...by Richard Seifert Architects in Central London- This tower became the subject of study by The Architectural Association School of Architecture Intermediate Unit 8 in 1984. The objective of the study was "make it better" by proposing renovation, additions, reskinning, remaking and downright demolishing the empty, relentless pile of precast masonry.

...I was the only student to propose a replacement for the existing Counterpoint Tower. This decision was not made lightly and was an interactive process that started with a "renovation" using fragments of R.M.S. Queen Mary I. After completing a number of anti-rational "additions" and "renovations" using The Queen Mary- the decision to demolish the tower was made in consultation with my tutors and the structural and aeronautical engineers who were co-opted into service on this long term project which spanned from 1984 to 1987.

Q: What are those Susumu Shingu structures doing at the base of your building?

A: These are architectural fabric spoilers that induce the prevailing SW wind into an "updraft" across the SW facade where the current Centrepoint tower induces "downdraft". This updraft was observable in wind tunnel testing at Kingston University. The spoilers cause the air pressure at the lower levels of the building to significantly decrease due to micro-turbulence induced by the Bernoulli Effect as wind enters the orifice of each spoiler and expands from laminar flow to turbulent flow creating a funnel shaped cloud of turbulence that guides laminar flowing wind upwards.

The opportunity to build a 1:100 model of the proposal after three years of progressing this design with my tutors and my pro-bono structural, and aeronautical engineering consultants was a great privilege, particularly as one of the aeronautical engineers took a keen interest in constructing the model and assuring himself that the spoilers would be modeled to scale.

After testing several smaller scale models at 1:500 that determined the shape and contour of the tower, the larger scale model was built at 1:100. Aeronautical engineers counseled that it would produce observable results to repeatedly test the smaller models using long exposure photography while under "wind" load using a hair dryer and un-spun wool tell tails hinged and pinned to each balsa model facade. The tell tails that were in focus despite the long exposure were in laminar flowing wind, the direction of which could be determined by the disposition of the tell-tail in the photo. The tell-tails that were out of focus due to movement from turbulence proved that there was no discernible wind direction (and hence no up-draft). By using this method, wind  charts were made for each model resulting in a prototype for the larger model. Upon selection of this prototype, the base was determined to be too wide and my tutor drove a last minute adjustment to the width of the model. This upset the updraft flow when re-tested using the hair dryer and the tell-tails. Aeronautical Engineers introduced the spoilers to improve the creation of a vortex at the base, despite the reduction in width. Testing of the spoilers on the 1:100 scale model was possible using cladding for the model using monofilament fishing wire with polythene sheeting woven between the monofilament cables. The photo above is a still (reversed) from a vhs video take during the wind tunnel test which proved successful use of the spoilers since updraft was measurable on the 1:100 scale model.

The masts which support these spoilers tie into the primary building structure through gasket spandrel panels with the ability to accommodate movement from the pneumatic rams. These rams constrain the rotation of the spoiler to a 30 degree rotation and prevent them from slamming around. The primary structure of the building's shear walls is a bi-directional sandwich of cortex steel sheet pile filled with concrete. The shear walls change shape as the altitude of the structure increases, loading requirements change and the convex base of the envelope morphs into a compound curving/ concave shape determined by the ever changing glazing surface.

Transfer Floors occur every 20m and tie the continuously rising shear walls into the concrete diaphragm that interrupts the wind bracing of the glazing system. The repetition of these transfer floors allows for MEP Distribution to occur locally creating 20m vertical zones. The horizontal Lines shown in the section represent the horizontal sheet pile that will serve as loading points for future buildout of the tenant improvements. 

Egress from the tube allows a pedestrian to surface inside the air conditioned space of the semi public "great hall" that is formed by the over-arching structure formed from rusting core-ten steel sheet pile, sandwiched together to form a fireproof core of concrete encased in corrugated steel. These ledges formed by the horizontal sheet pile create loading point for tenant improvements where transfer floors every 20m up are the only constraint to volume. The shell and core of the building are determined in this proposal with the building's fit out the subject of a future intervention.

The horizontal slabs of space are regular and stiffened by elevator cores at opposing ends of the floor plan. This volume of space has proved to be unpopular with the leasing community due to the fact that there was very little flexibility to grow or modify use within the space. For this reason, the existing tower has been empty for several years and the building provides a landmark in the West End (and very little else).

In breaking students of conventional architectural baggage, The Architectural Association School of Architecture often required students to pursue anti-rational drawings in order to convey an embarkation from the forced reality, expediency, pre-requisitism and pre-determinism of conventional commercial real estate. This hybrid ship-building conversion pushed the boundaries of absurdity- laughing out loud at the existing sensibilities and embracing with deadly serious vigor the future of London High Rises with buildings such as "The Gherkin" by Norman Foster which should be built in 20 years from the time of this project.

Perhaps Peter Salter became so compelled by the imaginative schemes that students were embracing at Centrepoint that he had to pick up his pen and crank out this drawing. He had already thrown down the gauntlet, challenging me to return from The Royal Institute of Naval Architects in Belgrave Square with sufficient research to hybridize the high-rise with spacial sequences from the forecastle (pronounced "FOKESAL") to the engine room to interweave within the brittle concrete skeleton of the 1970s existing building around the corner from the AA School. The drawing above was drawn by Peter after the goods were in from the RINA and we were able to make the scale association between the 1000 ft long ship and the 600 foot tall building. Once that scale association was made, Peter was off to the races.

From Top to Bottom, Left to Right: Japanese Tuna Fishing Vessel, R.M.S. Queen Mary, J Class Americas Cup, Japanese Whaling Ship, Japanese Mine Sweeper, Concordia Class Yacht, British Train Ferry. (all sections to same scale)

From Top to Bottom, Left to Right: J Class Americas Cup, British Train Ferry, Japanese Tuna Fishing Vessel, Japanese Mine Sweeper, Japanese Whaling Ship,  R.M.S. Queen Mary, Concordia Class Yacht. (all plans to same scale)

Form is function when it comes to ship design- the shape of the hull largely determines the ability of the ship to displace water and to move through the water. While a building doesn't depend on it's form to "float", the thought was that a ship is beautiful and contains a program that conforms to the shape of the hull. The question we asked in our interrogation of ship design was "what shape would a building assume if wind forces largely dictated its form and how would that shape accommodate the program of the building?". (Drawing shows the aft section of R.M.S. Queen Mary I)

One assignment that my tutor handed out to me was to illustrate the spacial sequence from steering gear of the R.M.S. Queen Mary to the cabin class entry lounge. This sequence is a random path of travel within the Queen Marry that demonstrates a highly diverse series of spaces connected together within a highly determined hull shape resulting in functional adjacencies and complex layers of program organization.

Another assignment that my tutor handed out to me was to illustrate the spacial sequence from forecastle of the R.M.S. Queen Mary to the engine room. This sequence is a random path of travel within the Queen Marry that demonstrates a highly diverse series of spaces connected together within a highly determined hull shape resulting in functional adjacencies and complex layers of program organization.

In particular, this Cabin Class Entry Lounge was considered by all (at the time) to be one of the most elegant spaces on a ship (or a building). Yet this space is planned in a volume of space inside the ship that is constrained by exceedingly large mechanical shafts and significant structure. The bulkheads and other appurtenances into the space create a unique, nautical scale to the space that is specific to this ship, which is open to the public in Long Beach, California. (see 1989 photos by John Millard below)