood in
buildingsinurbanareasinNorway.Thisarticleinves-
tigates six master-level studios at the Oslo School of
Architecture and Design (AHO), from autumn 2013
to spring 2016, set up as laboratories for systematic
architectural exploration within this research proj-
ect. A set of structured, qualitative interviews with
teachers,researchersandstudents,presentsabroad
account of the courses. The findings reveal an educa-
tional focus on investigating architectural solutions
to complex urban situations and the development
of technical and detailed knowledge in materials
using the latest and expert knowledge within the
interdisciplinary research team. The studios contrib-
uted to the research by illustrating the architectural
implications of a variety of design alternatives, and
in addition, embedded knowledge and interest in
timber to the next generation of architects.
INTRODUCTION
As buildings become more energy efficient and emissions related
to their operational use are reduced, the importance of embod-
ied energy in materials becomes more significant. This explains a
renewed interest in the use of wood-based materials in buildings
from sustainably managed forests, substituting steel and concrete
alternatives, as an effective means to reduce fossile energy use and
mitigate climate change1. In addition to this, is the potential eco-
nomic value in countries with an existing forest industry not used
to capacity. In the wake of great city fires timber was gradually
abandoned in urban buildings. New timber solutions and advanced
technologies for fire safety have facilitated a reinvention of timber
as an urban building material. Alongside this growing awareness
of the sustainable merit and urban potential of wood is the need
to research and advance knowledge in its use as a construction
material.
The Norwegian Research Council´s BIONAER program for the bio-
based sectors (primarily forestry, agriculture and aquaculture)
funds the Wood Be Better (WBB) research project, which runs from
January 2013 to December 2016. The principle goal of the proj-
ect was to “produce and publicise knowledge that will facilitate
increased use of wood in buildings in urban areas”2. WBB is a large
interdisciplinary project with the Oslo School of Architecture and
Design (AHO) as the leading and coordinating partner, instilling a
clear and defined architectural and urban perspective into the proj-
ect. AHO is partnered with the Norwegian University of Life Sciences
(NMBU) and the Norwegian Institute of Bio-economy Research
(NIBIO). A number of international research partners and Norwegian
architectural firms and forest owners are also associated with the
project. Five subtasks or work packages were defined in the WBB
project description. Work package 2, the focus of this article, was
titled “Design-based research”2 and proposed using master courses
at AHO as “laboratories for systematic architectural exploration.”2
This article examines the six consecutive masters studios in Urban
Timber held at AHO between Autumn 2013 and Spring 2016, seeking
answers to the following questions: what were the course intentions;
how were they structured and themed; how did the research project
influence the courses; how did the courses contribute to research.
By interviewing key actors representing the teachers, research-
ers and students, the article aims to present an in-depth picture of
what happened. In this way it is hoped to give an insight into this
approach to teaching timber in an architecture studio, the integra-
tion of research and studio courses and the value of such courses to
an architectural school.
PEDAGOGICAL CONTEXT
The reinvention of timber as an urban building material has resulted
in the introduction of timber oriented teaching and research pro-
grammes at architectural schools across the globe. The following
text introduces four current teaching programmes from Switzerland,
Germany and Finland, giving a pedagogical context to the Urban
Timber programme at AHO.
The Laboratory for Timber Constructions (IBOIS) in the École
Teaching Timber: The role of studio
courses and architectural students within
an interdisciplinary research project
CATHERINE SUNTER
The Oslo School of Architecture and Design
2 New Trajectories in Academia: Contested Settlements Cross-AmTeaching Timber: The role of studio courses and architectural students within an interdisciplinary research project
what happens, that would be a kind of design test”. At the same time
it enabled the students to take part in research-oriented studios that
produced full individual projects, in contrast to the small and limited
tasks often produced as a sub-delivery of a larger research project.
TWO STUDIOS
The timber courses were organised as two masters studios, one in
the autumn semester and one in spring, with the first in autumn
2013. The autumn courses, led by Marius Nygaard, explored timber
construction in large, complex and typical urban projects, such as
the urban block and urban infill. There was a particular focus on the
use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as a material that had been
proven to be well-suited to urban densification projects, as well as
constructions that explored the potential for buildings to change
according to different use over time. Teaching assistants Lars and
Ute noted that these courses had a “strong technical” and more
“structured side”. Ona and Eskil, who had taken both courses, com-
mented that this course “took more of the engineering point of view,
the economics of it, … flexibility, and the wood industry” and was
focused towards the “broader, larger scale of urban development
and bigger projects generally”.
The spring courses looked at different aspects of timber technology
and the timber industry, to develop and explore different construc-
tions and the potential to “misuse a material”. Marius observes that
they were “oriented towards the specialised use of wood, finding the
timber resources that have special properties and then integrating
them in the architecture in a deliberate way.” Lars commented that
they were “more experimental in the approach, where the develop-
ment of ideas, … building techniques and ... different uses of wood
are emphasised”. These courses had an experiential nature, getting
to know the quality and char
with. Børre recalls taking t
going into the snow and lea
guy on cutting down the tree
The teaching staff agree tha
tive on teaching timber, re
interests and affinities, yet w
the goals of the research p
for both courses was “for e
believable project that can
details that are well though
“the difference lies in appro
noticed these differences,
two very different courses
intention … of where they w
to learn”. Eskil notes “I chos
of those approaches … the
first learn about the proper
some way that I felt was inte
CHOICE OF COURSE
Marius remembers being fo
in a research-oriented stud
more applicants than the 15
this “combination of researc
and very ambitious studio
attractive solution for a cour
The students had many diff
one of which was the cou
of interest. Ona stated dire
teachers. I just wanted to h
would have taken Børre´s co
ing”, although it also seeme
“I think that is quite impor
going to teach you … for a w
view with Marius he respon
world’s best course descripti
you build a reputation for be
communicate in ways that a
Marte raises the sustainab
ing Marius as one of the m
Interestingly wood plays a
course than learning princip
tion. Even noted that he cho
detailing actually … so it wa
commented that he was int
of wood and how that affe
the buildings, but “I’m not j
person. So I like to separate
when it comes down to it, it
Shohreh sums up these com
Figure 2. Exploring wood to wood connections: Wooden Joinery House,
Kamilla Kristiansen. Spring 2015 “Forest-Wood-Building”.
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has been running
since 2004. The programme is led by engineer and architect Yves
Weinand, and displays a strong connection between the architec-
ture and technical and technological issues. The studio is described
as having an “objective to develop constructive skills and reason-
ing that actively participates in the elaboration of the architectural
project and which fosters its qualities.”3 The Wood in Research And
Teaching programme at the Technical University of Munich (TUM),
headed by timber enthusiast Hermann Kaufmann, has the ambi-
tion to “strengthen the use of timber as a construction material,
and to intensify its contribution to a responsible use of available
resources.”4 There is a strong focus towards interdisciplinary teach-
ing with experts from science, architecture, forestry, the wood
industry and construction practice. These courses share an ambition
to use general architectural projects as the basis to explore the tech-
nical and constructional properties of timber.
In contrast, the following two programs investigate timber in a
more concentrated method, resulting in 1:1 built prototypes. The
Gramazio and Kohler Research Group at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). The group´s focus is primarily
researching methods of fabrication and robotics in structures,
examining “the changes in architectural production that result
from introducing digital manufacturing techniques.”5 Although
not focused primarily on the teaching of timber, they are interest-
ing to review as their built prototypes have a tendency to use wood
as the main construction material. The Wood Programme at Aalto
University in Helsinki is a year-long design-and-build programme
with a focus towards the structural principles of complex geometries
in wood, ending up with an “experimental wooden building.”6
The Urban Timber programme at AHO was introduced in autumn
2013, as a key part of The Wood Be Better research project, an inter-
disciplinary project with the primary focus of increasing the use of
wood in urban areas in Norway. Five work packages were set out in
the original project plan, with work package 2 titled Design-based
research. This introduced the use of masters level studio courses at
the Architecture School in Oslo as laboratories exploring the effects
of wood application on the functional, technical and architectural
quality of whole buildings and areas. The ambition was to utilise
the core competence of architects, whilst producing a depth and
breadth of results not possible in ordinary research because it is too
expensive or too slow.
THE INTERVIEWS
The interviews that form the basis for this article were undertaken
in March 2016. The interview subjects were chosen for their par-
ticular involvement in the project and to give a variety of voices
to the research. As the total number of teachers and researchers
numbered only five it was possible to interview all. The five student
interviewees were selected from a total of 75 based on the contri-
bution of their projects to the research project. All the participants
were familiar to the author, who had joined the WBB research proj-
ect in August 2015 as project coordinator and teaching assistant. It
was anticipated that this familiarity would encourage honest and
open participation. A set of 15-20 questions, adapted to each inter-
viewee, was prepared by the author and used as a guide during the
interviews. They were not sent out prior to the interviews to encour-
age a more intuitive and explorative dialogue. The author observes
that these students represented only three of the six urban timber
courses. At the time of interviewing they had recently graduated
from AHO (January 2016) enabling a reflection and openness per-
haps not available from continuing students. The author notes that
all the student interviewees chose to continue with the project and
course leaders after concluding their studios, either through their
choice of diploma supervisor or working environment, indicating an
inherent bias in their answers.
COURSE INTENTIONS
The introduction of a set of master courses as laboratories within
the research project built on the unique position of the architecture
environment at the centre of the interdisciplinary research group.
The ambition was to realistically test the research and assess its
impact on practical work by illustrating the industrial and architec-
tural potential of the new constructions and new methods in timber
in the designs for whole projects. Through the master studios, the
students could produce many and varied project examples, show-
ing detailed timber solutions integrated into complete, complex and
holistic architectural designs, something not possible in traditional
research projects where the researchers are too expensive and too
few. Børre Skodvin, course leader of the spring semesters, remem-
bered, “it was thought that if we could give the students this kind
of access to the research front, the latest knowledge… and just see
Figure 1. Studio as laboratory: Photographs of students from the autumn
2014 course in “Adaptable Urban Timber Building”.
32 New Trajectories in Academia: Contested Settlements Cross-Americas: Probing Disglobal NetworksTeaching Timber: The role of studio courses and architectural students within an interdisciplinary research project
what happens, that would be a kind of design test”. At the same time
it enabled the students to take part in research-oriented studios that
produced full individual projects, in contrast to the small and limited
tasks often produced as a sub-delivery of a larger research project.
TWO STUDIOS
The timber courses were organised as two masters studios, one in
the autumn semester and one in spring, with the first in autumn
2013. The autumn courses, led by Marius Nygaard, explored timber
construction in large, complex and typical urban projects, such as
the urban block and urban infill. There was a particular focus on the
use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as a material that had been
proven to be well-suited to urban densification projects, as well as
constructions that explored the potential for buildings to change
according to different use over time. Teaching assistants Lars and
Ute noted that these courses had a “strong technical” and more
“structured side”. Ona and Eskil, who had taken both courses, com-
mented that this course “took more of the engineering point of view,
the economics of it, … flexibility, and the wood industry” and was
focused towards the “broader, larger scale of urban development
and bigger projects generally”.
The spring courses looked at different aspects of timber technology
and the timber industry, to develop and explore different construc-
tions and the potential to “misuse a material”. Marius observes that
they were “oriented towards the specialised use of wood, finding the
timber resources that have special properties and then integrating
them in the architecture in a deliberate way.” Lars commented that
they were “more experimental in the approach, where the develop-
ment of ideas, … building techniques and ... different uses of wood
are emphasised”. These courses had an experiential nature, getting
to know the quality and character of wood and what it is like to work
with. Børre recalls taking the students on a “winter experience,
going into the snow and learning the chainsaw from this old timber
guy on cutting down the tree”.
The teaching staff agree that both courses had a different perspec-
tive on teaching timber, reflecting their course leaders personal
interests and affinities, yet were complimentary to one another and
the goals of the research project. Lars reflects that the ambition
for both courses was “for each student to create a consistent and
believable project that can be built … which includes drawings and
details that are well thought out and buildable” summarising that
“the difference lies in approach, rather than a goal”. The students
noticed these differences, Ona reporting, “I experienced them as
two very different courses and with a very different focus, and …
intention … of where they wanted us to go and what they wanted us
to learn”. Eskil notes “I chose these courses because of the contrast
of those approaches … the chronology was kind of right to me. To
first learn about the properties and then trying to implement it in
some way that I felt was interesting or trying something new.”
CHOICE OF COURSE
Marius remembers being forewarned not to expect many students
in a research-oriented studio, but it turned out that they had many
more applicants than the 15 they could accommodate. He suggests
this “combination of research orientation in the form of a traditional
and very ambitious studio course, it was looked upon … as a very
attractive solution for a course.”
The students had many different reasons for choosing the courses,
one of which was the course leaders´ personalities and fields
of interest. Ona stated directly “in truth I chose it because of the
teachers. I just wanted to have Marius as my teacher”, adding she
would have taken Børre´s course “regardless of what he was teach-
ing”, although it also seemed “incredibly interesting”. Eskil agreed,
“I think that is quite important when choosing a course … who is
going to teach you … for a whole semester”. In a subsequent inter-
view with Marius he responded to this, saying “you can make the
world’s best course descriptions, but you will not get students unless
you build a reputation for being a teacher who is present and able to
communicate in ways that are understandable and inspiring.”
Marte raises the sustainability aspect as one of her reasons, cit-
ing Marius as one of the main professors tackling sustainability.
Interestingly wood plays a lesser role in the student´s choice of
course than learning principles of materials, detailing and construc-
tion. Even noted that he chose the course “to learn a little bit about
detailing actually … so it wasn’t really about the wood thing”. Eskil
commented that he was interested in learning about the properties
of wood and how that affected the detailing and the final look of
the buildings, but “I’m not just interested in wood. I’m not a wood
person. So I like to separate the wood and the course a bit. Because
when it comes down to it, it’s all about architecture to me.”
Shohreh sums up these complex and varied reasons “I felt like the
Figure 2. Exploring wood to wood connections: Wooden Joinery House,
Kamilla Kristiansen. Spring 2015 “Forest-Wood-Building”.
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has been running
since 2004. The programme is led by engineer and architect Yves
Weinand, and displays a strong connection between the architec-
ture and technical and technological issues. The studio is described
as having an “objective to develop constructive skills and reason-
ing that actively participates in the elaboration of the architectural
project and which fosters its qualities.”3 The Wood in Research And
Teaching programme at the Technical University of Munich (TUM),
headed by timber enthusiast Hermann Kaufmann, has the ambi-
tion to “strengthen the use of timber as a construction material,
and to intensify its contribution to a responsible use of available
resources.”4 There is a strong focus towards interdisciplinary teach-
ing with experts from science, architecture, forestry, the wood
industry and construction practice. These courses share an ambition
to use general architectural projects as the basis to explore the tech-
nical and constructional properties of timber.
In contrast, the following two programs investigate timber in a
more concentrated method, resulting in 1:1 built prototypes. The
Gramazio and Kohler Research Group at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). The group´s focus is primarily
researching methods of fabrication and robotics in structures,
examining “the changes in architectural production that result
from introducing digital manufacturing techniques.”5 Although
not focused primarily on the teaching of timber, they are interest-
ing to review as their built prototypes have a tendency to use wood
as the main construction material. The Wood Programme at Aalto
University in Helsinki is a year-long design-and-build programme
with a focus towards the structural principles of complex geometries
in wood, ending up with an “experimental wooden building.”6
The Urban Timber programme at AHO was introduced in autumn
2013, as a key part of The Wood Be Better research project, an inter-
disciplinary project with the primary focus of increasing the use of
wood in urban areas in Norway. Five work packages were set out in
the original project plan, with work package 2 titled Design-based
research. This introduced the use of masters level studio courses at
the Architecture School in Oslo as laboratories exploring the effects
of wood application on the functional, technical and architectural
quality of whole buildings and areas. The ambition was to utilise
the core competence of architects, whilst producing a depth and
breadth of results not possible in ordinary research because it is too
expensive or too slow.
THE INTERVIEWS
The interviews that form the basis for this article were undertaken
in March 2016. The interview subjects were chosen for their par-
ticular involvement in the project and to give a variety of voices
to the research. As the total number of teachers and researchers
numbered only five it was possible to interview all. The five student
interviewees were selected from a total of 75 based on the contri-
bution of their projects to the research project. All the participants
were familiar to the author, who had joined the WBB research proj-
ect in August 2015 as project coordinator and teaching assistant. It
was anticipated that this familiarity would encourage honest and
open participation. A set of 15-20 questions, adapted to each inter-
viewee, was prepared by the author and used as a guide during the
interviews. They were not sent out prior to the interviews to encour-
age a more intuitive and explorative dialogue. The author observes
that these students represented only three of the six urban timber
courses. At the time of interviewing they had recently graduated
from AHO (January 2016) enabling a reflection and openness per-
haps not available from continuing students. The author notes that
all the student interviewees chose to continue with the project and
course leaders after concluding their studios, either through their
choice of diploma supervisor or working environment, indicating an
inherent bias in their answers.
COURSE INTENTIONS
The introduction of a set of master courses as laboratories within
the research project built on the unique position of the architecture
environment at the centre of the interdisciplinary research group.
The ambition was to realistically test the research and assess its
impact on practical work by illustrating the industrial and architec-
tural potential of the new constructions and new methods in timber
in the designs for whole projects. Through the master studios, the
students could produce many and varied project examples, show-
ing detailed timber solutions integrated into complete, complex and
holistic architectural designs, something not possible in traditional
research projects where the researchers are too expensive and too
few. Børre Skodvin, course leader of the spring semesters, remem-
bered, “it was thought that if we could give the students this kind
of access to the research front, the latest knowledge… and just see
Figure 1. Studio as laboratory: Photographs of students from the autumn
2014 course in “Adaptable Urban Timber Building”.
This article was presented to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture conference 2016 and is being
adapted for the autumn edition of NORDIC: journal of architecture. It investigates six consecutive masters studio
courses integrated within the Wood Be Better research project. The studios taught architecture and sustainability
through in-depth investigations into new timber solutions applied to complex urban design tasks. The courses
were established on the hypothesis that masters studios could act as research laboratories and make a valuable
contribution to architectural research and the development of new solutions integrated into whole projects.
Above: Teaching Timber article page 1, ACSA conference, July 2016 Above: Teaching Timber article pages 2 & 3, ACSA conference, July 2016

20 21
three first years [at AHO], they weren’t so detailed. And not so
focused on environment and how to use construction as a positive
thing, so I wanted to really dig into details and understand construc-
tion and how to use wood as well. Because I think we have a great
opportunity in Norway to use wood. And it’s lacking a lot because
we don’t know so much as we should, especially in big buildings.”
FROM CONCEPT TO DETAIL
The shared ambition of the two courses was to carry ideas all the
way from concept to detailed designs and make drawings that
resemble working drawings. Marius notes “I think we quickly saw
that there were coming rather good projects with a level of detail
that was not usual at the school”. Børre added that they “brought to
light some interesting discussions”, in particular dealing with archi-
tectural possibilities of the exterior shell. Ute noted this as one of
the main advantages of these courses, but emphasised the need to
consider both the concept and material together from the beginning
to “create a much stronger solution”. It was sometimes challenging
to work from the concept to detail level in one semester. Marius
comments “we have to lift the students’ competence in wood tech-
nology very quickly, and we have to use a lot of time for that” adding
that he would like to “meet the students on a more advanced level
… and then work more balanced with the technical and architec-
tural solutions.” Ona experienced it took too long “finding the right
architectural expression”, which limited how much her research into
timber could be integrated within her design. Conversely, Marte
found the course “quite well-organised” and noted that “the detail-
ing phase is where I thrive”. Even adds “we started designing the
details really early actually, and that was a really nice experience to
develop them alongside the plans and sections while we were still
figuring out how everything was going to look… I’ve never made
a project that was that holistic where we thought about most of
everything from the structure to the design to the city plan to the
details. I’m really happy that we got as far as we did.”
Shohreh notes “I remember when … I studied [Sverre] Fehn’s archi-
tecture, and I was kind of falling into this dreamy, poetic world, but
then I realised the poetic part is actually in Fehn’s details, … and how
the materials meet each other so precisely, and if he hadn’t that
Figure 3. From concept to detail: Nordregate 20/22, Ingrid Engøy Henriksen
and Katrine Hamre Sørlie. Autumn 2014 “Adaptable Urban Timber Building”.
detail knowledge, I don’t think his poetry or his story would have
come out as professionally as it has come out. So, I think that’s why
there should also be a focus on details at school, to really bring out
the story and bring out the poetry in the architecture.”
WHEN IS TIMBER APPROPRIATE?
In designing and planning the courses there was an aspiration to
use the focus of investigating timber as a construction material, as
a tool to teach architecture at the level of a masters studio, whilst
also exploring the materials versatility in an urban context. As Børre
emphasised, the main focus was in the pursuit of the best possible
architectural project, despite being a timber course. Ute explained
“it was quite important to say, it doesn´t have to be timber in any
case, but to see where it is good”. Lars and Børre highlighted that
this was a potential problem with this type of course “you could
imagine … that you could have a type of material racism, where you
have a preference for a particular material, which was unreflective
and which didn’t really consider if the material was appropriate”.
Eskil remembers “what I learned during this course was that the hard
question is - when is timber appropriate?”
INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCE
One of the main benefits of the research-oriented course was
the access to very highly skilled and knowledgeable people. The
students were given up-to-date input early in the courses on the
principal properties of timber, the production of forest, different
constructions and the qualities of timber cladding. They had visits
from highly profiled architects with experience in the field; as well
as biologists, acoustic, fire and structural engineers from within
the research consortium; and producers of timber products. Børre
described this as similar to “having a laboratory with very nice tools
and a very good technician”. Jan describes the advantages and chal-
lenges of “bringing [the students] up to date with the current state
of technology” and “in touch with what´s going on in the world“ in
a way that “doesn’t overburden them with information.” Eskil notes
that he found it interesting to talk to “non-architect people” and
“understand more of what is going on out there”. Børre reflects on
studio discussions around unsolved problems amid these experts,
“I will expect that gives you a feeling as a student, that you know
something that not everybody out there will be aware of. It will give
you an edge, and … shows you that no material, however well-known
or well-studied, is ever finally completely exhausted as an object of
study.” Marius reports “when we have had people from the indus-
try in the studio, they are very positive and they are very impressed
by the level of knowledge achieved by the students”, and reflects
on the potential for architects to work more closely with industry in
the future, developing building systems to enable them to be more
adaptable for different types of applications.
The interdisciplinary element of the research played a part in one
particular masters project, where a student of engineering at NMBU
and a group of architectural students at AHO worked together to
research and test the capacity of cross-laminated timber walls used
Figure 4. Exploring alternative constructions in CLT: 9 IN WOOD, Eskil Frøyen
Nybø. Spring 2015 “Forest-Wood-Building”.
6 New Trajectories in Academia: Contested Settlements Cross-AmTeaching Timber: The role of studio courses and architectural students within an interdisciplinary research project
as large cantilevered beams in a typical housing project.
STUDY TRIPS
Study trips were a key contribution to each of the courses, with visits
to Finland, Japan, Ireland and the alpine regions of Austria, Germany
and Switzerland. The study trips enabled the students to experi-
ence first-hand built examples of both traditional and contemporary
architectural projects, from countries with a long-standing timber
culture and an advanced knowledge of detailing and technical devel-
opment. In addition the students could learn about the technical
processes from visits to CNC factories and timber module produc-
tion sites. Reflecting on the Japan trip Lars observed “just being able
to see it and touch it makes you able to try to reverse engineer it
and think of how you could achieve this at home, and it’s definitely
possible.”
CONTRIBUTION TO RESEARCH
The main contribution of the studio courses to the WBB research
are the many and varied student projects exploring timber as a main
building material in different urban scenarios in Oslo. As Eskil noted
the studios have created “a huge selection of works” and a valu-
able resource. The projects illustrate the link between designs on
an urban level, building and detailed level, showing as Ute reported
“the different aspects that we are interested in, but combined into a
real product, because you can look at isolated aspects but they really
only make sense when they are combined into a meaningful whole.”
Shohreh thought that the freedom to experiment within the project
tasks added value to this contribution “because we were so free in
doing what we wanted, but still have this very constructive line of -
How do we actually do it? Is it manageable, or is it just a drawing?”
ADDITIONAL PERCEIVED VALUE
All the interviewees were asked to reflect on the overall value of
these master courses. The student responses emphasise contribu-
tions noted earlier in the article. Marte mentions “the possibility
to contribute and influence” this new field and the “cooperation
across disciplines, which really was helpful and inspiring for our
professional career afterwards.” Shohreh reflected on the value of
these types of courses to the “students’ variety of knowledge” and
“because we are architects, and at the end, we are going to build
our buildings.” Jan comments that “organising a studio around real-
world problems has the potential to give the students the feeling
that their ideas, their exercises, their efforts are really capable of
influencing the world.”
Børre emphasised the embedding of knowledge and interest in
timber as a building material to the students, which “in a small coun-
try like Norway … is a very efficient seedbed” adding “it’s kind of a
future yield, a little bit like in the forest. You plant the seed and you
wait for a generation, and maybe you get a nice tree.” Marte and
Even agreed that they would like to continue working with wood as
a construction material, which Ona observed would “shift industry
in the long run”. Shohreh had already influenced an architect to con-
sider the use of timber instead of brick on a façade. Eskil concluded
“what better way to introdu
the new students? Because
be architects in the future. S
architects out there, you kin
to walk.”
Marius reflects on the value
has had a rather dramatic e
a new permanent area for t
further cooperation with ind
made projects to a level of d
they need to develop new p
about the implications on th
at AHO, and the potential t
we have a talent” adding “i
you know, - Who are you g
ber department at AHO, be
knows.”
DISCUSSION
During a follow up interview
reflected on the results of t
course intentions. He partic
that the students put on the
that “as a teacher, it´s impor
He also reflected on the ne
of the students of embracin
plicity. He highlighted the im
a feeling of mastery of the
world projects, whilst at the
and an overview from which
tion of their own architectu
think it’s very important to m
to what can be the sources a
but at the same time build a
showing how these inspirati
sustainable architectural sol
ENDNOTES
1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
Synthesis Report. Contribution
Assessment Report of the IPCC
2. Increased use of wood in urban
Architecture and Design respon
3. Design Studio Weinand, Labora
epfl.ch/page-10904-en.html
4. TUM.wood - Wood in Research
http://www.wood.tum.de/inde
5. Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH
web/e/about/index.html
6. Wood Program in Architecture
Design and Architecture. http:/
Figure 5. From concept to detail: A building kit in wood, Eskil Frøyen Nybø
and Even Småkasin, autumn 2014 “Adaptable Urban Timber Building”.
5New Trajectories in Academia: Contested Settlements Cross-Americas: Probing Disglobal NetworksTeaching Timber: The role of studio courses and architectural students within an interdisciplinary research project
so detailed. And not so
construction as a positive
and understand construc-
se I think we have a great
it’s lacking a lot because
ecially in big buildings.”
was to carry ideas all the
and make drawings that
s “I think we quickly saw
ects with a level of detail
ded that they “brought to
ticular dealing with archi-
. Ute noted this as one of
t emphasised the need to
gether from the beginning
as sometimes challenging
to work from the concept to detail level in one semester. Marius
comments “we have to lift the students’ competence in wood tech-
nology very quickly, and we have to use a lot of time for that” adding
that he would like to “meet the students on a more advanced level
… and then work more balanced with the technical and architec-
tural solutions.” Ona experienced it took too long “finding the right
architectural expression”, which limited how much her research into
timber could be integrated within her design. Conversely, Marte
found the course “quite well-organised” and noted that “the detail-
ing phase is where I thrive”. Even adds “we started designing the
details really early actually, and that was a really nice experience to
develop them alongside the plans and sections while we were still
figuring out how everything was going to look… I’ve never made
a project that was that holistic where we thought about most of
everything from the structure to the design to the city plan to the
details. I’m really happy that we got as far as we did.”
Shohreh notes “I remember when … I studied [Sverre] Fehn’s archi-
tecture, and I was kind of falling into this dreamy, poetic world, but
then I realised the poetic part is actually in Fehn’s details, … and how
the materials meet each other so precisely, and if he hadn’t that
/22, Ingrid Engøy Henriksen
able Urban Timber Building”.
detail knowledge, I don’t think his poetry or his story would have
come out as professionally as it has come out. So, I think that’s why
there should also be a focus on details at school, to really bring out
the story and bring out the poetry in the architecture.”
WHEN IS TIMBER APPROPRIATE?
In designing and planning the courses there was an aspiration to
use the focus of investigating timber as a construction material, as
a tool to teach architecture at the level of a masters studio, whilst
also exploring the materials versatility in an urban context. As Børre
emphasised, the main focus was in the pursuit of the best possible
architectural project, despite being a timber course. Ute explained
“it was quite important to say, it doesn´t have to be timber in any
case, but to see where it is good”. Lars and Børre highlighted that
this was a potential problem with this type of course “you could
imagine … that you could have a type of material racism, where you
have a preference for a particular material, which was unreflective
and which didn’t really consider if the material was appropriate”.
Eskil remembers “what I learned during this course was that the hard
question is - when is timber appropriate?”
INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCE
One of the main benefits of the research-oriented course was
the access to very highly skilled and knowledgeable people. The
students were given up-to-date input early in the courses on the
principal properties of timber, the production of forest, different
constructions and the qualities of timber cladding. They had visits
from highly profiled architects with experience in the field; as well
as biologists, acoustic, fire and structural engineers from within
the research consortium; and producers of timber products. Børre
described this as similar to “having a laboratory with very nice tools
and a very good technician”. Jan describes the advantages and chal-
lenges of “bringing [the students] up to date with the current state
of technology” and “in touch with what´s going on in the world“ in
a way that “doesn’t overburden them with information.” Eskil notes
that he found it interesting to talk to “non-architect people” and
“understand more of what is going on out there”. Børre reflects on
studio discussions around unsolved problems amid these experts,
“I will expect that gives you a feeling as a student, that you know
something that not everybody out there will be aware of. It will give
you an edge, and … shows you that no material, however well-known
or well-studied, is ever finally completely exhausted as an object of
study.” Marius reports “when we have had people from the indus-
try in the studio, they are very positive and they are very impressed
by the level of knowledge achieved by the students”, and reflects
on the potential for architects to work more closely with industry in
the future, developing building systems to enable them to be more
adaptable for different types of applications.
The interdisciplinary element of the research played a part in one
particular masters project, where a student of engineering at NMBU
and a group of architectural students at AHO worked together to
research and test the capacity of cross-laminated timber walls used
Figure 4. Exploring alternative constructions in CLT: 9 IN WOOD, Eskil Frøyen
Nybø. Spring 2015 “Forest-Wood-Building”.
as large cantilevered beams in a typical housing project.
STUDY TRIPS
Study trips were a key contribution to each of the courses, with visits
to Finland, Japan, Ireland and the alpine regions of Austria, Germany
and Switzerland. The study trips enabled the students to experi-
ence first-hand built examples of both traditional and contemporary
architectural projects, from countries with a long-standing timber
culture and an advanced knowledge of detailing and technical devel-
opment. In addition the students could learn about the technical
processes from visits to CNC factories and timber module produc-
tion sites. Reflecting on the Japan trip Lars observed “just being able
to see it and touch it makes you able to try to reverse engineer it
and think of how you could achieve this at home, and it’s definitely
possible.”
CONTRIBUTION TO RESEARCH
The main contribution of the studio courses to the WBB research
are the many and varied student projects exploring timber as a main
building material in different urban scenarios in Oslo. As Eskil noted
the studios have created “a huge selection of works” and a valu-
able resource. The projects illustrate the link between designs on
an urban level, building and detailed level, showing as Ute reported
“the different aspects that we are interested in, but combined into a
real product, because you can look at isolated aspects but they really
only make sense when they are combined into a meaningful whole.”
Shohreh thought that the freedom to experiment within the project
tasks added value to this contribution “because we were so free in
doing what we wanted, but still have this very constructive line of -
How do we actually do it? Is it manageable, or is it just a drawing?”
ADDITIONAL PERCEIVED VALUE
All the interviewees were asked to reflect on the overall value of
these master courses. The student responses emphasise contribu-
tions noted earlier in the article. Marte mentions “the possibility
to contribute and influence” this new field and the “cooperation
across disciplines, which really was helpful and inspiring for our
professional career afterwards.” Shohreh reflected on the value of
these types of courses to the “students’ variety of knowledge” and
“because we are architects, and at the end, we are going to build
our buildings.” Jan comments that “organising a studio around real-
world problems has the potential to give the students the feeling
that their ideas, their exercises, their efforts are really capable of
influencing the world.”
Børre emphasised the embedding of knowledge and interest in
timber as a building material to the students, which “in a small coun-
try like Norway … is a very efficient seedbed” adding “it’s kind of a
future yield, a little bit like in the forest. You plant the seed and you
wait for a generation, and maybe you get a nice tree.” Marte and
Even agreed that they would like to continue working with wood as
a construction material, which Ona observed would “shift industry
in the long run”. Shohreh had already influenced an architect to con-
sider the use of timber instead of brick on a façade. Eskil concluded
“what better way to introduce wood into architecture than to teach
the new students? Because we are the generation that is going to
be architects in the future. So instead of convincing the established
architects out there, you kind of go in early. Like, teaching kids how
to walk.”
Marius reflects on the value to the architectural school, “I think it
has had a rather dramatic effect … because it actually has created
a new permanent area for teaching… And it creates a platform for
further cooperation with industry because they see that we … have
made projects to a level of detail … which approaches the level that
they need to develop new products.” Børre was similarly excited
about the implications on the teaching and research environment
at AHO, and the potential to become experts in a field “for which
we have a talent” adding “it would be precisely this kind of place,
you know, - Who are you going to call? - Well, we’ll call the tim-
ber department at AHO, because if they don’t know, then nobody
knows.”
DISCUSSION
During a follow up interview with project leader Marius Nygaard, he
reflected on the results of these interviews in light of the original
course intentions. He particularly noted his surprise at the weight
that the students put on the teachers in the choice of course, adding
that “as a teacher, it´s important to have that in mind.”
He also reflected on the need to keep up the ambitions on behalf
of the students of embracing complexity instead of artificial sim-
plicity. He highlighted the importance of giving the students both
a feeling of mastery of the intricacies and the complexity of real-
world projects, whilst at the same time enabling a level of control
and an overview from which they can steer the process in a direc-
tion of their own architectural identity. He concluded by saying “I
think it’s very important to maintain an open attitude when it comes
to what can be the sources and inspirations of architectural design,
but at the same time build a competence in discussing, arguing and
showing how these inspirations can be developed into sensible and
sustainable architectural solutions.”
ENDNOTES
1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC, 2007.
2. Increased use of wood in urban areas - WOOD/BE/BETTER: Oslo School of
Architecture and Design response to the Call for Proposals. 2012
3. Design Studio Weinand, Laboratory for Timber Constructions, IBOIS. http://ibois.
epfl.ch/page-10904-en.html
4. TUM.wood - Wood in Research and Teaching, Technical University of Munich.
http://www.wood.tum.de/index.php?id=5&L=1
5. Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich. http://gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/
web/e/about/index.html
6. Wood Program in Architecture and Design, Aalto University School of Arts,
Design and Architecture. http://woodprogram.fi/introduction/
Figure 5. From concept to detail: A building kit in wood, Eskil Frøyen Nybø
and Even Småkasin, autumn 2014 “Adaptable Urban Timber Building”.
Above: Teaching Timber article pages 4 & 5, ACSA conference, July 2016 Above: Teaching Timber article pages 6 & 7, ACSA conference, July 2016

22 23
COLSTON´S GIRLS´ SCHOOL
Project architect, Walters and Cohen
Colston’s Girls’ School was built under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) framework agreement between
Bristol City Council and Skanska. The project brief was to refurbish and provide new buildings so that the school
could double the number of students. The existing buildings were in varying conditions of use and included the
original school building from 1897, considered a building of national historical significance. The new departmental
organisation of the classrooms was developed through intensive consultation meetings with staff and students.
This resulted in a complete refurbishment of the existing buildings to provide state-of-the-art teaching rooms with
integrated servicing, improved accessibility and environmental performance.
Two new buildings were also constructed. A new visual and performing arts centre provides a new ‘statement’
student entrance as well as community facilities. The facade treatment and materiality of this building was careful-
ly composed to respect the original school building, but to retain its own modern identity. The new music pavilion
sits on the cusp of a dramatic level change providing a link to the lower courts and the use of an accessible roof
terrace.The new buildings and the external areas create a student focus to the school and openness to the com-
munity, which were both previously missing. Three artists were involved in the design: the school crest engraved
in the brick facade; the windows at street level; and on three walls located throughout the campus. These add
cohesion, vibrancy and identity to the finished school.
Above: Elevation analysis of the street frontage running from the original school building on the left to the new arts building centre right.Above: Photograph of the conpleted project with a view from the original building opened in 1897 to the new arts building down the street.

24 25
Above: Photograph of the completed new arts building and school entranceAbove: Detailed drawings of the brick facade to the arts building showing continued brick treatment at windows and parapets

26 27
Above: Photograph of the completed new arts building showing the final window complete with Sabine Hornig´s final artwork appliedAbove: Detailed elevation of new arts building showing artist Sabine Hornig´s design for a screenprint applied to the windows

28 29
CHICHESTER FESTIVAL THEATRE
Architect and sustainability advisor, Haworth Tompkins
The major restoration and renewal of the Grade 2* listed Chichester Festival Theatre incorporates a carefully
remodeled auditorium, bigger foyer spaces, an improved parkland setting and a new back of house extension.
Originally designed as a ‘pavilion in the park’ summer festival venue by the distinguished British architects Powell
and Moya, the innovative open stage auditorium was the UK’s first thrust stage performance space, seating over
1300 people. The theatre’s dramatic, cantilevering concrete structure and lightweight cable-tied roof remain bold
architectural statements, but successive piecemeal extensions and alterations since the 1970s had gradually
reduced the clarity and legibility of the original concept. The approach was to restore the parkland setting, clear
away all the non-original structures, enlarge the foyer with two new cafe/bar extensions and re-house the back of
house facilities within a new extension, complementing Powell and Moya’s rough concrete with an equally dramat-
ic facade of Cor-Ten weathering steel. The project is an example in understanding and strengthening the unique
character of a landmark building, whilst improving its environmental and functional performance in order to sustain
its function as an important cultural building.
Above: Photograph of the completed project
Below: Photograph of the original theatre opened in 1962Above: Plan of the proposed refurbishment to the auditorium, cafe wings and new back of house extension

30 31
Above: Detailed drawings of the new balustrades in the auditorium inspired from the original design
Above: Sectional perspective through the entrance foyer, auditorium and new back of house extension
Below: Photographs of the completed project from the entrance foyer

32 33
Above: Photograph of the completed project from the refurbished auditorium
Below: Rendered image of the proposed auditoriumAbove: Detailed drawings of the new raised upper tier in the auditorium, with hidden integrated ventilation and services

34 35
MOTORCYCLE SHOWROOMS
Catherine Sunter and The Motorcycle Showroom cooperative
Plans to restore and re-develop the former 1950’s car showroom began in January 2010. The brief was to
gradually transform the existing building to house two gallery/venue spaces for projects, events and exhibitions,
a workshop for public educational services, affordable studio spaces for arts practitioners and a managed desk
area. The aim was to provide a hub of creative production as well as a vibrant cultural destination. The facilities
were designed to ensure that The Motorcycle Showroom could develop a dynamic and integrated service; enrich-
ing the cultural landscape of the city as well as providing a resource to it’s surrounding communities. The intention
was to create a self sustaining economy by the programming of a diverse selection of events, exhibitions and
services and initiate new channels of dialogue between artists, specialists, public and local stakeholders in a time
of austerity in the arts.
This project was founded on an open and collaborative dialogue between the architect and artist cooperative.
The challenge was to physically realise the cooperative´s ambition for integration, collaboration and connectivity
between the various spaces, whilst retaining the character of the original building and complying with fire escape
regulations. The tight budget required additional creativity in respect to the phasing, self-build construction and
use of materials. The project is an exploration into how architects can assist in community led projects on a low
budget that add to the vibrancy and diversity of an area in the process of regeneration.
STUDIO
OPEN DESKS / SOCIAL SPACE
OPEN
WORKSHOP
GALLERY 2 GALLERY 1
TECHNICAL
WORKSHOP
WC STREET
STUDIO STUDIO
TERRACE
OPEN
WORKSHOP
URBAN
PARK
EVENTS BAR
STREET
STUDIOOFFICE
STUDIO
TECHNICAL
WORKSHOP
STUDIOOFFICE
EVENTS
BAR
STUDIO
GALLERY 2
URBAN
PARK
STUDIO
Above: Photographs of the existing building as it was inhabited by the artist cooperativeAbove: Sketch sections through the existing building showing potential physical and visual connections between functions

36 37
GALLERY OF BOTANICAL ART
Site architect, Walters and Cohen
G08 - Side gallery 3
G10 - Link gallery
G11 - Marianne North Gallery lobby
G12 - Toilet
G13 - Toilet
G14 - Service yard lobby
G01 - Main entrance lobby
G02 - Circulation
G03 - Reception and sales
G04 - Gallery interpretation
G05 - Main gallery
The new Gallery of Botanical Art is located within the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew. The gallery was designed
to make the unique and extensive collection of botanical art and artefacts widely accessible to the visiting public
and improve the access and connection to the Marianne North Gallery. The gallery is located in a vulnerable
and culturally important site. The aim from the outset was to minimse its impact on the existing landscape and to
respect the 19th century Marianne North Gallery whilst enhancing the visitor’s experience of this beautiful part of
the gardens. The new gallery pavilion has been carefully inserted between two significant TROBI (Tree Register
of the British Isles) trees. The scale and proportion of the gallery is driven by the architectural language of the
adjacent building. The full-height glazing on two facades is designed to give the gallery visitors a strong connec-
tion back to the gardens. Careful detailing of a triple glazed system with ventilated cavity and integrated blinds
protects against glare and overheating.
Above: Plan drawing of the new gallery and connection to the existing Marianne North GalleryAbove: Photograph of completed project viewed from the within the gardens

38 39
Above: Detailed drawing of the triple glazed ventilated cavity with integrated blindsAbove: Photographs of the completed project ahowing the full height glazing internally and externally

40 41
HALLSVILLE QUARTER
Architect and sustainability advisor, Haworth Tompkins
Hallsville Quarter is a major mixed-use regeneration project forming part of the Canning Town and Custom House
Regeneration Programme. The project comprises a supermarket at ground level with 179 new homes above, or-
ganised around the perimeter of a 4000 sqm communal landscaped garden. A mix of one bedroom, two bedroom
and three bedroom properties are provided with private balconies and access to the communal garden. The scheme
includes a new Energy Centre to provide heating and hot water for the whole of the masterplan area. The project
is designed to strict requirements: London Housing Design Guide, Lifetime Homes, Secured by Design, BREEAM
Excellent and Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. The project explores the potential to create well designed,
sustainable housing in a large scale urban renewal project. The communal garden creates a shared and defensible
neighbourhood space, enlivened by apartment balconies facing onto it. Materials are specified from sustainable
sources, including the use of concrete with a high recycled content, in order to achieve the high assessment scores.
Above: Aerial view of the proposed Canning Town and Custom House regeneration project, Hallsville Quarter located bottom right
Above: Photograph of the completed project from the communal garden
Below: Rendered image over the communal garden

42 43
Above: Photographs of the completed project showing the modulated brick facade and projecting balconies Above: Rendered facade drawing detailing recesses in brickwork, changes of material and projecting balconies

44 45
CONSORT ROAD HOUSING SCHEME
Architectural assistant, Walter Menteth Architects
Located within the Peckham regeneration zone this scheme of 49 dwellings combines a six storey shared
ownership block of apartments with ten family houses, rental flats and ground floor commercial units. The site
is noisy with a busy ‘A’ road to the south west and a railway viaduct to the north. An innovative superinsulated
thermal shell is combined with multi-storey conservatories to generate large and highly energy efficient dwellings.
The secondary glazing of the conservatories protects dwellings from the adverse effects of the traffic noise and
provides space to extend outwards the occupied area of the flats. On the Consort Road frontage these conserva-
tories are expressed as a sequence of bays and buttresses. Open walkways give access to the apartments in the
six storey block. These are partially screened by a polychromatic and semi-perforate rainscreen, which enlivens
this aspect and provides an area landmark. The project is designed to: London Housing Design Guide, Lifetime
Homes and Secured by Design. It is particularly innovative for being designed before sustainability was high on
the political agenda and Local Authorities began requiring BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes certifications.
Above: Full plan and elevation over the schemeAbove: Photograph of the completed project viewed from Consort Road showing the winter gardens and the glazed screen onto the walkways

46 47
Above: Photograph of the completed project showing the glazed and perforated screen facing the railtrackAbove: Detailed drawings of the walkways with curved and perforated glazed screen to the outer side

48 49
APPROPRIATING OSLO
Catherine Sunter, Daniel Asp, Giuseppe Panzella, Laura Camacho Salgado, Kongen Marina
This project explores the area in and around Shed 13, a former industrial warehouse planned for transformation
as part of the Oslo Fjord City urban renewal project. The project investigates the potential to empower citizens to
influence their urban environment through frameworks that enable informal appropriation of public spaces. The
project was organised as an ideas workshop between three architects (with specialisations in sustainability, engi-
neering and landscape), a culture and arts expert and two local business owners.
The final proposal contains a number of small-scale self-build interventions offering a range of activities that can
connect to local events throughout the year. The site is zoned into plots of land allocated to different interested
parties representing diverse sections of the community. These include: rock climbing, swap market, beach volley-
ball, community gardens, floating cinema, food trucks, bee-keeping and ice-skating. The project was presented to
the “Oslo Havnpromenaden” coordinator who highly commended the open, collaborative and community engaged
response.
Above: Sketch showing the proposed zoning of activities around the Shed
Below: Aerial photograph of the former industrial site showing Shed 13 in the centreAbove: Cultural timetable of events showing activities that the Shed can connect to throughout the year

50 51
Above: Sketches showing the proposed zoning of activities inside the ShedAbove: Photograph taken showing the existing condition inside Shed 13

52 53
EUROPAN ´15: RIPPLES INBETWEEN
Catherine Sunter, Daniel Asp, Giuseppe Panzella
SITE: FORUS, NORWAY
Forus is a car-dependant suburban area, built up of major roads, large scale buildings and open car parks. We
chose the site in order to answer the question “what happens after the oil is gone?” and investigate how to influ-
ence more sustainable and humanist growth in an area currently dominated by cars.
Our aim was to uncover and utilise the existing potential of the area, using small urban moves that would eventu-
ally enable natural urban growth. Our primary move was to remove all the cars from the open car parks and turn
them into parkland, injecting green throughout the area. Over time these plots of land could be sold and devel-
oped with a mix of housing, community facilities, and national attractions.
The aspiration was that sustainable forms of public transport could eventually replace the need for cars. During
this transition, the cars would be relocated to communal parking towers located within the centrally located devel-
opment site. This would become a transport interchange, connecting car owners with local transport, bicycles and
new pedestrian routes. This interchange creates the opportunity for people to meet and interact. Gradually, it can
begin to offer services to the new flows of people: a kindergarten, laundry, rentable office space, gym etc. These
would be accommodated beneath a floating green landscape roof, which doubles as a central parkland for the
community and a visual connection to the surrounding green areas and natural landscape.
Gradually the influence of these interventions will begin to spread to the “in between” areas beyond the original
site, through the introduction of food trucks and a farmers market to the north, pop-up structure and art installa-
tions at tram stops, and the development of tree-lined roads and cycle routes. Later, development of the freed up
parking spaces can begin, including a conference centre to the west, a science and research park, mini golf and
skate park, and housing (both temporary and permanent). Beyond this, natural urban growth can occur: old build-
ings replaced or refurbished, the transport interchange functions changed and the car parking towers dismantled
and relocated further out of the area.
Above: Landscape plan identifying open car parks transformed into green areas and the new transport interchange in the centre.Above: Image of the floating green roof and car parking towers. The thinner towers promote the use of smaller and more efficient cars.

54 55
Above: Exploratory sections through the transport interchange, showing how the floating green roof could be inhabited beneathAbove: Rendered aerial view over the transport interchange and its potential influence on adjacent areas

portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to portfolio

Similar to portfolio (20)

portfolio