ELLE THOMPSON
WRITING
Throughout my studies and into practice, I have found great enjoyment in the written discourse of architecture. During this time I have particularly enjoyed the analysis of a place or building, the comparison of complementary and contrasting built form, and reflecting on the profession more broadly. Most recently this has included my MArch dissertation, Press & Profession, which appraised the impact of the architectural press on the profession of architecture.
Further examples of my written work, including guest contributions to publications such as the RIBA Journal, can be seen below.
Architects’ views from the shop floor / RIBA Journal Feb 2023
RIBAJ/Future Architects 2023 writing competition
Shortlisted Entry
RIBA Part 2 Dissertation / Sheffield School of Architecture / (Supervisor) Satwinder Samra / Completed November 2021
'Think Like An Architect' Book Review / November 2020 / RIBA Journal Online
BArch Humanities Essay / January 2019
BArch Urban Design Theory Essay / January 2019
Various
WORKING CULTURES
RIBA Journal February 2023
RIBAJ Online
Architects’ views from the shop floor: Elle Thompson reports on the office cultures of three Part 2 architectural assistants and presses the case for the all-round benefits of open, engaged workplaces
Available here
PUBLIC EDGE
RIBAJ/Future Architects writing competition
Shortlisted Entry
April / May 2023
CAN PUBLIC-FACING PREMISES GIVE THE PROFESSION A CRITICAL EDGE
Once upon a time a top an ivory tower sat the profession of architecture in the eyes of society. Plagued with an alleged disconnect from the general public - a claim which has clung to the architect, from public sector employee to privatised role - the profession has long sought to assert its grounding.
For new practices forming in the swathes of social, economic and environmental crises, this has seen an establishment with a committed social agenda. For recognisable names on the block, a timely curation of who they are and what they do is the means to remaining relevant. For both, the question of how the contemporary, post-pandemic, in-the-thick-of-climate-crisis practice occupies space, is of equal value.
As our understanding of a workplace continues to mould around ‘new’ patterns of life, a subtle shift in practices trading inner city loft and basements conversions for public-facing premises in surrounding communities emerges.
Albeit taking the metaphorical ‘grounding’ to reality, there is something to be said for how opting for such spaces relates to the current wave of criticism, questioning the profession's ability to serve the public and deliver successful places.
In occupying a piece of - often dilapidated - high street or community commerce, the opportunities to learn from the experience of engaging with local people and contributing to a place, are there to grasp.
The following practices provide examples of architecture meeting the public edge.
Studio Shapeshifting
Three miles southwest of Manchester, Chorlton-cum-Hardy is the suburb home to RIBA ‘Future Winners’ Editional Studio. For directors Jo Sharples and Jack Richards, their conversion of a former balloon shop nestled within a residential area into their studio was representative of their founding ethos; a visual statement - and a tool - for making architecture more accessible.
Behind the large picture frame window, beneath electric blue signage, this statement begins work.
Boasting an array of models, material samples and posters as part of a self-proclaimed ‘ever-changing display of work-in-progress’ within the terrace’s ground floor, the studio opens itself up to engage daily passers-by. With a growing portfolio of research, experimental and built projects anchored in environmental and social activism, the physical space occupied by the practice becomes a tool of engagement, inviting the public over the threshold to learn more.
Outside of the 9-5, the space has a proven track record of shapeshifting, with the studio becoming a showcase of local creatives’ work. The likes of which have seen the practice go on to host a sustainable Christmas market, adding a commerce mode to the portfolio of life behind the red brick facade.
Without a desktop PC in sight, the practice turns an architectural office space on its head and into a flexible studio-turn-exhibition-turn-market place, actively forming a relationship with its wider community on spatial and human levels.
Inspiration from all levels
On another level, we find Dowen Farmer occupying a treasured piece of the South London social scene, Peckham Levels.
Albeit not a street level premises, the converted concrete car park, designed by Turner Works for social enterprise client MakeShift in 2017, extends the street bustle through its ramped roadways, linking up a ‘campus of collaboration’.
Bringing together workspaces for desk-based, workshop and specialist activities - think yoga, ceramics and screen-printing - around community spaces, restaurants and exhibition areas, it is this location where practice founder James Dowen, credits their inspiration from the ‘every day’.
Speaking as RIBA March 2023 practice of the month, Dowen refers to the rich level of thinking they have found in those around them and the wider community, which contrasts with the internal dialogue and processes typically adopted in the profession.
As a practice professing to a ‘flat structured nature’ as a means of providing ‘freedom to listen, learn and imagine’ they extend their studio into the building where possible, whether that be engaging in the social scene - supporting the neighbouring food vendors - or the utilising the spaces for gathering.
In collaboration with diversity and inclusion charity Blueprint for All, the practice has used its base to host events and provide mentorship, aimed at breaking down the barriers to the architecture profession. An aspiration, one might argue, embed into their presence in a local treasure, placing Architecture and its fellow creative industries in the communities’ social circle.
In good company
From a practice operating within a collaborative campus to another curating their own ‘House Ideas’. For Morris + Company, their recent re-location from Old Street, Clerkenwell to one of Hackney’s main arteries, is the start of a mission ‘to place the creative ‘act’ of architecture directly onto the high street’.
Spread across several floors, the conversion of the former fashion showroom was designed by the practice to speak of its values through its material choices but it's intent to involve others in a multitude of ways.
At street-level, lies the ‘central hub’, a flexible space available to hire for a range of events, accommodating up to 120 guests. So far, events hosted include; a book launch, a dining experience and the recent People Pavilion Public Exhibition, showcasing the work of young East London designers. What's more, the interconnected EDIT restaurant enhances the offer of the space and provides an opportunity for diners to see glimpses of architectural production out-of-hours.
Above, the practice workspace is located alongside 58 flexible workspaces which share the building’s benefits, cultivating a culture of collaboration. Current residents include Beyond the Box CIC, a creative practice facilitating community engagement.
Although increasingly international in its outlook, the potential benefits to the practice in the making and sharing of space with such organisations and the public is of indisputable value.
As seen across scales of practice, occupying a mix of spaces - a red brick terrace, concrete caverns, and high-street corners - the simple act of adopting a public edge and opening doors can bring architectural practice into the public sphere, humanising a profession lost behind frosted windows and pin-code doors, and into place.
The competition press release and winning articles can be viewed here
PRESS & PROFESSION
RIBA Part 2 Dissertation
Sheffield School of Architecture
(Supervisor) Satwinder Samra
November 2021
PRESS & PROFESSION: What is the impact of the architectural press on the profession of architecture?
This study was carried out during my Part 2 to fulfil the requirements of the March Collaborative Practice course. It builds on the Dissertation Preliminary submission carried out in April 2021, exploring the impact of the architectural press on the profession of architecture. It adopts a qualitative research strategy, using content analysis of journals from the past 2 decades and interviews with leading figures in the field of architectural journalism and the architectural profession. The study explores a number of key areas of the architectural press; Criticism, Awards and Campaigns, to offer an understanding on the impact of an architectural press on the profession of architecture.
Below is a series of sample spreads taken from the dissertation document.
HOW TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND BEING AN ARCHITECT
RIBA Journal Online
November 2020
Culture / Review
'Think Like An Architect' Book Review
There’s more to architecture than knowing how to design. Randy Deutsch’s new book has lessons on many of the other skills you need to work in practice.
Each year thousands of young people take the leap from mainstream education to an architecture degree and commit to a subject that few post-16 courses can prepare you for. In doing so, they sign up for three years which strip away the comfort blanket of regimented and grade-driven learning, and expose them to the ambiguous world of design.
I sympathise as much with the tutors of architecture school as with the students. How do you teach a cohort of young people not only how to design – like it’s that simple – but also the soft skills that are called for in the practice setting, such as critical thinking?
There is a reason why a growing number of architecture students are taking practice based routes through qualification, such as the apprenticeship scheme and collaborative practice courses. Pursuing the latter route, I am one of many who have recognised how the skills required in practice have progressed my professional capabilities far beyond that experienced in full time education.
Randy Deutsch’s ‘Think like an architect’ addresses this learning gap.
Through 68 points, spanning themes of critical, creative and collaborative thinking, Randy Deutsch provides a guide to understanding our thinking capabilities and how to action them, and in doing so, to fulfil the much needed societal role of the architect in an ever changing and complex world.
Whether you are considering pursuing architecture, are crossing the qualification finish line, or are 40 years into your career, the book is the tool to activate your metacognition, enabling a better understanding of the potential people have when they think like an architect.
If the prospect looks daunting, it’s not. For every point made, Deutsch concludes with suggested actions to try, questions to ask and resources to read, stimulating engagement and reflection in action.
Starting from point 1, the statements are brave – ‘Architects need to think of everything’ – but are followed up with insight to provide context and anecdotal evidence to clarify and comfort.
The emphasis Deutsch places on the contrast between ‘think’ and ‘know’ in this section is an urgent lesson for every incoming student. It may look like a conflict as education situates you in the very opposite reality, but since ‘architects don’t design in isolation’, you need not be the source of all the answers. In the process of every project, you will go from a state of not knowing to one of knowing – Information gathering (point 16).
Although the knowledge attained may seem like the prize here – and to some extent it is as you retain and will call on it in the future – it is the process of learning how to find this information that is of the greatest value.
Seeking clarity (point 17) is fundamental to the processing of such information and should be the goal of your endeavours. As stated by Deutsch, 10,000 decisions go into the making of a building; that’s a lot of strands of thought to tame and prioritise. It is important to earn to clarify thoughts and ideas, to better communicate them back in an accessible manner.
During this search for clarity, it is imperative to accept the ambiguity of the design process – I say this as someone who repelled that uncertainty for much of my first year.
In Challenges of creative thinking (point 33) Deutsch acknowledges the anxiety that stems from the alien, open-ended nature of architecture school. It is natural to feel this way and important to recognise it as a major cause of stress. However, it is also critical to see subjectivity as freedom to flex the creative muscles and steer your project into new territory. It is this thinking that the book asks us to adopt to address the challenges – or wicked problems – we face globally.
Accepting ambiguity leads to a drop in expectation as to how the design process ‘should’ be done.
Design process (point 37), explores the romanticisation of that eureka moment that we feel we must reach. That moment comes from a design process which embodies critical creative thinking – asking ‘what if’ of the project – and is fuelled by your own brief, life experiences and knowledge.
Don’t be pressured to compare – or worse still, compete – in the studio. See your peers as you would colleagues in a practice, a resource to support the process or, as point 62 notes, a body of collective intelligence.
Deutsch states that a conclusion forms when you get tired of thinking – reaching a word limit is also another place this can happen. I may well have read cover to cover several times, but my thinking about this book remains in full flow and my point of conclusion is yet to be reached. All that I can say for definite is: what a gift it is to think like an architect.
RIBA Journal Online - available at:
https://www.ribaj.com/culture/review-of-think-like-an-architect-by-randy-deutsch
BRITAIN'S BRUTALIST SOCIAL HOUSING
BArch Humanities Essay
January 2019
University of Nottingham
An extract of this comparative research study:
Introduction:
This research paper aims to compare and contrast the qualities of Sheffield’s Park Hill Estate and East London’s Robin Hood Gardens, including their design intentions, spatial dynamics, social-political atmospheres and qualities that define them as brutalist. As an architectural movement founded in response to the modernism movement of the early 20th century, Brutalism “blossomed in Britain at a moment when post-war social order was being radically redefined” (Self, n.d.:29) and was seen as a device utilised by the state for the mass reconstruction of bomb stricken industrial Britain (Self, n.d.) [...]
Spatial Dynamic:
The design intentions of both estates centre around improving the quality of everyday life for all. Hence, the spatial dynamics of the resulting structures focus on patterns of human occupation.
Both estates’ external street decks act “as stages for the theatre of everyday life” (Heathcote, 2017) accommodating traditional street activities, such as milk deliveries (Anon., 1961:276). In Park Hill, the “ten-foot-wide ‘street’ running through the scheme from end to end, giving access to flats below deck, and maisonettes on deck level and above” (Anon., 1961:276), was successful in creating social contact, reminiscent of the slum housing. Each tenant had access to the public realm and fresh air, and in turn an improved quality of life. However there were no visual connections to the street; this was not an initial issue due to the open culture of the 1960s, where the typical ‘street- in-the-sky’ would consist of children playing and housewives talking. But, as society became introverted, the lack of natural surveillance became an issue. Jacobs (2011:45) acknowledged this need for self-policing stating “there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street”.
That said, Robin Hood Gardens’ ‘streets-in-the-air’ did provide visual connections to the ‘street’, as well as a ‘Eddys’, which were projected doorways providing residents with the space and the opportunity to have plant pots or chairs along the street; this personalisation is important in fostering a sense of belonging to a place, as Whyte (2013:28) argues “choice should be built into basic design”. Despite this, the 1970s saw rebellion among society and the estate “immediately became known for vandalism and crime” (Pearman, 2017:32). Partly blamed for the “Smithsons’ design of entrances and common areas” (Pearman, 2017:32), such as ‘Eddys’, it was an acknowledgement that “Ideas conceived in 1952 were, by 1972, becoming as unfashionable as the Smithson’s” (Parnell, 2012).
Nevertheless, Park Hill’s Phase 1 redevelopment instated visual connections to the street after Hawkins Brown reinvented “where [Park Hill] had faltered” (Hawkins\Brown, n.d.); A similar system of eddys occupy the 21st century ‘street-in-the-sky’, but cannot be fairly compared to either of the estates, due to the privatisation of deck access. [...]
Socio-Political Atmosphere
The changes in the social and political atmospheres from the 1950s to the present day have been integral in informing the design, treatment and current status of both estates.
Both estates’ use of concrete was the result of severe material shortages in the 1950s, which, in addition to lack of funding due to the destruction of industry, and lack of labour (Flinn, 2012), made for difficult conditions in the urgent response to the housing shortage. “The destruction of housing was most noticeable” (Flinn, 2012:226) and as material allocations grew “concrete was the building material beloved by councils” (Scott, 2014) due to its properties which enabled basic structures to be economically built. The growing strength of the welfare state, and the increase in budgets (Ekici, 2018) was reflected in the ambitious use of concrete on large-scale structures such as Park Hill. This led some to consider the material “a defining architectural style of the post-war era” (May et al., 2013:6) and brutalism, despite the steel structure of Hunstanton.
However in the 1970s, concrete was beginning to be criticised for its high energy consumption with the looming oil crisis, and society faced the “deflation of Sixties utopianism” (McCormick, 2012). Regardless of the dystopia and rebellion of society, it was still believed that better housing would improve lives and progress society (The Smithson’s on Housing, 1970); architecture was seen as a tool of social engineering (Ekici, 2018).
Nevertheless, both estates social aspirations faltered as society became reclusive in the face of crime. A stigma developed around concrete and social housing, which brought further decline as ‘problem people’ moved in replacing existing residents who moved on, resulting in fractured communities; “concrete architecture represented everything which was frightening and other”, where designed features of raised walkways and open grassy areas, were exploited by criminals (Calder, 2016:4).
The defining large scale and choice of concrete made it difficult for the local councils to maintain the estates. The shrinking council budget, due to government cuts, saw concrete become unsightly and stained (Anon. 2013). The cladding panels of Robin Hood Gardens faltered prior to demolition, leaving people to describe the estate as entering “a mid-life crisis” (Beanland, 2012) despite its subsequent rapid demolition (Figure 24-25). As stated by Jacobs (2011:146) “A successful neighbourhood is a place that keeps sufficiently abreast of its problems so it is not to be destroyed by them”, however, the free transfer of Park Hill to Urban Splash in 2004 (Dobraszczyk, 2015) and recent demolition of Robin Hood Gardens, confirmed how the scale of decline was inadequate for the councils.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Smithsons were undeniably the force of the utopian vision of post-war British architecture, whose radical theories and introduction of brutalism in Britain are considered more of an influence than their limited built work. Park Hill was born from the Smithson’s influence; its ‘street’s-in-the-sky’ reminiscent of Golden Lane, and its social consciousness suggestive of that of its architect's former teacher.
The honest exhibition of materials and structure makes the estates comprehensible visual entities, fulfilling the criteria of New Brutalism outlined by Banham (Banham, 1955). However it would seem that Smith and Lynn simply ‘got there first’ in terms of producing a pioneering example of brutalist social housing; as Historic England recognised in the listed status refusal of Robin Hood Gardens; “It was not innovative in its design – by the time the building was completed in 1972 the ‘streets-in-the-air’ approach was at least 20 years old” (Historic England, 2015).
With their fates set, Park Hill continues to be “an advert for the benefits of redevelopment” (Grindrod, 2013:169), but a mere memory of the strong welfare state and social aspirations of the 1960s. Likewise Blackwall Reach, the redevelopment replacing Robin Hood Gardens, has been accused of “social cleansing” (Beanland, 2012), raising the question of the success of both estates. Physically Park Hill has been saved, but its intended value could be considered as demolished as Robin Hood Gardens.
Today, young professionals purchase their fashionable hilltop apartments overlooking Sheffield, and tourists travel to view the piece of Robin Hood Gardens objectified in the V&A collection (Mairs, 2018). The visionary estates, which sought to better the quality of life of those who needed it most, conclude their services to society as an image of their former selves.
REVITALISING THE
URBAN BLOCK
BArch Urban Design Theory Essay
January 2019
University of Nottingham
An extract of this comparative research study:
Introduction:
The physical form of an urban environment is critical in creating both a memorable image and place identity. Montgomery (1998:100) argues that the physical form and setting of an urban environment, and its comprehensibility, is one element which impacts how a place is perceived. Thus, the urban fabric should be considered a key component in creating a sense of place (Montgomery,1998).
With this in mind, the urban block, which can be a definitive quality of both traditional and contemporary settlements (such as Barcelona and Milton Keynes respectively), should aim to be preserved as part of the morphological dimension of urban design. Urban morphology dictates there are two types of urban system in which buildings are either defining space or objects within the space (Carmona, Tiesdell, Heath & Oc. 2010:77). The urban block fulfils the first of these systems, creating edges articulating the public realm. The edge is a device that should be exploited as “this is where the city meets the building” (Gehl,2010a:75). However, with the rise in “suburban non-places” (Montgomery,1998:94) and constraints of inner city developments, regions of the urban block can be underutilised as potential assets to the built environment, which are already integrated within the city.
Rejuvenation of inner city environments is a sustainable means of development due to the reuse of existing infrastructure, reducing the requirement of additional resources, and inherent accessibility the site offers; “Places need to be easy to get to and be integrated physically and visually within their surroundings” (Llewelyn-Davies,2007:12). In addition, regeneration offers a much sought after alternative to suburbia and the opportunity to add another layer of interest to urban places whilst utilising existing connections and patterns of the city, “the city... is the product of many builders who are constantly modifying the structure for reasons of their own” (Lynch,1960:2).
But how can revitalisation exploit the opportunities of the urban block, such as the connections and legibility they provide, and enliven unused spaces?
The Project for Public Spaces (n.d.) outlines four key attributes which make a successful place. A successful place is accessible, active, comfortable and sociable. In Figure 4 the corresponding intangibles of these attributes are expressed and connections to the components of a sense of place (Punter, 1991 in Montgomery,1998:97) are evident.
In this essay, I will analyse and examine urban design theories concerned with the qualities of public places, to better understand how the rejuvenation of unused urban places can be successful. This understanding will conclude with a dissection of the urban block revitalisation scheme: Melbourne Laneways, Australia.
Case Study:
Melbourne, the coastal capital of south-eastern Australian state of Victoria, was occupied by “an indifferent collection of offices and high rises” (Gehl,2010a:15) in the 1980s which left the city centre unoccupied. The lack of residencies in the inner city, due to the growing population of the suburbs, was a pressing issue for the State Government which believed that “by increasing housing, in established areas of the city there will be an associated increase in population” (Neal,1985:16).
In 1994, the government invited Jan Gehl to conduct a public space-public life study of Melbourne’s commercially dominated centre (Gehl, Svarre, 2013:131). Gehl recommended improvements to the pedestrian network as well as “activating streets, arcades and alleyways” (Hayter,2006:28) that were characteristic of inner city Melbourne.
From 1994 to 2004 “an impressive number of urban improvements were implemented” (Gehl,2010a:15) including the enlivening of The Laneways, the inner city network of unused streets defined by the urban block. Through the promotion of consumer industries and residencies, the revitalisation of the area saw a huge increase in the number of housing units and outdoor cafés. But how does the scheme compare with the urban design theories discussed previously?
An Active Place
It is at the edges where the Laneways come to life. As Alexander et al. (1977:600) argues in reference to public spaces, such as squares, “if the edge fails, then the space never becomes lively”. The “One-off shops, high-end restaurants and ... hidden bars” (Russo, Dowse, 2018) spill out onto the Laneways, creating a zone where the activity of each establishment is presented and engaged with, alongside the zone of movement.
The active edge continues up the building facades, creating a multi-layered visual interest, adding to the vivid sense of activity perceived from ground level. Gehl (2010a:40) argues that 6.5 meters is an important threshold in the streetscape, however, this may be reduced in the Laneway context due to the narrow width of the space. It is unlikely users of the ground floor would look up at an angle comfortable to engage with the second storey.
This narrow form also restricts the potential of what the edge can provide and what activities can be accommodated. However the narrow spaces inherent in Melbourne’s inner city enable users to engage more closely with the physical context; People “perceive the scene as warm, personal and welcoming” (Gehl,2010a:53). This experience of movement through the Laneways is one of the main attractive opportunities.
This movement, encouraged by mixed-use facilities (as advocated by Jacobs [2011:196]), attracts a range of people moving through the space who engage in necessary, optional, or social activities, providing the visual variety needed for a vivid street scene and “renowned bustling laneways” (Anon., 2014). These activities are accommodated through the provision of opportunities to sit, stand at edges, or move through the space.
Conclusion:
In summary, the literature review findings express four key relationships in producing successful public places. The theories conclude that a connected and integrated public realm is required to draw people into the urban environment. But, it’s the activities and active edges accommodated which make a place more than a space of movement; activity provides the vividness of a streetscape, offering opportunities for engagement. If space is well connected and active, it is populated resulting in an abundance of natural surveillance, making users feel safe and comfortable. Comfort is also achieved within spaces through personalisation, where users adjust a place to their social and environmental needs. The literature review can be concluded as an interdependent relationship where connections bring people, activities engage people, and comfort keeps people within the space, which creates a people place (Figure 33).
Overall the case study chosen supports the findings of the literature review. The Melbourne Laneways are integrated within the urban block of the city, therefore are accessible; the vibrant street life with open edges engage people into the life of the Laneways as the boundaries of interior and exterior are blurred. These open edges make for a space of natural surveillance, which along with movable furniture at the naturally preferred edges, creates a comfortable environment.
However the unique experience the Laneways provide are favoured by the youthful population, as opposed to families and the less accessible users; the challenge to navigate small children or wheelchairs through the distinctively narrow laneways, and lack of attractions for families may deter these demographics. Therefore this leads me to consider how variations in function specifically aimed at a wider demographic would be more inclusive, creating a genuinely mixed use environment for the wider public. Nevertheless, spaces between the urban block have been successfully revitalised and inner city Melbourne is populated, showing the positive impact a design fuelled by considerations for public life can be.
