Bartlett Design Research Folios
Marcos Cruz Poikilohydric Living Walls
BARTLETT DESIGN RESEARCH FOLIOS
Marcos Cruz Poikilohydric Living Walls
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
2
4
CONTENTS
1 (previous) 18 MPC and OPC bioreceptive panels exposed in an outdoor trial, The Bartlett, UCL, 2016. 2 Poikilohydric living wall made for the exhibition, La Fabrique du Vivant, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2019.
5
Project Details
6
Statement about the Research Content and Process
8
Introduction
10
Aims and Objectives
12
Questions
12
Context
18
Methodology
24
Dissemination
78
Project Highlights
79
Bibliography
80
Appendix
81
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Project Details Author
Marcos Cruz
Title
Poikilohydric Living Walls
Output Type
Design and built living walls
Research Dates
2014 to 2020
Phases and Practical 1. EPSRC funding (2017) Completion 2. St Anne’s Catholic Primary School, London (August 2020); East Putney Underground Station, London (December 2020) 3. Merchiston Park, Edinburgh (December 2020) Co-Researchers
Richard Beckett, Sandra Manso Blanco, Brenda Parker
Co-Investigator EPSRC Grant
Bill Watts
Research Associates
Chris Leung, Anete Salmane
Technical Assistants and
Nina Jotanovic (Merchiston Park), Javier Ruiz Computational Development
Research Assistants Alexandra Lacatusu, Giovanna Lanius-Pascuzzi, Nina Jotanovic, Sarah Lever, Rushi Metha Structural Engineering
Laing O’Rourke; Tim Lucas (EPSRC grant), Manja van der Worp (East Putney, St Anne’s, Merchiston Park)
Architect
Andy Shaw (Merchiston Park)
CNC Milling
William Victor Camilleri, Alex McCann
Construction
Parker Steel (EPSRC grant)
Manufacturing of Panels Pennine Stone Ltd, The Bartlett Manufacturing and Design Exchange (B-Made) Academic Partnerships
Antonio Aguado de Ceo, Lurdes Belgas, Fernando Branco
Biological Studies UCL Bio-Integrated Design, UCL Department of Biochemical Engineering
6
PROJECT DETAILS
Material Studies Amorim Cork Composites, Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Universidade de Coimbra (Corkcrete); UCL Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (Porous TecCast); Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (MPC) Wall Construction Skanska (East Putney Underground Station); Solid Brickworks (St Anne’s) Legal Team
James McGilvray, UCL Innovation & Enterprise; June Campbell, UCL Insurance
EPSRC Advisory Board Peter Bishop, Paolo Bombelli, Marc-Oliver Coppens, Johanna Gibbons, Elinor Huggett, Marco Lizzul, Andrew Minson, Mark Miodownik, Alan Penn, Stephen Ridell, Richard Sabin, Peter Scully, Nima Shokri Sponsorship Camley Street Natural Park/London Wildlife Trust, London Borough of Lambeth, Meanwhile Gardens/London Wildlife Trust, St Anne’s Catholic Primary School, Transport for London (TfL) Budget
£458,848.78
Funding £7,997.80 Bartlett Faculty BDEF; £21,538.98 The Bartlett Architecture Research Fund (ARF); £299,972 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) EP/N010108/1; £3,750 Erasmus; £13,625 Lambeth Council; £50,000 Pennine Stone Ltd; £61,965 TfL
7
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Statement about the Research Content and Process Description
Methodology
Poikilohydric Living Walls responds to the urgency of the climate crisis by exploring ways to increase vegetative growth on architecture and improve the environmental quality of cities. It promotes the use of self-regulated biological systems on building façades and urban infrastructures by integrating poikilohydric species – algae, moss, lichen, etc. – that can switch their photosynthetic activity on and off without the need for additional irrigation and maintenance. Bioreceptive cementitious materials and novel fabrication processes were rigorously tested, to increase water absorption and retention in order to form bio-material substrata that feed this new type of living wall.
This six-year research project has advanced through three phases of design, material exploration (MPC, Porous TecCast, Corkcrete) and application (EPSRC-funded study, St Anne’s, East Putney, Merchiston Park). Qualitative and quantitative results have been achieved via long-term indoor and outdoor observational studies of components and panels, multiple substrate and material tests, and bacteriological and plant growth in the lab. The commercial viability of these components has been developed in collaboration with industrial partners.
Dissemination
The 2015 Ecobuild fair provided an early opportunity to exhibit the research to a wide audience. It has since featured in 15 architecture journals, e.g. Architectural Research Quarterly, and in national newspapers such as The Sunday Times. It has been discussed in exhibition catalogues for the Cooper Hewitt in New York and the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Cruz has been interviewed on BBC Earth and LBC Radio. Long-term dissemination will be via built walls in the public realm.
Questions
1. Can we create poikilohydric-responsive architecture by designing bioreceptive walls that promote the growth of microorganisms and cryptogams? 2. Which material scaffolds and substrates promote the biocolonisation of vertical surfaces? 3. Can bioreceptive façades be manufactured in a structurally sound and cost-efficient way, aiming for future widespread application in the built environment? 4. Can poikilohydric living walls create a new aesthetic that appeals to the general public?
8
STATEMENT ABOUT THE RESEARCH CONTENT AND PROCESS
Project Highlights
This research project is the first significant long-term investigation to establish the viability of poikilohydric living walls as a costefficient and appealing option for greening cities. It has consequently been cited by The Sunday Times as one of ‘11 great ideas from British universities that could change the world’ (Kinchen and Forster 2020), see pp. 146–9.
9
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Introduction
first time small samples to a building scale (1). This was followed by an outdoor environmental trial in which two types of concrete panels – Magnesium Phosphate Concrete (MPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) – were compared, while testing water run-off and thermal variability through a full annual cycle.
The most important concept that underpins this research is the phenomenon of ‘poikilohydry’, which defines the aptitude of certain plant species for long-term survival. The unique structural and physiological capacity of algae, moss and lichen enables them to resist lengthy drought periods and extreme temperatures. These species rehydrate by absorbing rainwater, vapour and dew, and switch on and off in a self-regulated manner. Cruz defines ‘poikilohydric design’ as a way to promote the growth of poikilohydric species on building surfaces without the need for additional irrigation and maintenance. To increase photosynthetic activity, material substrates were designed with specific surface morphologies that retain water for prolonged periods of time. The research aims to develop designs for ageing buildings. Externally facing surfaces become biocolonised via exposure to climatic and biochemical factors, depending on the roughness of materials used and the intensity of particle depositions that trigger a biological succession. Bacteria, cyanobacteria, algae, mould, bryophytes, etc. gradually stain façades and make them look ‘old’. But rather than implying a sense of neglect and decay, biocolonised surfaces are alive and active contributors to the environment. The research focused on material and morphological testing to evaluate the most suitable environment for poikilohydric plants to proliferate. This was done in three phases.
Phase Two: St Anne’s Catholic Primary School and East Putney Underground Station, London
This three-year phase focused on the design of two living walls. A new material mix was developed, Porous TecCast, based on an existing recipe by Pennine Stone but with better porosity. New designs and transplantation protocols were explored, which resulted in the construction of a wall for an exhibition at the Centre Pompidou, Paris. Following this, 32 panels were created for St Anne’s Catholic Primary School and 20 for East Putney Underground Station.
Phase Three: Merchiston Park, Edinburgh
This two-year phase focused on the development of a third living wall (4), based on a new composite, Corkcrete, that was developed with academic partners in Portugal. Corkcrete is a mix of OPC and cork aggregates, the latter of which increases bioreceptivity. Testing was conducted for a variety of mixtures that retain more water and promote growth. Different moss types and additional organic substrates were also explored, as well as new design patterns.
Phase One: EPSRC Funding
This 18-month research period departed from the investigations of Sandra Manso Blanco on bioreceptive MPC concrete and also a patent from the UPC in Barcelona, scaling up for the
10
INTRODUCTION
3
3 Poikilohydric living wall at St Anne’s Catholic Primary School, London.
4
4 Rendering of poikilohydric living walls for Merchiston Park, Edinburgh.
11
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Aims and Objectives
Questions
Poikilohydric Living Walls investigates ways to increase biological growth on building façades and urban infrastructures. It responds to the urgency of the climate crisis by improving the environmental and aesthetic quality of our cities. It aims to:
1. Can we create poikilohydric-responsive architecture by designing bioreceptive walls that promote the growth of microorganisms and cryptogams?
A main aim of the research is to make environmentally responsive buildings that can switch on or off the photosynthetic activity of microorganisms and cryptogams – plants that use spores rather than seeds to propagate – on their façades, depending on rainfall and moisture levels in the air. Specific morphological surface patterns were designed and the porosity of bioreceptive materials was calibrated, allowing for increased absorption and retention to promote selected growth in certain areas of the façade.
1. Increase vertical greening in cities, creating new sustainable solutions to improve the environment and levels of urban wellbeing; 2. Design, fabricate and test living walls as an alternative to existing bolt-on vegetative façade systems; 3. Create new bioreceptive concrete composites that stimulate the proliferation of poikilohydric species without additional mechanical irrigation and maintenance;
2. Which material scaffolds and substrates promote the biocolonisation of vertical surfaces?
4. Improve panel performance by increasing water retention to promote biocolonisation on building façades;
To promote biological growth, living walls require the complementary performance of material scaffolds and substrates. Porous materials act as scaffolds, creating a structural framework on which plants and substrates are fixed and moisture is retained. Organic substrates work as nutrient providers for the microbiota of small-scale plants to thrive. Most poikilohydric species are epiphytic, with rhizoids (proto roots) that need rough surface materials to hook onto. These species require small layers of organic matter from which they can feed. Substrates on building façades are commonly composed of dust and organic matter (mostly cyanobacteria and dead algae). In the first two phases, the research identified MPC and Porous TecCast composites as potential
5. Combine interdisciplinary processes of computational design and material testing with advanced workflows to create knowledge for future commercial products; 6. Materialise the novel concept of an ‘architectural bark’: a layered biocolonised building façade that allows patchy growth to integrate with designed geometries.
12
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES / QUESTIONS
5
5 MPC panel with transplanted moss, Cooper Hewitt Design Triennial, New York, 2019.
13
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
structural scaffolds onto which substrates can accumulate. In the final phase, Corkcrete was developed to act as both scaffold and substrate.
3. Can bioreceptive façades be manufactured in a structurally sound and cost-efficient way, aiming for future widespread application in the built environment?
For the St Anne’s and East Putney projects, a novel Porous TecCast system was developed that used glass-fibre reinforcement (6) Instead of expensive rubber moulds, CNC-milled polyurethane foam boards were used for the East Putney project, which allow for a higher degree of design variability and cost-efficiency.
6
4. Can poikilohydric living walls create a new aesthetic that appeals to the general public?
This research has been exhibited and published widely. The designed and manufactured panels have been acknowledged as ‘ornamental’ (Bufi 2019), ‘attractive’ (Hiesinger et al. 2019), ‘elegant’ (Coyne 2018), ‘combin[ing] ecological, structural and aesthetic qualities’ (Brayer and Zeitoun 2019), ‘[are] smart… more sustainable and beautiful’ (Pagliacolo 2018) and ‘enhance building aesthetics’ (Thornton 2016). 150 visitor questionnaires were completed at Ecobuild in London that confirmed the strong visual and material appeal of the panels. 6 Porous TecCast panels being tested for structural strength at Pennine Stone. 7 Final design of the poikilohydric living wall for East Putney Underground Station, London.
14
QUESTIONS
7
8 (overleaf) Initial outdoor exposure of MPC concrete panels. 9 (overleaf) Initial outdoor exposure of OPC concrete panels.
15
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
8
16
QUESTIONS
9
17
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Context Cities are characterised by the hard and vertical surfaces of building façades, which from an evolutionary point of view ‘have many of the same macro- and micro-habitats, and many of the same plants, as natural cliff faces’. According to the urban cliff hypothesis, ‘cliffs, talus and other rock outcrops represent a marginal, unproductive refuge habitat that gave rise to … humans and their commensals and mutualists’ (Larson et al. 2004). At the same time, urban ‘cliffs’ share characteristics with deserts: very low-nutrient conditions, extreme surface temperatures, desiccation through evaporation or rainwater run-off, and material alkalinity. Plants occupying such surfaces share features with desert species: ‘(1) shallow roots and a high root:shoot ratio; (2) higher water stress and heat tolerances; (3) small leaves that closely track air temperature; … (5) low photosynthetic and growth rates; (6) opportunistic phenologies; and (7) a regular spatial pattern’ (Smith et al. 1996). Façades are therefore extreme environments of which morphological variance is of huge importance: they define a micro-environmental heterogeneity that influences the deposition of organic matter and the accretion of micro-substrates upon which islands of species can thrive (Smith et al. 1996). They also offer micro- and mesoconcavities in which new ‘urban habitat templates’ (Lundholm 2006) for cryptogamic growth can emerge.
18
CONTEXT
10
10 Clockwise from top left: cryptogamic surface cover on tree bark, Regent’s Park, London; bioreceptive wall in Lisbon; and two bioreceptive walls in London.
19
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
In the 1990s, Belgian biochemical engineer, Olivier Guillitte, defined ‘bioreceptivity’ as the phenomenon of materials being biocolonised without biodeterioration (Guillitte 1995). He categorised four types, all of which enhance cryptogamic growth on walls: · ‘primary or intrinsic’: the initial phase of material biocolonisation; · ‘secondary’: biocolonisation that changes over time due to external factors; · ‘tertiary’: biocolonisation that is promoted due to human activity; · ‘extrinsic’: biocolonisation due to the external deposits of dust and organic particles upon which plants thrive.
11 Clockwise from top left: three details of an expanded cork agglomerate north-facing façade with evidence of at least six different lichen types, Pavilhão Centro de Portugal, Coimbra; ornamental concrete sculpture, Giardini della Biennale, Venice; two details of an ornamental sandstone wall, Convento de Cristo, Tomar.
20
CONTEXT
11
21
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Researchers from the Max Planck Society and University of Kaiserslautern found that cryptogamic cover amounts to 7% of net global primary production of carbon uptake by terrestrial vegetation, while accounting for nearly half of biological nitrogen fixation on land (Elbert et al. 2012). Algae and moss absorb large amounts of pollution as they lack protective cuticles on their surfaces and leaves. Designing façades to accommodate cryptogams is challenging as irregularity and unpredictability of growth contradicts a sense of order and clarity of geometric form; an ‘aesthetic of cleanliness’ (Vigarello 1988) and ‘purity’ (Forty 2000) still remains the ideal in design. The scattered occurrence of growth patches resembles blotching in human skin. It is regarded as potentially pathological, ‘matter out of place’ as defined by the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966), and promotes impure aesthetics. Meanwhile, biophilic design establishes new aesthetic criteria in terms of scale and gradient of pattern, tectonic readability, transition between material and biology, visual response to living and dead biomass, chromatic value, depth and shading.
12
12 Transplanted moss on bioreceptive components and panels installed at The Bartlett, UCL. 13 Spontaneous algae and moss growth on bioreceptive components.
22
CONTEXT
13
23
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Methodology 1. Scaffold Material Development, Testing and Manufacturing
Phase One Initial tests were conducted with MPC due to its hardiness, low alkalinity and waterretention capability (19). Selected composites were made of magnesium oxide, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, borax and two types of aggregate – 1–2 mm of sand for a fine layer and 2–4 mm for a course layer – mixed with a minimum of water to increase material porosity. The coexistence of two MPC mixes allowed for water to be absorbed quickly through the coarser back, before being sucked into the finer front (16). Additional porosimetry tests were conducted on the surface roughness and capillary action of the panels (17).
14
15
16
14 Capillary suction test on MPC sample. 15 Micro-hygrometry sensors. 16 Water absorption test.
17 Porosimetry tests to define surface roughness. 18 Table of MPC material characterisation.
24
METHODOLOGY
17
Baroque
Poché
Vertical
Fine
Coarse
Fluid
Fine
Coarse
Fluid
Fine
Coarse
Fluid
Volume
0.041
0.011
0.0045
0.037
0.012
0.0045
0.04
0.011
0.0045
Aggregates
77.10
19.73
8.72
69.58
21.52
8.72
75.22
19.73
8.72
MgO
9.36
1.70
1.08
8.45
1.85
1.08
9.13
1.70
1.08
Phosphates
5.35
0.97
0.62
4.83
1.06
0.62
5.22
0.97
0.62
Borax
0.88
0.16
0.10
0.80
0.17
0.10
0.86
0.16
0.10
Water
2.34
0.42
0.45
2.11
0.46
0.45
2.28
0.42
0.45
M:P
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
% Borax
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.15
0.15
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.25
W/C
25
18
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
19
20
26
METHODOLOGY
21
21 Detail of MPC casts with variable surface textures. Bespoke toolpath definitions defined smaller-scale textural surface variance to slow water run-off. 22 Design of toolpaths to create texture on panels.
19 MPC material tests were conducted on small casts (100 × 100 mm and 300 × 300 mm) with different aggregate sizes to create multi-material porous composites that promote water absorption in specific areas of the panels. 20 Initial MPC casts with different levels of porosity.
22
27
MARCOS CRUZ
Age (days)
1
2
7
28
Age (days)
1
2
7
28
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Sample Number
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Height (mm)
Weight (g)
Density (kg/m3)
1.1
160.01
39.61
40.07
454.15
1788.2
1.2
160.16
39.73
40.09
452.61
1774.3
1.3
160.14
39.87
40.09
455.52
1779.6
2.1
160.10
39.30
40.07
445.78
1768.1
2.2
160.35
39.09
40.04
449.28
1790.1
2.3
160.14
39.05
40.13
441.75
1760.3
7.1
160.18
39.24
40.03
444.89
1768.2
7.2
160.19
39.35
40.14
445.36
1760.2
7.3
160.33
39.28
40.06
459.38
1820.9
28.1
160.52
39.06
40.04
448.71
1787.4
28.2
160.14
39.33
40.10
454.74
1800.5
28.3
160.26
38.89
40.06
447.14
1790.9
Sample Number
Flexural failure load (N)
Flexural Strength (MPa)
1.1
935.17
2.21
1.2
1467.93
3.45
1.3
1507.99
3.53
2.1
1955.55
4.65
2.2
1689.73
4.04
2.3
1595.13
3.80
7.1
1876.81
4.48
7.2
1968.04
4.66
7.3
2197.47
5.23
28.1
2099.69
5.03
28.2
2118.90
5.03
28.3
1940.87
4.66
23
Average Flexural Strength (MPa)
3.06
4.17
4.79
4.91 24
23 Dimension, weight and density of 12 prism specimens used for flexural and compressive strength tests, carried out by the Building Research Establishment, 2017. 24 Results of flexural strength tests carried out by the Building Research Establishment, 2017.
28
METHODOLOGY
Age (days)
Sample Number
1.1
1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2
2.2
2.3
7.1
7
7.2
7.3
28.1
28
28.2
28.3
Test Number
Compressive Failure Load (N)
Compressive Strength (MPa)
1
25392.27
16.03
2
24294.34
15.33
1
24367.78
15.33
2
24872.94
15.65
1
24744.50
15.52
2
24494.48
15.36
1
30118.71
19.16
2
30979.44
19.71
1
15746.11
10.07
2
29214.64
18.68
1
17563.52
11.24
2
27067.69
17.33
1
31510.93
20.08
2
31729.60
20.22
1
31958.04
20.30
2
31335.25
19.91
1
40004.40
25.46
2
38745.04
24.66
1
37570.98
23.48
2
35785.57
22.37
1
42078.79
26.30
2
37628.35
23.52
1
35499.82
22.19
2
35606.54
22.25
25 Results of compressive strength tests on 24 ends of 12 prism specimens, carried out by the Building Research Establishment, 2017.
29
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)
15.54
18.72
21.77
23.35
25
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
The material bioreceptivity of MPC and OPC was tested outdoors over a 12-month period, using panels of three different geometry types to compare surface morphologies. Three replicas of each type were produced, resulting in 18 medium-scale façade prototypes. Material tests were carried out during the exposure study, including testing of flexural and compressive strength – three specimens tested at one, two, seven and 28 days – freeze-thaw resistance and fixing pull-out resistance (26). These tests established that the MPC panels, even though very porous, had good structural integrity but they did not perform well when exposed to the action of freeze-thaw. This suggests that the mix was potentially inappropriate for long-term outdoor exposure in the UK’s climate.
26
27
26 Flexural and compressive strength test being performed on an MPC sample at the Building Research Establishment. 27 Three-axis milling of SikaBlock® Foam on a PACER 615 HDs using Delcam software.
28
28 MPC cast in GRC Fleximould – a rubber type that is suitably durable for multi-concrete casts.
30
METHODOLOGY
Phase Two Panels for the St Anne’s and East Putney projects were built from OPC due to problems affecting biocolonisation during the curing process of MPC (29). Observations in urban environments showed that certain moss types are perfectly capable of growing on OPC. Despite initial high alkalinity, OPC has a gradual decrease of pH when carbonised over time, which makes it gradually more bioreceptive. The goal was to offset the carbon footprint of OPC, which is the cheapest and most available material in the construction industry. A preliminary design featuring complex three-layered panels was not pursued beyond the testing phase, as it did not retain more water as hoped and transplanted moss did not establish. The casting of such panels was also very laborious, which made it a commercially unavailable process.
29
29 Rubber moulds and multi-material OPC casts with lightweight aggregates, produced for St Anne’s Catholic Primary School, London.
31
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
30
32
METHODOLOGY
31
30 Drawings of multilayered panels. 31 A multi-material OPC cast with lightweight aggregates and a closed front layer.
33
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
32
34
METHODOLOGY
33
32 Installation of poikilohydric living wall at St Anne’s Catholic Primary School by Solid Brickworks. 33 Collage of poikilohydric living wall at East Putney Underground Station, London.
34
34 Preliminary moss transplantation on a multimaterial OPC cast with lightweight aggregates.
35
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Ultimately, all panels were made from singlelayer OPC. TecCast – a recipe by Pennine Stone Ltd composed of cement, sand, lime dust, water, admixtures, yellow dye and glass fibres for higher tensile and flexural strength – was calibrated for increased porosity, showing a high level of water-absorption capability. Compressive strength tests averaged 26.12 N/m2; a density of 120 kg/m3; and an average weight of 80 kg for St Anne’s and 70–100 kg for East Putney (38). The resulting glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) panels were fabricated by Pennine Stone Ltd, who employed state-ofthe-art CNC milling of moulds and industrial casting systems (35).
35
36
35 Final production of TecCast concrete panels for St Anne’s Catholic Primary School, London. 36 Test casting of TecCast concrete panels for East Putney Underground Station, London.
36
37 Structural testing of TecCast concrete panels for the Centre Pompidou, Paris. 38 Structural testing of TecCast concrete panels for St Anne’s, London.
METHODOLOGY
38
37
37
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Phase Three Cork was used as an aggregate due to several advantages when compared with previous studies: it is a natural material that is highly bioreceptive, especially for the development of lichens that are slow to proliferate on urban surfaces; it is very light, minimising the overall weight of panels; and it provides good thermal and acoustic insulation. Corkcrete components were developed in collaboration with the University of Coimbra for Merchiston Park. A variety of porous mortar mixtures of OPC and natural and expanded cork were tested to minimise the evaporative loss of water while keeping structural integrity (40–2).
Material mix
Cement: aggregate ratio
Water: cement ratio
Cement (g)
Sand (g)
Cork (g)
Water (g)
Top layer (yes / no)
Non-porous cement
1 to 2
1 to 0.5
1200
3000
0
680
n
Porous cement
1 to 2
1 to 0.3
1200
3000
0
430
n
Porous Corkcrete
1 to 2
1 to 0.55
1200
0
440
660
n
Porous Corkcrete with exposed cork layer
1 to 2
1 to 0.55
1200
0
440
660
y 39
39 Composition of each set of material samples fabricated for the study.
38
METHODOLOGY
40
41
42
40 Four preliminary types of Corkcrete samples installed in random order, to test bioreceptivity, at Meanwhile Wildlife Gardens in London. 41 Eight further types of Corkcrete sample installed in random order to test bioreceptivity at Meanwhile Wildlife Gardens in London.
42 Comparative study of different size and intensity of cork aggregate in the material composite.
39
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
2. Design and Computational Modelling
Phase One The classification of different tree barks and intense sketching led to the creation of over 30 3D Rhino and Houdini models, organised into a ‘taxonomy’ of morphological surface patterns. From those, 15 small models were 3D printed and categorised into six geometric families: vertical curtain system, diagonal baroque, scattered poché, horizontal striations, bulging and branching. The first three were selected for the fabrication of three panel types (1500 × 1000 mm) based on their surface water run-off capability.
43 Preliminary sketches outlining key concepts and systems for components and panels.
40
METHODOLOGY
43
41
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
44
44 Morphological study of vertical surface pattern ‘Fins’.
42
METHODOLOGY
45
45 Morphological study of vertical surface pattern ‘Longitudinal Striations’. 46 Morphological study of vertical surface pattern ‘Snake Skin’.
47 (overleaf) Taxonomy of 13 types of surface morphology for bioreceptive façade panels.
43
46
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
44
METHODOLOGY
47
45
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
48
48 First selection of morphological surface patterns.
46
METHODOLOGY
49
49 Final selection of three key surface patterns: curtain, poché, baroque.
47
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
50
51
48
METHODOLOGY
Phase Two Another series of geometric studies with a vertical branching system was carried out in Houdini for St Anne’s (51–2). The chosen patterns were mirrored, creating a repetitious yet diverse design for the wall, with calibrated spacing between branches to prevent children from trying to climb up it.
52
50 MPC panels with three selected surface patterns: curtain, poché, baroque. 51–2 New generation of surface morphologies developed in Houdini for St Anne’s, London. 53 Branching geometry developed in Houdini.
53
49
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
54
50
METHODOLOGY
55
54-5 Branching geometry.
51
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
56
56-7 Preparation of files with final branching geometry for the manufacture of moulds.
52
METHODOLOGY
57
53
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
A new series of branching patterns was designed for East Putney Underground Station, creating a wall with few repeated panels. A curtain theme was chosen to enhance the legibility of the wall from a distance and to maximise the surface depth for increased shading (58, 60). A branching pattern was then imposed over the curtain folds, creating an ornamental pattern on the wall (59, 61–2). The size of the branches was calibrated with a gradient that ranged from flat vertical indentations where curtain folds are deep to horizontal crevices where they are shallow.
58
Phase Three A set of new differential growth patterns was created for Merchiston Park. The aim was to augment the surface area of panels and slow down water run-off. This allows the material to absorb and retain moisture (63–4).
59
58 Preliminary curtain tectonic for East Putney Underground Station, London. 59 Bioreceptive wall for East Putney.
54
METHODOLOGY
60
61
60 Final curtain tectonic for East Putney. 61 Adjustment of crevice width in the branching system. 62 Final wall morphology for East Putney, which is divided into 20 horizontally juxtaposed panels of 500 × 1,000 mm.
62
55
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
56
METHODOLOGY
63
63 Pattern study for Merchiston Park, Edinburgh.
57
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
64 Wall study for Merchiston Park, Edinburgh.
58
METHODOLOGY
64
59
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
3. Biological/Environmental Tests and Observational Studies
·
Phase One ·
A community dynamics test was conducted to compare the evolution of microbial and algae communities on different panel sizes, both indoors and outdoors, and in varying conditions of humidity and irrigation. Metagenomics tests were carried out with samples collected at four different times. Molecular data was then analysed using bioinformatics, allowing for the characterisation of microbial biodiversity in 14 points/samples after one year of exposure. Three further tests were conducted on samples that were then compared with small outdoor panels as part of an observation study to monitor water content with three volumetric water sensors (VWS). Different species of algae and moss were tested on 18 large-scale OPC and MPC panels in an outdoor exposure study, over a period of a year, to understand the viability of motile, non-motile and filamentous species (71, 73). Later, a selection of moss species was collected from the local area and mixed into a shake; this was applied to the right side of each panel to allow for comparison with the left (72). All studies considered the complementary relationship between the seeding process, the nursery period with controlled irrigation and the growth period dependent on climate. A series of environmental studies was carried out to track growth on the panels. This included: · Collecting climatic data from an automatic weather station (AWS) measuring wind speed and direction compared to the prevailing norms for London;
·
Measuring sub-surface temperature using incorporated sensors in both the MPC and OPC panels to show diurnal and seasonal fluctuations (68); Collecting and measuring water run-off in a tray underneath the mounted panels Chemically analysing coloured water collected from the MPC panels (66–7).
36 measurement channels, including volumetric water sensors and a water run-off instrument logger fed into a database that was analysed using MatLab software. A robotic photographic survey of panels was carried out from a fixed vantage point in regular intervals of two weeks (69, 74–5). Two 3D LiDAR surveys were also carried out. The point clouds were coordinated with the photographic survey and were analysed for vertical rain catchment.
Units
Lab. Sample Code No. H11048-1
Lab. Sample Code No. H11048-2
Magnesium, Dissolved
mg/l
1.3
21
Phosphorus, Total
mg/l
5.8
5000
Suspended
mg/l
6
710
Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N
mg/l
<0.015
32
Nitrate as N
mg/l
1.1
0.88
Nitrate as N
mg/l
0.046
0.20
Ortho Phosphate as P
mg/l
4.9
5900
Silicate as
mg/l
<0.10
<0.10
Solids
Si02
60
65
METHODOLOGY
66
67
68
65 Analysis of rainwater run-off from MPC and OPC panels. 66 Sample of rainwater run-off from OPC panels.
68 Outdoor testing of MPC samples (200 × 200 mm).
67 Sample of rainwater run-off from MPC panels.
69 Apparatus for the photographic survey.
61
69
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Front north-facing elevation of panels for observation study (2016 to 2017)
62
METHODOLOGY
70
70 Drawing of sensor logger to measure the thermal variance of the surface and interior of the panels.
63
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
71
71 18 MPC and OPC bioreceptive panels exposed outdoors at The Bartlett, UCL, 2016.
64
METHODOLOGY
72
72 A moss shake was applied to half of each panel, consisting of: Bryum Capillare, Tortula Muralis, Grimmia Pulvinata, Hypnum Cupressiforme, Trichostomum sp. and Homalotecium Sericeum.
65
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
73
73 18 bioreceptive concrete panels as part of a 12-month outdoor exposure trial at The Bartlett, UCL, 2016.
66
METHODOLOGY
74
74-5 (overleaf) Photographic survey of the 18 MPC and OPC panels.
67
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
68
METHODOLOGY
75
76 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
76 The panels are mounted at first-storey height and are arranged in a random order. They represent a north-facing façade with partial sheltering to the south and west.
69
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
4. Conclusions 1. Colour variations on MPC panel surface, from brown to white, resulted from: (a) intense evaporation activity and (b) chemical leaching from within the panels after rainfall (78); 2. There was no sign of biological growth on the MPC panels. There was also no evidence that the possible cooling effects from surface evapotranspiration affected superficial growth. In order to test biological growth in optimal conditions, a further two-week algaefouling test was carried out, which still did not show growth;
77
3. All tests confirmed that both residual chemical surface properties and porosity created an unexpected inhibitor for growth in a single annual cycle; 4. Algae and moss growth were evident in specific areas of OPC panels that had no porosity and, therefore, offered water catchment areas in horizontal crevices (79). This was significant proof that the surface morphology on its own – independent of its material chemistry, pH and porosity – has a vital role in creating bioreceptivity on concrete panels.
78
77 Detail images of MPC panels with struvite formation on the material’s surface. 78 Leaching effect of boric acid on the porous surface of an MPC panel.
70
METHODOLOGY
Phase One An EPSRC observation study was conducted with an MPC panel for two additional years in other locations in London, finally showing a mild presence of algae in selected areas. The panel was first exposed at Camley Street Natural Park in an inclined manner for over a year. Following this, it was relocated to Meanwhile Gardens and was positioned in a vertical manner with a slight inclination (81). Another set of multi-material bioreceptive MPC panels was exposed at Camley Street Natural Park and showed evidence of algae growth after two years (80). These studies demonstrated that more time was necessary for porous MPC panels to become bioreceptive, possibly to allow uncured chemicals in the material to be washed out. The studies also showed that vegetation in the surrounding parks created an inducive context for bioreceptive growth, due to heightened moisture and shading of trees as well as the release of algae and spores from adjacent plants.
Phase Two Different types of moss were considered for transplantation onto the St Anne’s and East Putney projects. Three were chosen – Bryum Capillare, Tortula Muralis, Grimmia Pulvinata – according to their resilience during the grafting process, speed of establishment, occurrence on vertical and concrete surfaces, dehydration tolerance and aesthetic qualities. In parallel, hydrogels were deployed to promote initial adhesion of moss to the TecCast panel and protect it in the early stages of growth. A variety of cross-linked hydrogel materials were tested.
79
79 Evidence of moss growth on an OPC panel after 12 months of outdoor exposure.
71
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
80 Selective algae growth on a multi-material MPC prototype after 24 months of outdoor exposure at Camley Street Natural Park, London.
80
72
81 Algae growth on an MPC baroque panel after 12 months of outdoor exposure at Camley Street Natural Park and 12 months at Meanwhile Gardens, London.
METHODOLOGY
81
73
82
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Phase Three Colonisation-rate tests were carried out on different substrates, assessing the compatibility between these materials and the species of moss. An ongoing study considers other bacteriological factors that could enhance moss propagation, informed by in-situ observations of bryophyte colonies and lab experiments. These include: · Isolation of methylobacterium, cyanobacteria, nitrogen-fixing bacteria and other epiphytic microorganisms to understand the functional diversity of the moss microbiome; · Cultivation of epiphytic microbial species in a liquid medium for the development of probiotic biogenic binder and liquid probiotic consortia to promote the establishment of moss; · Impact assessment of specific probiotic treatments on in-vitro growth of three moss species; · In-situ growth-rate documentation of different moss species according to specific concrete substrate compositions.
83
Corkcrete samples exposed for 12 months in various London locations showed that those with larger-scale cork aggregates and a higher presence of cork on the surface became biocolonised with algae (83–4). When compared with the slow growth on MPC panels, the selected Corkcrete samples proved to be more bioresponsive, even hosting moss and lichen after a single winter cycle.
82 (previous) Poikilohydric living wall installed on a northfacing wall in the playground of St Anne’s Catholic Primary School.
76
83 Weathering of Corkcrete samples after 12 months of outdoor exposure. There is evidence of algae and moss growth on those with a higher percentage of cork.
METHODOLOGY
84
84 Algae, moss and lichen growth on Corkcrete samples after 12 months of exposure at Meanwhile Gardens, London.
85
85 Microscopic image of lichen.
77
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Dissemination
· · · ·
Publications and Interviews
The research has been disseminated in one peer-reviewed journal article written by Cruz published in Architectural Research Quarterly (2016), and two chapters in the books Meeting Nature Halfway (2018) and Design with Life (2020) – all included in the Appendix, see pp. 85–112. It has been discussed in a range of diverse publications, e.g. Étapes Magazine (2019) and The Sunday Times (2019), and has featured in exhibition catalogues for the Cooper Hewitt Design Triennial (2019) and La Fabrique du Vivant at Centre Pompidou, Paris (2019). Cruz has been interviewed in IaaC Bits/Black Ecologies (2019), Arredamento MIMARLIK (2019) and on BBC Earth (2016).
·
Ecobuild, ExCeL, London (2018) Norman Foster Foundation, Madrid (2017) Ecobuild, ExCeL, London (2017) Super Materials, Building Centre, London (2017) Biofabricate, Ecobuild ExCeL, London and Microsoft and Parsons School of Design, New York (2016)
Built Living Walls
An important form of dissemination has been the installation of materials and designs in public spaces. First, bioreceptive materials have been installed in various gardens across London; second, two bioreceptive walls have been designed: one installed at St Anne’s Primary School, the other due to be installed at East Putney Underground Station (late 2020).
Films
· ·
Project Highlights
10 Great Inventions (2020). Directed by Jim Turner. London: OfftheFence Virtual Pavilion SuperCity (2019). Directed by Tom Kovac
This research is one of the first attempts to systematically explore the potential for bioreceptive building façades. Its significance must be considered within the context of the current climate crisis. Its potential to address environmental challenges connected to urban life was first recognised by UK Research and Innovation (with an EPSRC grant). Further phases of the research have been sponsored by governmental organisations, such as Transport for London, and have been advanced through collaborations with commercial companies, such as Laing O’Rourke. Manufacturing feasibility has been developed in collaboration with Pennine Stone, making the panels cost-efficient in terms of structure, material and casting techniques, and potentially viable for mass production.
Exhibitions
· · · · · · ·
Design Future, Philadelphia Museum of Art (2019) Cooper Hewitt Design Triennial, Cube Design Museum, Kerkrade (2019) Cooper Hewitt Design Triennial, New York (2019) La Fabrique du Vivant, Centre Pompidou, Paris (2019) New Forms of Practice / Drivers of Change, The Arup Gallery, London (2019) Futurebuild: The Shape of Things to Come, ExCeL, London (2019) Bio-ID, London Design Festival (2018)
78
DISSEMINATION / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS / BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography
Lundholm, J. T. (2006). ‘Green Roofs and Facades: A Habitat Template Approach’. Urban Habitats. 4 (1). pp. 87–101. Pagliacolo, E. (2018). ‘Concrete Construction Is Becoming Smarter, More Sustainable and Beautiful’. Azure. 30 March. [Viewed 2 September 2020]. www.azuremagazine.com/article/ evolution-concrete-construction/ Smith, S. D., Monson, R. K., Anderson, J. E. (1996). Physiological Ecology of North American Desert Plants. New York: Springer. Thornton, A. (2016). ‘World of Design: The Joy of Moss and Its Modern Uses’. Houzz. 24 March. [Viewed 2 September 2020]. www.houzz.com/magazine/world-ofdesign-the-joy-of-moss-and-its-modernuses-stsetivw-vs~63756958 Vigarello, G. (1988). Concepts of Cleanliness: Changing Attitudes in France since the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.
Brayer, M-A. and Zeitoun, O. eds (2019). La Fabrique du Vivant. Paris: Centre Pompidou. Bufi, L. (2019). ‘Poikilohydric Living Walls’. Étapes Magazine. 253. pp. 168–70. Coyne, R. (2018). Network Nature: The Place of Nature in the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge. Elbert, W., Weber, B., Burrows, S., Steinkamp, J., Büdel, B., Andreae, M. O., Pöschl, U. (2012). ‘Impact of Cryptogamic Covers on the Global Cycles of Carbon and Nitrogen’. Nature Geoscience. 5 (7). pp. 459–62. Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson. Guillitte, O. (1995). ‘Bioreceptivity: A New Concept for Building Ecology Studies’. Science of The Total Environment. 167 (1–3). pp. 215–20. Hiesinger, K. B., Fisher, M., Byrne, E., LopezPastor, M. B., Ryan, Z. (2019). Designs for Different Futures. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kinchen, R. and Forster, K. (2020). ‘Reasons to Be Cheerful: 11 Great Ideas from British Universities that Could Change the World’. The Sunday Times. 26 April. [Viewed 2 September 2020]. www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ reasons-to-be-cheerful-11-great-ideasfrom-british-universities-that-couldchange-the-world-32msbbdlz Larson, D., Matthews, U., Kelly, P. E., Lundholm, J., Gerrath, J. (2004). The Urban Cliff Revolution: New Findings on the Origins and Evolution of Human Habitats. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.
79
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Related Publications by the Researchers Cruz, M. (2018). ‘Bio-Integrated Design (Bio-ID)’. Colletti, M. and Massin, P. eds. Meeting Nature Halfway: Architecture Interfaced Between Technology and Environment. Innsbruck University Press. pp. 104–9. Cruz, M. (2020). ‘Poikilohydric Design, Towards a Bio-Integrated Architecture’. Joachim, M. and Aiolova, M., eds. Design with Life. New York: Actar Publishers. pp. 414–8. Cruz, M. and Beckett, R. (2016). ‘Bioreceptive Design: A Novel Approach to Biodigital Materiality’. Architectural Research Quarterly. 20 (1). pp. 51–64.
80
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Related Writings by Others Birch, A. (2016). ‘Reinventing the Green Wall’. Building Design. 15 April. Brayer, M-A. and Zeitoun, O. (2019) ‘Marcos Cruz & Brenda Parker’. La Fabrique du Vivant. Paris: Centre Pompidou. pp. 69, 152–3. Bufi, L. (2019). ‘Poikilohydric Living Walls’. Étapes Magazine. 253. pp. 168–70. Cash, C. (2020). ‘The Green Recovery?’. Building Engineer. October. pp. 36–40. Coyne, R. (2018). ‘Reproducing Nature’. Network Nature: The Place of Nature in the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 73–4. Gausa, M., Markopoulou, A. and Vivaldi, J. (2019). ‘Bio-Integrated Design: Marcos Cruz Interviewed by Jordi Vivaldi’. IaaC Bits/Black Ecologies. Barcelona: Actar Publishers. pp. 76–89. Hiesinger, K. B., Fisher, M., Byrne, E., Lopez-Pastor, M. B., Ryan, Z. (2019). Designs for Different Futures. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 112. Kinchen, R. and Forster, K. (2020). ‘Reasons to Be Cheerful: 11 Great Ideas from British Universities that Could Change the World’. The Sunday Times. 26 April Lipps, A., McQuaid, M., Condell, C., Bertrand, G. (2019). Nature: Collaborations in Design. New York: Cooper Hewitt. pp. 209, 214–6. Pagliacolo, E. (2018). ‘Concrete Construction is Becoming Smarter, More Sustainable and Beautiful’. Azure. 30 March Thornton, A. (2016). ‘World of Design: The Joy of Moss and Its Modern Uses’. Houzz. 24 March. Printed article
Online article (clickable link)
81
MARCOS CRUZ
POIKILOHYDRIC LIVING WALLS
Image Credits
Bartlett Design Research Folios
All images © Marcos Cruz, unless otherwise stated.
ISSN 2753-9822
Paul Smoothy Sarah Lever 4 Andy Shaw 6, 31, 35–8 Jake Edwards 7, 30, 45–6, 51–7, 62 Javier Ruiz 1, 71, 73
© 2022 The Bartlett School of Architecture. All rights reserved.
2, 82
Chris Leung Javier Ruiz and Marcos Cruz 33, 49, 59 Richard Beckett 42 Anete Salmane 44, 48, Marcos Cruz and Richard Beckett 47 Sybil Shiyi Sun 61, 63 Nina Jotanovic 64 Nina Jotanovic and Marcos Cruz 78 Chris Leung and Marcos Cruz 82 Jakob Bauer 8–9, 14–6, 28, 50, 66–70, 74–7, 79
Text © the authors Founder of the series and lead editor: Yeoryia Manolopoulou
27
Edited by Yeoryia Manolopoulou, Barbara Penner, Phoebe Adler Picture researcher: Sarah Bell Additional project management: Srijana Gurung Graphic design: Objectif Layout and typesetting: Siâron Hughes Every effort has been made to trace the copyright holders of the material reproduced in this publication. If there have been any omissions, we will be pleased to make appropriate acknowledgement in revised editions.
BARTLETT DESIGN RESEARCH FOLIOS
2022 SERIES
Design for Learning AY Architects
Poikilokydric Living Marcos Cruz
Life of Clay Guan Lee
Audialsense Paul Bavister
Warsaw Karowa Bridge DKFS Architects
Flood House Matthew Butcher
Photosynthetic Architecture ecoLogicStudio
Digital Manual Guan Lee, Daniel Widrig
Instruments Nine and Ten Nat Chard Coworking Spaces Izaskun Chinchilla Architects Organic Growth Pavilion Izaskun Chinchilla Architects TransDisciplinary PostDigital FrAgility Marjan Colletti + REX|LAB
Discrete Timber Architecture Gilles Retsin LA Futures Smout Allen
Kew House Tim Lucas
Infractus Smout Allen
Losing Myself Yeoryia Manolopoulou, Níall McLaughlin
A Register of User Adaptations Storp Weber Architects
Oxford Projects Níall McLaughlin Architects
Uncovering Casa Sperimentale Storp Weber Architects
High Street Regeneration Jan Kattein Architects
Funicular del Tibidabo Miàs Architects
Oxford North Jonathan Kendall
The Cloud Miàs Architects
Cork Construction Oliver Wilton, Matthew Barnett Howland
Hakka Cultural Park Christine Hawley, Abigail Ashton, Andrew Porter, Moyang Yang
Alga(e)zebo mam
55/02 sixteen*(makers)
Chong Qing Nan Lu Towers mam
Envirographic and Techno Natures Smout Allen
City of Ladies Penelope Haralambidou Discrete Methods for Spatial Robotic Extrusion Manuel Jiménez García, Gilles Retsin
Playing the Picturesque You + Pea
2015 SERIES
Bloom Alisa Andrasek, José Sanchez House of Flags AY Architects Montpelier Community Nursery AY Architects Design for London Peter Bishop 2EmmaToc / Writtle Calling Matthew Butcher, Melissa Appleton River Douglas Bridge DKFS Architects Open Cinema Colin Fournier, Marysia Lewandowska The ActiveHouse Stephen Gage Déjà vu Penelope Haralambidou Urban Collage Christine Hawley
House Refurbishment in Carmena Izaskun Chinchilla Architects Refurbishment of Garcimuñoz Castle Izaskun Chinchilla Architects Gorchakov’s Wish Kreider + O’Leary Video Shakkei Kreider + O’Leary Megaframe Dirk Krolikowski (Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners) Seasons Through the Looking Glass CJ Lim Agropolis mam
ProtoRobotic FOAMing mam, Grymsdyke Farm, REX|LAB Banyoles Old Town Refurbishment Miàs Architects Torre Baró Apartment Building Miàs Architects Alzheimer’s Respite Centre Níall McLaughlin Architects Bishop Edward King Chapel Níall McLaughlin Architects Block N15 Façade, Olympic Village Níall McLaughlin Architects
Hydrological Infrastructures Smout Allen Lunar Wood Smout Allen Universal Tea Machine Smout Allen British Exploratory Land Archive Smout Allen, Geoff Manaugh 101 Spinning Wardrobe Storp Weber Architects Blind Spot House Storp Weber Architects
Regeneration of Birzeit Historic Centre Palestine Regeneration Team
Green Belt Movement Teaching and Learning Pavilion Patrick Weber
PerFORM Protoarchitecture Lab
Modulating Light and Views Patrick Weber