29 January 2018 · By Jon Astbury

A new building for the University of Kent provides dedicated facilities and a distinct identity for its maths and business schools, writes Jon Astbury. Photography Quintin Lake, Tim Crocker

The ‘final frontier’ for higher education projects, says Penoyre & Prasad partner Ian Goodfellow, is that of ‘getting academics out of single offices and into shared spaces’. Goodfellow, who is also a deputy chair of the Higher Education Design Quality Forum, says many Russell Group universities are already making the switch to more ‘nuanced collaborative space’, but it remains a sticking point, and not only for those academics who staunchly refuse to be moved anywhere they cannot house a 20m run of bookshelves.

With this in mind, Penoyre & Prasad’s latest project for the University of Kent, the Sibson Building (named after former vice chancellor Robin Sibson) is a curious blend. It houses the business and maths schools, two subjects that make good bedfellows but are divergent as far as teaching methods go: business has been fast to adapt to more fluid ways of working, desiring facilities such as more casual lecture theatres and MBA spaces with everything on castors; while maths remains hierarchical, favouring high-raked lecture theatres and plenty of whiteboard space.

The building remains a stand-alone ‘landmark’ structure, more oriented towards the world of professional work than that of study

The breaking down of the hard separations that go hand in hand with much 60s architecture, particularly offices and university buildings, is well-trodden ground. Seeing the building’s plan, I was reminded of visiting Danish firm 3XN’s Swedbank HQ in Sundbyberg, Stockholm; not only because it shares the same zig-zag plan but because it espouses many of the same ideas of spatial arrangement being the key to fostering more beneficial relationships, breaking out of the room-off-corridor layout to provide more undefined working areas. While Penoyre & Prasad isn’t as vocal as 3XN about architecture shaping behaviour, there is certainly a vein to its work preoccupied with this. At its extension for Templeman Library, also on Kent’s campus, the large moves were simply about letting in more light and opening up the space, and with the Sibson Building the overriding move is as simple as moving student workspace and academic offices into close proximity to one another.

This may not strike anyone as particularly revolutionary, but it represents quite a leap for Kent’s business and maths schools, which formerly had no real campus identity and dedicated facilities, particularly for undergraduates, were virtually non-existent. While not necessarily grasped from the exterior (intentionally, as will be explained), the Sibson Building’s W-shaped plan is incredibly simple. It is pleasingly symmetrical and straightforwardly arranged as two separate wings for the two separate departments, meeting in the middle around an atrium and public café. Both the maths and business sections have their own distinct reception desks and entrances, in addition to the café’s communal entrance. The new building still has its small runs of individual or shared academic offices at the end of each wing, but these sit directly opposite postgraduate research spaces and adjacent to breakout working areas and seminar rooms. Some small solace is provided for beleaguered academics in the form of roof terraces off each generously proportioned staff lounge.

This all sits to the north-west of Kent’s compact main campus, north of Canterbury city centre, in an area adjacent to Brotherhood Wood, where Park Wood Road, leading to the Pavilion sports centre, demarcates what is – for now – a relatively hard edge to the campus. Currently this is something of an outlying area, but the small loop of road that peels off and curves around here is set become one of the ‘highly efficient cores’ that Farrells described in the concept masterplan it produced for the university in 2016. This favoured an approach of consolidation and densification that has so far, as with the aforementioned expansion of the Templeton Library, proven successful.

Still, the building remains, as business schools often do, a stand-alone ‘landmark’ structure, more oriented towards the world of professional work than that of study, albeit here it is a quiet landmark, keen to blend in with the wood rather than with the university. As Goodfellow says, it was designed as something ‘not seen in its entirety from any angle’. The anodised aluminium form ‘floats’ above a glass base, while its vertical fins seek to reference the concrete fins that crop up throughout the campus (not least at Templeton).

Many otherwise simple seating spaces inside are hugely enhanced by large areas of glazing looking out to the wood

Where it faces Park Wood Road it sits atop, and at points cantilevers over, a black stone ground floor, here playing the part of rusticated base. It’s all very autumnal, something the Farrells masterplan notes as ‘signifying the start of a new academic year’, with the façade designed to mimic a view through trees with its irregularly spaced fins and windows, and the aluminium-treated shades of pinky orange and bark-like silver. The effect of its setting should not be underestimated. Many of the otherwise simple seating spaces inside are hugely enhanced by large areas of glazing looking out to the wood, views restricted to smaller glimpses in lecture theatres so as not to be a distraction.

Central to the new building, quite literally, are the three lecture theatres, which sit at the top and the bottom of the W. The ‘collaborative lecture theatre’, sitting to the north above the medium theatre, is an attempt to break down the rigid form common to lecture theatres, opting for a series of angled desks rather than long runs of seating. Both the collaborative and large theatre to the south are articulated by an impressive concrete ‘hand’ structure, looking like the veins of a leaf, that allows them to achieve their wide, unobstructed span. Detailing here – and indeed throughout – is strong, with certain unexpected touches such as robust, cast-concrete reception desks.

The two dips of the W become small ‘arrival hubs’ and breakout spaces, which are pleasingly articulated by timber-lined voids which mirror the curve of the exterior. The same happens in the main atrium, where staircases lead up two sides of the rounded triangular shape. All of this, along with the many views to the outside, makes orientation and navigation fairly logical, although the two wings have still been colour-coded to set them apart.

Part of the joy of the university’s original masterplan, designed in the 60s by architect William Holford, is the legibility of its structures; the clover-like colleges sitting off main branches. Penoyre & Prasad may have eschewed this, but the Sibson Building has avoided falling into the trap of many ‘signature’ business schools, and acts as an encouraging start to this quiet corner of the campus, one with room and flexibility to adapt as needed as its surroundings gradually transform.

William Holford’s 1965 robust masterplan for this parkland campus was conceived as a stem with a series of leaves that would grow over time as the university expanded. A branch to the north-west suggested major future development extending beyond the core of the campus, and in recent years this area had begun to be developed, albeit in a slightly piecemeal way.  

We considered how, through the building’s siting, layout and landscaping, we could bring more coherence to this part of the site and strengthen links back to the main campus. 

We were also intrigued by the challenge of locating a large new academic hub in this woodland setting, without destroying the site’s intrinsic beauty. We analysed the different ways the building would be experienced – glimpsed through foliage, viewed below the tree canopy, and from its various approaches – and let this shape the overall form and architectural language. 

The building has concourse at its heart, conceived as a woodland glade with dappled light from above and views out to the surrounding woodland at every turn. The new main path through the woods connects directly back to the centre of the campus. 

Ian Goodfellow, project partner, Penoyre & Prasad

Penoyre & Prasad’s proposal stood head and shoulders above its competitors through its innovative interpretation of our brief, bringing the two schools together and transforming this part of the campus. With its extensive knowledge of new developments in higher-education teaching and learning environments worldwide, the practice guided us every step of the way in creating an inspirational and innovative addition to the university estate.  

The building has had an incredibly positive impact on staff, students and external stakeholders, dramatically transforming the way in which staff and students interact and build relationships. 

For example, the academic lounges on the second floor were originally intended as the threshold into the academic staff’s territory. In fact from day one they have also been colonised by students. 

Throughout the building, staff and students are now working alongside each other across and between both departments in a way that could never have been considered possible in their previous accommodation.  

Paul Verrion, client lead, school administration and business manager, Kent Business School, University of Kent

Max Fordham knows that energy in use will ultimately be the true measure for the university’s ambitious carbon-management plan. With this in mind, the Max Fordham Sustainability Matrix was used to lead the briefing discussions with the university’s sustainability team, to set the energy targets and to align the project’s sustainability goals with a BREEAM Excellent rating.

The Sibson Building is designed to minimise energy demands while providing excellent internal comfort. The form and orientation of the building were designed in response to the climate. Building envelope U-values and airtightness are significantly better than required by the Building Regulations, and most spaces are naturally ventilated. The central atrium acts as the lungs for the adjoining naturally ventilated seminar spaces. Exposed concrete soffits and secure night-time ventilation external openings avoid the need for mechanical cooling for most spaces.

Particular emphasis has been placed on daylighting and connected views into the woodland setting as ways of reducing energy use and promoting wellbeing. The distinctive arrangement of vertical fins on the façade was developed to optimise the balance between functional daylighting and solar gain. Unusually, the lecture theatres include windows to provide an outside connection for these traditionally oppressive internal spaces. Daylighting, solar gain and comfort were all refined by iterative 3D modelling.

Post-occupancy and seasonal commissioning activities are being used to monitor and fine-tune the building to help the university achieve its low carbon goals.

Ed Chan, project engineer and partner, Max Fordham 

Curtain walling is used extensively throughout the Sibson Building, allowing for a continuous building envelope with flush glazing and solid elements, all precisely co-ordinated within one subcontractor package. The one area where this is not the case is the lower elevations of the north-facing façades, which use a Forticrete split‑face, dark grey concrete block.

At ground and lower ground level, the building is set back with a high proportion of glass and dark colours to create the sense of a woodland understorey. At this level, the curtain walling is structurally glazed and incorporates full-height, secure ventilation louvres.  

The projecting upper elevations are more solid than below, clad in an autumnal colour palette of anodised aluminium to reference the forest canopy. The ever-changing play of light across the anodised surfaces further emphasises this connection to foliage and the changing seasons.

Vertical fins echo the surrounding coppiced woodland while also making reference to the architectural language of the original campus buildings. The fins are essentially extended cover caps and, as such, are an inherent component of the curtain wall system. The vertical fins have factory-made curved cuts at top and bottom to cradle the profile of the horizontal fins. At the parapet, the coping profile is set back, so from ground level the roofline is read as being the uppermost horizontal fin. 

The woodland context is evoked internally using hardwood finishes – for example the ash-lined window seats – which incorporate acoustic timber linings to reduce reverberation in teaching and social spaces.

Michael Fostiropoulos, project architect, Penoyre & Prasad

Start on site Jun 2015 Completion Jan 2017 Gross internal floor area 8,200m2 Form of contract JCT Design and Build contract, two-stage (Penoyre & Prasad novated to the contractor for Stage F-L) Construction cost£26.7 million Construction cost per m² £3,167 (excluding design) Architect Penoyre & Prasad Client University of Kent  Structural engineer Price & Myers M&E consultant Max Fordham  Quantity surveyor Betteridge & Milsom Landscape architect Fabrik BREEAM consultant Southfacing Project manager BNP Paribas Real Estate CDM co-ordinator  Betteridge & Milsom Approved building inspector Harwood Building Control Civilengineer Price & Myers Fire engineer Circulation Design Consultancy Acoustic engineer Max Fordham Accessibility consultant Access Matters UK Signage consultant Art in Site Furniture consultant Broadstock Main contractor Willmott Dixon Construction CAD software used ArchiCAD Annual CO₂ emissions 13 .8kg/m2 (estimate) Roof mounted PVs offset this figure by 25%, reducing it to 10.35kg/m2

Tags Building study Canterbury University of Kent

Sign in or Register a new account to join the discussion.

We use cookies to personalize and improve your experience on our site. Visit our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy to learn more. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings. More information on how to do this can be found in the cookie policy. By using our site, you agree to our use of cookies.