THE BENEFITS OF ARCHITECTURE IN MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Rod Glengarry, BArch Senior Associate, Beca Ltd. 21 Pitt Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand Abstract Motorways, pipe bridges, and buildings like water and waste water treatment plants are necessary ‘evils’ in our municipalities. Residents often used to complain that these structures were visual blots on the landscape, whilst recognizing their necessity. We now consciously consider our magnificent landscape and aesthetics of network utility buildings and structures by harnessing the skills of architects in the design of our municipal facilities. Architects work closely with engineers to ensure that the prosaic features needed for our facilities are blended with the environment or designed to stand out as a feature of the landscape without blowing the project budget. Sympathetically designed utility buildings and structures can be of considerable assistance when consulting with local residents and stakeholders. This presentation will show a range projects that demonstrate the benefits of Architecture in Municipal Facilities and Infrastructure. For example as you stand on an elevated lake front viewing deck, would you even know that you are on the roof of a water treatment plant? And if you made the effort to walk down to the lake side would you be impressed by the size and scale of the plant? Or as you drive down a motorway would you realise that the architects had engaged with local iwi to reflect the history of the area. Other such examples will be described in this presentation. Residents and visitors alike should now expect new municipal facilities to be beautifully executed while providing essential services

Key Words Collaboration, Infrastructure, Benefits, Architecture, Municipal

Introduction Engineer would be appointed first; for a water project the water Engineer would When we start to talk about this subject I be appointed first, and so on. think it best to understand what an Architect does compared to what an Engineer does. After that initial appointment, the Specialist Engineer recommends to his client what other  It’s been said that an Architect knows disciplines are required to complete the something about everything whereas an project. A Structural Engineer, a Fire Engineer knows everything about Engineer and a Building Services Engineer something. An Architect is a generalist, are usually appointed in most infrastructure an Engineer is a specialist. Engineers projects tend to be concerned with physical things  An Architect was traditionally only in and of themselves. Architects are more appointed if the project is highly visible to directly concerned with the human the public or the project is in some way interface with physical things. (1) controversial.  In NZ traditionally, when a municipal The benefits of Architecture in Infrastructure facility or an infrastructure project is projects are initiated the Specialist Engineer is appointed first. So, for our roading project  Improved communication of the design to the Civil Engineer is appointed first; for a all stakeholders including the project team waste water project the Waste Water

 Improved coordination of the key  The Architect co-ordinated the disciplines early in the project engineering disciplines  Improved Interpretation of community  The architect had direct contact with cultural values, particularly those of local Gisborne District Council representatives iwi  A successful visual outcome in an  A resolved and aesthetically pleasing industrial area. project design State Highway 20A to Auckland Airport I’m now going to show you four New Zealand  The architect is part of a project alliance. examples of infrastructure projects that Beca The Alliance members are NZ Transport have been involved in. I’ll also show you at Agency, Beca, Fletchers & Higgins the end of this presentation an international project that is an outstanding infrastructure  Local iwi consultation is led by N Z project where an Architect has collaborated Transport Agency closely with Engineers. It is also a personal  The urban design by the architects is favourite. strongly influenced by the iwi consultation State Highway 20 Pipe Bridge process  The architects interpret the local iwi  A linear design approach. concepts and incorporate them into built  The Structural & Water Engineering was form completed first  A Collaborative approach to the design.  The Architecture came after the Millau Viaduct, France Engineering Now, here is that project I mentioned in my  Collaboration between disciplines introduction. This is the Millau Viaduct in occurred very late in the project France. The Architect was Foster Architects,  Successful visual outcome and the Structural Engineer was Europe Taupo Water Treatment Plant Etudes Gecti.  The water engineer was engaged by Conclusion Taupo District Council on condition that I hope that I have demonstrated, -using the they had Architectural Support. projects that you have just seen, that  Early planning of plant areas was done by Architects do more than simply “dress up” the the water engineer in collaboration with engineering. the architect I believe that Architects bring the following  As the design progressed the architect benefits to projects : became more hands on in the design - improved coordination amongst the project process disciplines  The architect coordinated structure & fire - improved communication of the design engineering and building services amongst all stakeholders  The architect had direct contact with - improved interpretation of community Taupo District Council representatives cultural values, particularly those of local iwi  A satisfactory visual outcome on a The key concept to take away from this sensitive site while providing an essential presentation is that the benefits of asset with a public space. architecture in infrastructure projects are only  A Collaborative approach to the design. fully realised if the project team is collaborative in its approach. Gisborne Waste Water Treatment Plant Acknowledgements  The consultant commission was similar to the Taupo project Thanks to Taupo District Council, Gisborne District Council and New Zealand Transport  The project is located in an industrial sub- division. The location is not publicly Agency for allowing me to use their projects sensitive. in this presentation.

Taupo Water Treatment Plant photography by Dean Carruthers.

References 1) 101 Things I learned in Architecture School – Matthew Frederick 2) Foster Architects www.fosterandpartners.com 3) State Highway 20A to Airport www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/sh20a-to-airport/index.html

Appendices State Highway 20 Pipe Bridge Taupo Water Treatment Plant Gisborne Waste Water Treatment Plant State Highway 20A to Auckland Airport Millau Viaduct, France

Author Biography Rod Glengarry is a registered architect with over 30 years of experience. He is the son of a well known Gisborne architect, and after completing high school he gained his degree at the University of Auckland and became registered in 1983. Rod began his OE in London where worked on the restoration on Midland Bank's Head Office designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. After a six year stint in Sydney, he returned to New Zealand to further his career. He has experience with a wide variety of building types including public, commercial and industrial. His most recent work is on infrastructure projects of national importance including State Highway 20A and the Southern Corridor Improvements. Rod is currently a senior associate at Beca Architects in Auckland.

Rod Glengarry, Senior Associate, Beca Ltd 21 Pitt Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand [email protected]

STATE HIGHWAY 20 PIPE BRIDGE

PIPE BRIDGE

• A linear design approach • The Structural & Water Engineering was completed first • The Architecture came after the Engineering • Collaboration between disciplines occurred very late in the project • Successful visual outcome STATE HIGHWAY 20 PIPE BRIDGE TAUPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Drawing Plotted: 7/10/2011 2:12:49 p.m.

NORTH

N

TRUE

LAKE TERRACE

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

EXISTING FOOTPATH

TOP OF RETAINING WALL SHOWN DASHED

EXISTING FENCE LINE

ADJUSTED DRIVEWAY

NEW CONCRETE DRIVE NEW LANDSCAPING

NEW LANDSCAPING BOUNDARY

LINE OF 20m SET BACK FROM FORESHORE BOUNDARY

EDGE OF GRASS

EDGE OF GRASS

LINE OF EXISTING KERB EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE SLAB WITH PATTERN LINE OF FORESHORE LINE OF FORESHORE BOUNDARY BOUNDARY EDGE OF GRASS LAKE TAUPO

1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED 1 : 200 -2011_b jcy.rvt D:\Revit\ 6516378-A

Drawing Originator: Original Client: Project: Title: Discipline Design No. Scale (A1) Drawn TAUPO WATER SITE PLAN - PROPOSED 1 : 200 ARCHITECTURAL Dsg Verifier Reduced Drawing No. Rev. Scale (A3) Dwg Check TREATMENT PLANT No. Revision By Chk Appd Date Half A1 6516378-A-100 Document

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

• Taupo District Council engaged the water engineer on the condition that they had Architectural Support • Early planning of plant areas was done by the water engineer in collaboration with the architect • The architect became more hands on in the design process as the design progressed • The architect coordinated structure & fire engineering and building services • The architect had direct contact with Taupo District Council representatives • A satisfactory visual outcome on a sensitive site providing an essential asset with a public space • A collaborative approach to the design TAUPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT GISBORNE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

• The consultant commission was similar to the Taupo project • The project is located in an industrial sub-division. The location is not publicly sensitive. • The Architect co-ordinated the engineering disciplines • The architect had direct contact with Gisborne District Council representatives • A successful visual outcome in an industrial area. GISBORNE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT GISBORNE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

A B C D E F



 

        

   1 



  

    

                        2      



 3     

   HOLD       

         

 

4                                                                  

    



Upper Floor Plan Sectional Plan Drawn at RL5000 GISBORNE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

A B C D E F

IF1

AJ1 AJ1 AJ1

SM1 SM1 PC2 PC2 PC2

AL1 PC1 IN2 IN2

IN1 IN1 IN1 IN1 AJ1

South Elevation

4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4

GT1 HOLD GT1 IP1 GT1 IP1 GT1

PC1 GT1 GT1

GT1 GT1 GT2 PC1

PC1 PC1 PC4 AL1 AJ2 AJ2

PC4 PC4

East Elevation West Elevation EXTERNAL ELEMENTS

AJ1 IF1

F E D C B A AJ2 IP1

1P1 AL1 AL1 1P1

IF1 PC1 AL1

AJ1 AL2 PC2

SM1

PC3 PC1 GT1

PC4 PC1

AJ1 GT2

SM1

North Elevation AJ2 AL2 IN1

IN2 GISBORNE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Internal Gable End Elevation Screen Hall

Section Pre-Treatment Building

Section Entry Lobby STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT

• The architects are part of a project alliance. The Alliance members are NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), Beca, Fletchers & Higgins • Local iwi consultation is lead by the NZTA • The urban design by the architects is strongly influenced by the iwi consultation process • The architects interpret the local iwi concepts and incorporate them into built form • A collaborative approach to the design. STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT STATE HIGHWAY 20A TO AUCKLAND AIRPORT

Millau Viaduct

Millau, France 1993 - 2004

Bridges are often considered to belong to the realm of the engineer rather than that of the architect. But the architecture of infrastructure has a powerful impact on the environment and the Millau Viaduct, designed in close collaboration with structural engineers, illustrates how the architect can play an integral role in the design of bridges. It follows the Millennium Bridge over the River Thames in expressing a fascination with the relationship between function, technology and aesthetics in a graceful structural form.

Located in southern France, the bridge completes a hitherto missing link in the A75 autoroute from Clermont- Ferrand to Béziers across the Massif Central. The A75 now provides a direct, high-speed route from Paris to the Mediterranean coast and on to Barcelona. The bridge crosses the River Tarn, which runs through a spectacular gorge between two high plateaux. Interestingly, alternative readings of the topography suggested two possible structural approaches: to celebrate the act of crossing the river; or to articulate the challenge of spanning the 2.46 kilometres from one plateau to the other in the most economical and elegant manner. Although historically the river was the geological generator of the landscape, it is very narrow at this point, and so it was the second reading that suggested the most appropriate structural solution.

A cable-stayed, masted structure, the bridge is delicate, transparent, and has the optimum span between columns. Its construction broke several records: it has the highest pylons in the world, the highest road bridge deck in Europe, and it superceded the Eiffel Tower as the tallest structure in France. Each of its sections spans 342 metres and its piers range in height from 75 metres to 245 metres, with the masts rising a further 87 metres above the road deck. To accommodate the expansion and contraction of the concrete deck, each column splits into two thinner, more flexible columns below the roadway, forming an A-frame above deck level. The tapered form of the columns both expresses their structural loads and minimises their profile in elevation. Not only does this give the bridge a dramatic silhouette, but crucially, it also makes the minimum intervention in the landscape.

AwardsChicago Athenaeum International Architecture Award Staalbouwwedstrijd / Concours Construction Acier – Winner International category, IABSE (International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering) Outstanding Structure Award The Building Exchange (BEX) Award – Best Use of Architectural or Structural Design in a Regeneration Scheme, 2nd Place, Balthasar Neumann Prize – Commendation, Wallpaper Design Awards – Best New Public Building, ECCS European Award for Steel Structures RIBA Award D&AD Gold Award – Millau Viaduct Travel + Leisure Design Award for Best Infrastructure Singapore Construction Excellence Award - Civil Category,

Location: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.07841,3.02268 Height: 270 m