This section details the generic names used for all of the different sources of information for NSP, this was done to protect the names of participants.
Table 7.1 - Participant Interviewees and Generic Codes
Interviewee Case study assigned code
Senior Architect NSP SA
Project Architect NSP PA
Project Manager NSP PM
Building Manager NSP BM
User NSP User (numbers will be used to identify which
user)
Documents NSP Doc (numbers will be used to identify which
document)
87
“No.1 Nottingham Science Park is your chance to think outside the traditional business park box. Not only a multi award-winning, green building, but an opportunity for pioneering, socially responsible, like-minded businesses to share and promote their products, research or technologies and contribute to future innovation.”(NSP Doc 1)
The developers are different to the normal speculative developer, in the fact that they are part owned by government. The developer created a new type of regeneration delivery vehicle in an attempt to show the industry that they could do it differently by taking a long term view: doing projects that the industry would not generally take on. However, the developer also recognises that it has taken a very different business model to do this. “The fund [investment fund that supports the developer] looks at this as a 10 year life so a lot longer than most companies. Most start-ups have to show returns very quickly otherwise the backers would not want to pump in any more money. Most business models do not look long term” (NSP PM). This implies that the developers are able to take more risks due to the long term model. Indeed the NSP PM went on to highlight that the lack of risk taking impedes innovation and adaptability: “Developers are disinclined to take risk” (NSP PM). It is suggested that developers tend to repeat what they have done in the past, when changes are implemented they are small and incremental. This could suggest that the risk adverse culture is acting as a barrier to designing adaptable buildings. Alternatively, it could be argued that if developers were to learn more about how their building changes over time, they could reduce some of the risk. This directly correlates with what Arge (2005) explores, with the number of adaptable features placed in a building in relation to the length of developer involvement. This change in mindset could be significant in improving the adaptability of buildings, but does not provide suggestions for how to improve the knowledge of what makes a building inherently adaptable.
Another strong principle or policy of the developer is to be sustainable: “[we] are passionate about great design and genuine sustainability” (NSP Doc 2). This is a message that is passed down to building managers through the sustainable investment policy (NSP Doc 3). This can be seen when the building manager states, “It [NSP] was very much designed to be a green building (NSP BM). There
88
The original brief called for a shallow plan building, with a storey height of between 2600mm – 2850mm and a total lettable size of 42,000 sq ft. The three main ideologies that covered the NSP from a client’s point of view were:
It had to be adaptable to allow many different sized companies to work within it and not be restrictive to a certain sized company;
It had to be ‘green’; and
It had to promote collaborative learning.
Figure 7.1 shows the design from the architects. The shape of the office was said to have been used to answer many of the ideologies set out in the brief: “By creating a Y or X shape plan, this becomes a flexibility issue. We had one reception and the developer wanted to sell the whole building to one person or one floor to one person or one small office space they wanted, so to do that you could not put the entrance at one end or the other. You had to put it at the very heart” (NSP SA). This quote shows that adaptability was very much at the forefront of the brief, and that the architect focussed the design around this.
In terms of accessibility, it is possible to see that the corridors all originate from the communal area in the centre of the building. Therefore it is possible to access any part of the building regardless of how it is configured across the shallow plan. All of the column points show an area where the building can be segregated into different offices. However this building was only set up to be split across the shallow plan. It would not be possible, in terms of access, lighting and services, to split it another way or produce very small offices. This is explored in detail in section 7.6.
89
of the site foot print. Figure 7.2 also shows the different ways in which the building can be split up:
the top right floor was completely open plan whereas the rest of the floors have been split up in a variety of different ways. This versatility in space is explored in detail in section 7.6.1.2.
90
should ultimately be very versatile in its allocation of space and services, and also be sustainable. As explored in 7.3.1 the central communal area plays a large role in this. This area includes all of the large meeting rooms, and a building management service that is available to all. It is clear that the building management service was envisaged as integral to the building by the developers: “A dedicated front of house ensures the smooth running of the building and that you are well looked after. They offer a flexible and wide range of services leaving you to spend more time doing the things you do best.” (NSP Doc 1). The services advertised include: mail handling, booking services for taxis/car hire/hotel rooms/couriers, and meeting room booking. This is different to many office buildings, where the main reception’s principal function is to handle telephone enquiries. The developers suggest that this is something that they have installed as a principle for all of their office projects as it has been identified as successful with high growth SME’s. It does mean that the service charges are relatively expensive, but it is a valued service for the users, as user 1 highlights: “the value of the concierge service might be down to the person, who is really good and really helpful, but they provide a good service for us, I think it has worked out really well” (NSP User 1). The quote suggests that this user is satisfied with the service, it also infers that this is due to the person running
91
High energy efficiency, reducing occupier costs
Brown roof for insulation and biodiversity
Near carbon neutral biomass woodchip heating system
Combined natural ventilation and adiabatic comfort cooling
Camouflaged, naturally ventilated, under croft parking
Optimised use of natural light
Recycled and sustainable building materials
Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS)
The sustainability of the building evidently appealed to companies within the building. User 2 when explaining why their company chose NSP, stated: “there is also the sustainability part of it as well.
The eco friendliness, which as a business is not a high priority, they are considerations, there are other things that come before that, but you do put them in the mix as well. As a building this pretty much ticked every single box, and this is why we chose it.” (NSP User 2). It could be suggested that the developer made the NSP more desirable with the use of sustainable features, which while not a priority, are taken into consideration in company decision making.
NSP BM highlighted the importance of collaborative working within the building. The building manager alluded to this achievement: “We have two companies in here that complement each other so well they have started to work together” (NSP BM). This was also reiterated by building user 1 when they described how they have done some business with another company within NSP: “one of the other companies, we talk to them quite a lot, we do business with them, do work with them, so that is quite nice.” (NSP User 1). This is important as the developers can now show that some of their principles are working, which in turn could add to the letting potential of the NSP.
Despite there being some collaboration within the building, the fact that two companies have obtained large parts of the space has limited the extent of this collaborative working environment. It could be said that this has had a negative effect on some of the smaller companies, as it meant that
92
suggested that if the building had been occupied by smaller companies, “There would have been an intranet for everyone to share, and exchange ideas and work but sometimes these things do not happen, nice idea, but economics and everything, meant that it did not happen” (NSP User 1). The economic climate has dictated that the developers let out a large proportion of the space to two large companies, despite the original vision of many smaller companies working together. Clearly some of their vision has not worked, and whilst there is some evidence of small companies working together, it is also clear that this principle is less likely to happen with larger companies. Ultimately the economic success of the project has been the most important driver with regards to the implementation stages of the project.
One principle that has been shown to work is the ability to provide flexible space, with the space now working for a multitude of different sized companies.