Brixton Rec User Group is in discussion with Lambeth Council on the future of Brixton Recreation Centre. This includes prices and community access: the building's design, facilities and energy sustainability,
Please read BRUG's detailed comments and the Council's response below:
Or download the PDF.
BRUGs RESPONSE TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE REC
BRIXTON RECREATION CENTRE USER GROUP INITIAL RESPONSE TO FEASIBILITY STUDY OF BRIXTON RECREATION CENTRE 17/02/15 by STRIDE TREGLOWN, SWEETT, WSP, & LAMBETH COUNCIL'S RESPONSE, April 2015.
INTRODUCTION
This response has been drawn together by members of the BRUG Committee, with additional comments from other Rec users.
BRUG is very happy that at last the condition of the Rec is being assessed and improvements to facilities and the sustainability of the building are being considered. We support Lambeth Council in its publicly declared aim of securing the Rec and all its current facilities in its iconic home.
We are ambitious with regards to the future of the Rec as a recreation centre and not just as a sports and leisure centre. We are also ambitious for the Rec to be a beacon of culture and sustainability. It is because we care about the Rec and believe it is at the heart of Brixton that we have taken the time and the trouble to study the Feasibility Study carefully. We are sorry that most of our comments have to be negative. If the scope of the study had been thought out more carefully and made more explicit in its introduction the study could have been more relevant and better value for money.
_________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
1. We would expect this document to begin with a brief. No brief or detailed scope for the report is provided. It is therefore impossible to judge its completeness or purpose. The document does not represent a full and detailed feasibility/capacity study. Rather, it presents a range of information generated during the initial phase of the feasibility process which, in association with the June 2014 Building Condition Survey information, has provided an opportunity for the Council to review, issues principally around budget setting. Any decisions on design or the facilities mix – as raised in a number of your questions below will not be progressed until the formal feasibility process commences. We will at this point be consulting people to develop the design options, within these parameters.
2. The content, and evidence backing up content, is very inconsistent in quality, varying from well researched (we assume) demographic information to 'hearsay' and unsubstantiated value judgement. We have noted your subjective views at this stage and will reflect on them as we move forward.
3. In the 'building study' section of the report the focus is on perceived defects. No space is given to the 'built assets'. Much criticism of the building in the report is given without any evidence to back it up. As stated above this is not detailed feasibility report. It seeks to identify some of the principles around condition and layout. Issues such as accessibility/ circulation are subject to appraisal in this section of the report, which will need to be explored further – however one would not necessarily conclude that these represent ‘defects’.
4. The building's architectural merits and its role as a successful and greatly loved recreation centre are ignored. Much of the criticism of the building's functioning stems from a lack of understanding of the architectural logic that guided its planning and has been vital to its success. It is worth reemphasising the point that this work is being undertaken within a framework, which was developed with you before starting this work. This included the need to maintain the integrity of the building given its iconic status. As stated above and discussed previously, the forthcoming design feasibility will be more detailed and carry a lot more information about the history and character of the building. The architect informing this study has spent a good deal of time familiarising himself with the building’s heritage and functionality.
5. No analysis of the building's structure is provided. Any study would have made a mockery of the included proposed options for alternative pool provision or revised circulation.
Please refer to the response to Q21 below.
6. We have been told informally by the project manager that many condition surveys of the building have been carried out as part of the feasibility study. These studies are not included in the Feasibility report as it stands. If these other surveys exist they need to be listed and included in the Appendix. The Building Condition Survey, June 2014 should be regarded as the most comprehensive point of reference. The project manager is not aware of any further surveys undertaken as part of this study. A wall tie survey has been completed in the past few weeks though, the findings of which will be released shortly. A thermographic survey is also planned for completion by the end of March 2015.
7. Key issues of disability access have not been specifically explored.
At this stage of the project access into and around the building has only been appraised in principle. An in-depth analysis of the existing accessibility strategy and engagement with all user groups will take place in the next stage.
8. The ambitions for improving sustainability are virtually non-existent. No options for improvements are explored.
See responses below to questions 22-24
9. The feasible use of the vast amount of space that is currently used for 'storage' at the Rec is not explored. As discussed, any decision on potential use of surplus space will not be considered at this stage, but will follow in due course, once the needs of users and non-users are fully understood.
10. The location and significance of the Rec within the borough is explored but its relationship to its direct neighbours is not, e.g. International House and the Station Road railway arches. This will be addressed as part of the design feasibility stage.
______________________________________________________________________________
DETAILED QUESTIONS
Question 1: BRUG are aware of the Capacity Study. How did this inform the brief and why were neither included or mentioned in the Feasibility Study?
Answer: Our Lambeth indoor sports facilities strategy and action plan 2015 to 2020 is a separate document which forms part of our “Cultural services by 2020” consultation available from
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/cultural-services-by-2020. A large portion of the initial findings from this strategy, particularly around demographic change and changing sports facility needs, informed the production of the initial feasibility document.
Question 2: Where is the evidence of the previous Building Survey Summary dated 23 June 2014?
Answer: The detail is reflected in the detail of this document, as the engineers informing the process were also involved in producing the building survey. It was also outlined in a press release.
https://lambethnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/brixton-recreation-centre-securing-the-future/
Furthermore, the survey itself was published on Future Brixton website and forwarded to BRUG under separate cover on 21st November 2014.
Question 3: The report does say that the Rec plays a large part in the Brixton Central site development. We do not see the consultations on the Brixton Central site laying particular stress on the Rec as a community "Hub" for the area. How are the Brixton Central site and the Rec consultations going to be developed together?
Answer: We are aware of the need to co-ordinate between the next stage of design feasibility at the Rec and the next level of design work in relation to the wider masterplan. We will set out how we intend this to happen when we begin the design feasibility stage of work for the Rec.
Question 4: None of the options for internal alterations consider the original ethos of the building which was a large public space for leisure activities. For instance how the atrium acts as a public square not just a means of circulation. We are concerned that the report throughout deals with the use of space in a purely functional manner rather than seeing the building as a whole. The atrium is an asset not a hindrance. The report tends to look at different activities in isolation. This goes contrary to the other part of the report, which says that the Rec is used by widely different socio economic groups, that users like the atmosphere of it, and people see the Rec as important for the community. It's where people of all backgrounds and ages mix. We feel the report should have looked at the bigger picture in design terms. How will Council in its developing brief for the architects, ensure that the original ethos of the Rec is retained? How will the council assess any> reinterpretation of the ethos for the future?
Answer: As stated above, this is a high level review of the building layout, based on standard principles for the evaluation of accessibility. It is far too early at this stage to comment upon reinterpretation of the existing ethos – albeit that it must be sympathetic.
Question 5: BRUG believes that it is vital that the design, current usage, facilities and the experience and perceived qualities that are so appreciated by users, are properly valued. The 'existing building critique' see section 3.0 to 3.5 fails to address the significance of the buildings architectural assets and interprets critical design features of the building as 'inefficient' circulation design, and the key visual language as 'dated finishes'. No evidence is produced to support these judgement. When and how does the council propose to make a proper, fully researched and professionally evidenced critical analysis of the architectural assets?
Answer: There is little objective doubt that a number of the finishes are quite dated. This will need to be discussed as part of a more detailed assessment process during the design feasibility process.
Question 6: The Rec has proved to be extremely flexible to changing user needs, this has in part been due to initial generous space standards. This has not been addressed in the current study. When and how will the flexibility of the existing building be analysed so as to help understand the practicality of any further use changes?
Answer: As above, issues around layout, access and flexibility will be further reviewed during the forthcoming feasibility process.
Question 7: We noticed in the report that it’s the only recreation centre in Lambeth that has separate facilities for younger people. (Youth Zone: see section 2.8 of report and conclusions p17). This is reflected in the relatively high use by younger age groups. How will Lambeth build on the use of the Rec by younger people in plans for reconfiguring the Rec? How will Lambeth consult youth, bearing in mind that they are not necessarily in clubs? Adults often speak on behalf of young people. Will the Council also separately consult the young users of the Rec, not just the adults who run their classes?
Answer: This issue will be considered in designing further the public consultation programme as we move forward, which will need to demonstrate a clear methodology on engagement with young people and indeed the wider community which may include schools, existing young users and club members and the Lambeth Youth Council.
Question 8: The report suggests plans for reconfiguring the Rec- pool, crèche, atrium, entrance which would radically alter the Rec. Are these suggestions serious propositions? Does the Council have preferred options? Some of the options would entail a considerable change to the layout of the building. How are they to be consulted on?
Answer: See response to Q6 above
Question 9:We see the Enterprise Hub was asked for its opinion on the Rec. What was the result of this consultation?
Answer: The Enterprise Hub was not asked specifically for an opinion on the Rec. The reference to it in the report is in the context of capturing potential demand or alternative use, on the proviso that suitable capacity was available and stakeholders supported such a usage proposal.
Question 10: At the last public meeting about the Rec people made it clear they did not want to see parts of the Rec permanently hived off for commercial use, but were not opposed to the current shared arrangement, whereby facilities such as for the Conference Suite can be hired out to companies at commercial rates while community groups can use it either free or very cheaply. There is already a lot of commercial office and light industrial space in the Brixton area. We do not feel the Rec is appropriate for these uses. Will the council confirm that the Rec is an inappropriate location for more commercial office and light industrial space? Will the Council make sure that the current community use of the Conference Suite is retained?
Answer: The Rec is a venue designed principally for recreation and as we have stated previously it is this integrity we are seeking to preserve for future generations. The site is currently providing mixed-use space and hosts a number of retail units at ground level. As you state in your opening “We are also ambitious for the Rec to be a beacon of culture and sustainability.” We would agree with this approach and this will help shape the future financial modelling for the facility. In keeping with the integrity of the building this would continue to provide a balanced programme of activity, including community use of conference suite facilities.
Question 11: At p4 Executive Summary, the report says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project. How will Council make sure this project to refurbish the Rec will meet the above principles? Will the Council use an outside assessor to see how these principles are applied and independently report on how the Council is doing? Are said reports to be made public?
http://www.bioregional.com/services/ Bioregional can do this.
The One Planet Living Principles are http://www.bioregional.com/oneplanetliving/
Health and Happiness
Equity and local economy
Culture and Community
Land use and wildlife
Sustainable water
Local and sustainable food
Sustainable materials
Sustainable transport
Zero Waste
Zero Carbon
It's a good list.
Answer: This aspiration will be carried forward into the next phase of the project and from part of the brief for the professional team. The adoption of these principles is consistent with the objectives set outin the Brixton SPD. At this stage, it is simply too early to comment on the detail given it all be subject to final design and budget.
Questions 12: The report says that around 60% of the users who responded say that they are satisfied with the charges. The report also says that due to the local area being deprived some people have neither the time nor the funds to use the Rec. The report also says that the wide range of socio-economic users means that improvements to the Rec need to be done in a sensitive manner (see conclusions p17). How will the Council make efforts to consult all residents, including but not only the local Council, Housing Association and estate residents, to see what they want from a refurbished Rec?
Answer: We are likely to, but have not agreed as yet, to appoint a specialist consultant to lead the consultation process. The successful party will be required at tender to demonstrate precisely how they will engage with all parties. Question 13: Around 60% being happy about cost of Rec means 40% are not, which is a lot. How will the Council address this in future?
Answer: Through our new pricing policy, which embodies the principle of fairness. As part of our Culture 2020 consultation we are also proposing the establishment of a Sports Innovation Fund to provide subsidies for community-led sports clubs in the borough. We would welcome your views on this proposal.
Question 14: The report says the aim is to make the Rec self-sustaining. Does this mean that the council is expecting to remove all subsidies from the Rec, considering that the norm is for a local authority to subsidise recreation centres because of the health and well-being benefits to the local community?
Answer: Setting costs within the existing management contract aside the building does not currently operate on a subsidy basis. Applying the principle of self-sustaining allows the Council to establish whether the building operates at a surplus or loss and thereby builds an appreciation of its relative financial position. Please see reference above to the proposed Sports Innovation Fund.
Question 15: The report projects an ageing population. (Section 2.5 and conclusions on p 17). Yet the graph at section 2.5 p 12 shows that even if there is a 40% increase in the over 55s, all other age groups apart from 16-24 have more forcast users than the over 55s. In 20 years’ time many things could happen. We note that past predictions about the need for e.g. school places did not anticipate> the baby boom of the last decade. BRUG believes too much emphasis being laid on the changing demographics. How will any new design be flexible enough to allow for unforeseen demographic changes over the next decades?
Answer: Elements of the building are effectively fixed, such as the pool and the sports hall. Elsewhere space could potentially be used more flexibly. For instance some of the surplus storage and plant areas could be opened up and subdivided, as required to meet a specific demand for a given period of time. The initial review process appears to suggest that there would be capacity to do that.
Question 16:m See Section 4.1. We are surprised that the areas that have been identified in the study as'underused' have not had any new uses explored. What new uses is the Council considering?
Answer: The council has no view at this stage. Any potential uses for ‘underused’ areas will be considered and explored during the next consultation phase.
Question 17: The report says that the underused space is 24%. But with the bowling green at Level 1 it’s 35%. This implies that the bowling green may go. Is the Council thinking of other uses at Level 1 other than the bowling green? If so will the bowling club be rehoused in another part of the building?
Answer: As above, this is not a decision to be made at this stage of the process. It has simply been established that the usage of the area, in relation to other parts of the building, is relatively low. Question 18: Please explain "Community Safeguarding" referred to on one of the drawings, and its relevance to the Rec.
Answer: Community safeguarding covers a broad range of policies including policing, crime and disorder, reducing re-offending, anti-social behaviour, trading standards, substance misuse, domestic abuse, fire, etc. Many of which the council has a statutory duty to comply with.
Question 19: There appears to be nothing written about the use of above ground level outside space around the Rec, e.g. closed off walkways. Why does the report omit this? Have any options for the use of these spaces been considered?
Answer: This will be addressed as part of the more detailed consultation process.
Question 20: At section 4.2 the sketches on circulation and entrance location are next to meaningless as they are not assessed against the context of the existing building layout, proposed building use, site location, and orientation. When and how will these assessments be made?
Answer: This work was undertaken to develop an early understanding as to how a new entrance or revised circulation strategy could be applied. This is currently a ‘high level’ review to allow consideration of the impact a change to position of the entrance may have on different areas of the building. In the future the architect working on subsequent phases of the project would develop/ formalise proposals for these elements with input from stakeholders as part of the formal design process.
Question 21: Why when we understand that a BIM study has been made has there been no analysis of the buildings structural grid or system been attempted? It is surely critical to assess the structure when any proposed changes that would affect the building structure.
Answer: As previously noted, the structural engineer informing this study is very familiar with the
building and worked on the June 2014 Building Condition survey. They have appraised it as being of a robust construction in reinforced concrete and in a reasonable condition for its age. However they have also advised that although major structural alteration would be feasible it is likely to be costly and therefore not represent good value for money. During the next stage it is proposed there would be a more detailed structural survey, at the point of further developing any design options.
Question 22: BREEAM. Executive Summary p42 is an excellent summary of BREEAM standards. The BREEAM rating is divided into five levels, PASS, GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT & OUTSTANDING. The report states that the Council is considering a BREEAM score of PASS, with the further possibility of VERY GOOD. BRUG finds this distressingly unambitious and dismally inadequate as the propose targets for improved sustainability. We believe that the Rec should aspire to an OUTSTANDING BREEAM status. Why is this not the goal?
Answer: The assessments included seek to reflect the expectancy of what may be achieved within a ‘reasonable’ budget given the age and condition of the building. A BREEAM target will not be set until the budget is known and the design principles have been set by way of formal consultation.
Question 23: 3.7 (p26) Energy Use. Figures are given for the Rec's energy consumption for 2013 of well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds. The accompanying bar charts compare actual energy use with two of the three standards that this project could aim to adhere to: UK Good Practice and UK Best Practice. The third standard that is also included for assessment in this report, but has been omitted from these bar charts, is the Passivhaus EnerPHit standard (see Appendix B, p78). It should be included on these bar charts and would show for Gas (i.e. heating), just 25 kWh/m2 per annum, compared to UK Good Practice of about 600 kWh/m2 per annum and for UK Best Practice of about 270 kWh/m2 per annum. The only energy item being considered, if BREEAM VERY GOOD was aimed for, is energy monitoring. The centre manager is already taking daily meter readings. Only BREEAM EXCELLENT and OUTSTANDING cover actual energy saving measures. BREEAM PASS basically just requires that any wood used comes from a sustainable source. The Passivhaus Assessment on p78 is nothing more than a one page list of standard Passivhaus criteria that could be applied to any potential retrofit plus two sentences specific to swimming pools. The report goes on "We have further identified design features/processes which should be considered early in the scheme to ensure that opportunities to achieve high BREEAM ratings are not missed." This could also be said about Passivhaus. Is the Council going to undertake a proper Passivhaus assessment at a very early stage in order not to miss design opportunities?
Answer: Please refer to the previous response.
Question 24: 3.8 (p27) Plant Space - this is primarily a commentary on ventilation.There appears to be no planning for MVHR - Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery. Contemporary good practice is to have a heat recovery system. Many London local authorities would require this for the refurbishment of an existing non-domestic building. Why has this been omitted?
Answer: We are working from an assumption that given its age that all existing air handling units will be removed and replaced. Heat recovery would then be incorporated where not currently provided. Additionally, where opportunities for combining ventilation plant are available, such as in the swimminpool, then centralised MVHR units may be provided enabling a greater proportion of heat energy to be recovered.
Question 25: Why has no analysis of public transport accessibility to the Rec been made?
Answer: The PTaL rating of the Rec is excellent (6b) and transport links are shown at section 2.1, Brixton Transport Links and 2.2 ‘Local Movements’ in a diagramatic form.
Question 26: BRUG's request for Office/Meeting Space for all the Recs Clubs and Activities is now shown as "Community Space". We would like other non-commercial community space as well as the aforementioned office space. Please provide clarification of what community space is intended.
Answer: As above, issues around layout, access and flexibility will be further reviewed.
Question 27: 4.1 (p31) Pool locations. The Lambeth survey and BRUG members both say that the existing pool one of the best and most appreciated features of the Rec. The BRUG committee consider that the existing location for the swimming pool is the best one - a view shared by BRUG members at the workshop on 25th October 2014. Why does the report include an option for remodelling and moving the pool? Is the Council considering this as a realistic proposal?
Answer: As part of the study it was necessary to address Sport England targets for additional pool space. In reviewing the issue, the Council has been able to demonstrate that the relocation or extension of the pool would be difficult as considered in the response to Qs 6,15 & 21 above.
Question 29: Why is there is no mention of a café, or café location?
Answer: A café is referred to on the diagram at Section 4. However the size, position etc… would be subject to further consideration.
Question 30: The Rec is featured on the Sport England web site as model for wet changing area refurbishment. Why has there been no assessment of how the Rec meets Sport England standards?
Answer: Any such standards will be considered in detail as part of the design development process
‘proper’.
___________________________________________________________________________
COMMENTS
Report sections 3.1 -3.3 (p20 -22) Circulation & Use. Layout and Accessibility
LIFT CORE
Report comments: Street level lift inconvenient. BRUG comments: We are not aware of there being any street level lift at present.
Answer: I understand that the context of the text in the report is that the access to the lift from street level is via a ramp and through the main entrance, which is not the most convenient route. Report comments: Lift and main entrance in different locations (we assume that this refers to the main lift situated behind the escalator). BRUG comments: Our understanding of modern building design aimed at reducing the unnecessary use of lifts and reducing energy consumption was that stairs should be closer to the entrance than the lift, otherwise people will naturally use the lift rather than the stairs. The situation currently for the internal lift and stairs is that the lift is wellsited. This principle should still be applied if arrangements are made for a ground floor entrance.
Answer: Access to lifts is often assessed as an important issue for people with restricted mobility or sight impairment. Thus it is generally accepted as good practice to have the lift located close to the entrance and with level access from the street, which at present it is not.
ATRIUM SPACE
Report comments: The atrium is separated from the Main Entrance. BRUG comments: The BRUG committee does not regard this as a problem.
Noted
Report comments: Deep ledges reduce visibility. BRUG comments: We are not aware of such an issue. The planters should be brought back into use.
Answer: This is an observation made by the architect and could be addressed if improved visibility was desired. Your comment regarding the planters being brought back into use, have been noted. Report comments: Ventilation & Fire performance. BRUG comments: Ventilation - we agree that it is not fit for purpose. Fire Performance - The BRUG committee agree with the approach as outlined in paragraph 9.7.1 of the Building Survey Summary dated 23 June 2014 regarding fire safety, which is sensibly pragmatic on this point: "Building Survey, Para 9.7.1 The review has highlighted that there are deviations in the building’s design compared with modern design guidance. However, these deviations do not present a significant risk to the life safety of occupants and would not be reasonably practicable to change as they form the core design of the building, e.g. all escape stairs are external, escape around the void (central circulation space) is necessary at some levels via a balcony."
Noted
Report comments: Layout creates obstructions to circulation. BRUG comments: Rec Users did not raise circulation problems in the Council survey, nor done so with BRUG. If there is no problem a solution is not required. Please provide evidence of what is regarded as problematic. Answer: Due to the ‘Pedway’ concept (elevated walkways) the original design relied on access into the building at 1st floor level. As this town planning concept was not fully carried out, the Rec stood alone without any high level walkway connections. At present, access into the building is either via series of steps or via what appears to be a non-compliant ramp (Approved Document Part M). The main entrance is not currently visible from street level so it’s hard to see facilities, and activity spaces clearly – or other features of the y internal layout. Although there are some difficulties with the existing layout, the report highlights the original building concepts which provide very good potential into the next phase of the project.
3.3.4 Report comments:
Some of the highly used spaces are a comparatively long distance from the Entrance Foyer. BRUG comments: The BRUG committee does not regard this as a problem nor have general users reported this as a problem. If there is no problem a solution is not required. In fact the distance allows for social interaction amongst the different user groups within the building. Answer: As noted previously, access for people with restricted mobility or sight impairment is an important issue to address, and we must consider new visitors to the centre.
3.3.5 Report comments:
The small foyer area creates a circulation pinch point which contributes to congestion at the Reception. BRUG comments: This is partly due to not enough staff in peak periods and/or layout of entrance. The latter is being addressed in current refurbishment of the entrance and reception area.
Noted
3.3.6 Report comments:
Gym & Halls located on the top floors at the furthest distance from the entrance. BRUG comments: Users did not mention the as a problem in the Council survey, nor with BRUG. If there is no problem a solution is not required - as 3.1 and 3.3.4 (above).
Answer: See 3.3.4 above
3.5 (p24) Space Utilisation.
The atrium is included is designated as underused space (yellow on plans). The atrium is a circulation space, well used by most REC users coming and going to and from their various activities. There appears to be no appreciation of the atrium's architectural importance and contribution to social interaction and a feeling of community safety that users experience within the building. The BRUG committee therefore request that this designation be removed from the atrium immediately.
Answer: As noted previously, this stage of the review process is intended to address high level issues. The designation of this space as underused does not imply it could or would be used for something else.
4. (p30) Brief Development GLL: 'glass lift in the atrium'. Our comment about 3.1 (P.20) above applies, in addition to its detrimental effect on the atrium.
Noted
Lambeth: Car Parking. The BRUG committee consider that using any of the Rec as a car park is an inappropriate use of the building. The Rec is superbly located for public transport. There is also new car parking being created on the Popes Road site beside the Rec.
Noted
4.2 (p32) Circulation Strategies.
Our comment at 3.3 (Circulation & Use) applies. In addition the BRUG committee see the mixed nature of the building as an asset rather than a problem.
Noted
4.3 (p33) Entrance Locations
BRUG agrees that the entrance should be at street level on the ground floor.
Noted
__________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
We do understand that the scope of the study is limited and the brief for the study may have mutated or been constrained. For the study to have any true usefulness it is really important that the brief and scope of it is stated clearly at the beginning.
The lack of a clearly stated study brief and scope has resulted in a lack coherence and form to the study. This study may be regard as ' just a start', but as such it is a poor one. We believe it falls short of the general professional understanding of what a ‘feasibility study’ should be. We sincerely hope that any future feasibility studies are less superficial and more considered.
Last year BRUG was asked to comment on a proposed brief for a Rec feasibility study.
Three issues were top in BRUGs comments:
1) a comprehensive assessment of the Rec’s architectural significance and improvements to its sustainability.
2) the ways the Rec could serve the community even better.
3) show how the Rec could be made more energy efficient and sustainable for the future.
None of these key issues has been addressed in the current study.The passion that local users feel for the Rec and the political significance of the Rec's preservation and improvement is in no small measure due to the success of the Rec's original concept and design. This design was guided by the ambition and vision of Lambeth and their Architect George Finch to produce a safe, visually entertaining, truly accessible building to all local residents and that would encourage a diverse recreational usage. It was planned so that the diverse users would mix and be aware of the all the amazing range of activities. From the evidence provided in the current feasibility report. Lambeth and the contributors to the report, do not appear to have understood why the building works so well and is so popular and loved in the local community. If the original vision for the building is to continue it is vital that both Lambeth today and any new Architects, properly understand, value, and appreciate the extraordinary building, that is, the Brixton Recreation Centre.
Please read BRUG's detailed comments and the Council's response below:
Or download the PDF.
BRUGs RESPONSE TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE REC
.JPG) |
| “Architectural Photography by Simon Kennedy;” |
INTRODUCTION
This response has been drawn together by members of the BRUG Committee, with additional comments from other Rec users.
BRUG is very happy that at last the condition of the Rec is being assessed and improvements to facilities and the sustainability of the building are being considered. We support Lambeth Council in its publicly declared aim of securing the Rec and all its current facilities in its iconic home.
We are ambitious with regards to the future of the Rec as a recreation centre and not just as a sports and leisure centre. We are also ambitious for the Rec to be a beacon of culture and sustainability. It is because we care about the Rec and believe it is at the heart of Brixton that we have taken the time and the trouble to study the Feasibility Study carefully. We are sorry that most of our comments have to be negative. If the scope of the study had been thought out more carefully and made more explicit in its introduction the study could have been more relevant and better value for money.
_________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
1. We would expect this document to begin with a brief. No brief or detailed scope for the report is provided. It is therefore impossible to judge its completeness or purpose. The document does not represent a full and detailed feasibility/capacity study. Rather, it presents a range of information generated during the initial phase of the feasibility process which, in association with the June 2014 Building Condition Survey information, has provided an opportunity for the Council to review, issues principally around budget setting. Any decisions on design or the facilities mix – as raised in a number of your questions below will not be progressed until the formal feasibility process commences. We will at this point be consulting people to develop the design options, within these parameters.
2. The content, and evidence backing up content, is very inconsistent in quality, varying from well researched (we assume) demographic information to 'hearsay' and unsubstantiated value judgement. We have noted your subjective views at this stage and will reflect on them as we move forward.
3. In the 'building study' section of the report the focus is on perceived defects. No space is given to the 'built assets'. Much criticism of the building in the report is given without any evidence to back it up. As stated above this is not detailed feasibility report. It seeks to identify some of the principles around condition and layout. Issues such as accessibility/ circulation are subject to appraisal in this section of the report, which will need to be explored further – however one would not necessarily conclude that these represent ‘defects’.
4. The building's architectural merits and its role as a successful and greatly loved recreation centre are ignored. Much of the criticism of the building's functioning stems from a lack of understanding of the architectural logic that guided its planning and has been vital to its success. It is worth reemphasising the point that this work is being undertaken within a framework, which was developed with you before starting this work. This included the need to maintain the integrity of the building given its iconic status. As stated above and discussed previously, the forthcoming design feasibility will be more detailed and carry a lot more information about the history and character of the building. The architect informing this study has spent a good deal of time familiarising himself with the building’s heritage and functionality.
5. No analysis of the building's structure is provided. Any study would have made a mockery of the included proposed options for alternative pool provision or revised circulation.
Please refer to the response to Q21 below.
6. We have been told informally by the project manager that many condition surveys of the building have been carried out as part of the feasibility study. These studies are not included in the Feasibility report as it stands. If these other surveys exist they need to be listed and included in the Appendix. The Building Condition Survey, June 2014 should be regarded as the most comprehensive point of reference. The project manager is not aware of any further surveys undertaken as part of this study. A wall tie survey has been completed in the past few weeks though, the findings of which will be released shortly. A thermographic survey is also planned for completion by the end of March 2015.
7. Key issues of disability access have not been specifically explored.
At this stage of the project access into and around the building has only been appraised in principle. An in-depth analysis of the existing accessibility strategy and engagement with all user groups will take place in the next stage.
8. The ambitions for improving sustainability are virtually non-existent. No options for improvements are explored.
See responses below to questions 22-24
9. The feasible use of the vast amount of space that is currently used for 'storage' at the Rec is not explored. As discussed, any decision on potential use of surplus space will not be considered at this stage, but will follow in due course, once the needs of users and non-users are fully understood.
10. The location and significance of the Rec within the borough is explored but its relationship to its direct neighbours is not, e.g. International House and the Station Road railway arches. This will be addressed as part of the design feasibility stage.
______________________________________________________________________________
DETAILED QUESTIONS
Question 1: BRUG are aware of the Capacity Study. How did this inform the brief and why were neither included or mentioned in the Feasibility Study?
Answer: Our Lambeth indoor sports facilities strategy and action plan 2015 to 2020 is a separate document which forms part of our “Cultural services by 2020” consultation available from
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/cultural-services-by-2020. A large portion of the initial findings from this strategy, particularly around demographic change and changing sports facility needs, informed the production of the initial feasibility document.
Question 2: Where is the evidence of the previous Building Survey Summary dated 23 June 2014?
Answer: The detail is reflected in the detail of this document, as the engineers informing the process were also involved in producing the building survey. It was also outlined in a press release.
https://lambethnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/brixton-recreation-centre-securing-the-future/
Furthermore, the survey itself was published on Future Brixton website and forwarded to BRUG under separate cover on 21st November 2014.
Question 3: The report does say that the Rec plays a large part in the Brixton Central site development. We do not see the consultations on the Brixton Central site laying particular stress on the Rec as a community "Hub" for the area. How are the Brixton Central site and the Rec consultations going to be developed together?
Answer: We are aware of the need to co-ordinate between the next stage of design feasibility at the Rec and the next level of design work in relation to the wider masterplan. We will set out how we intend this to happen when we begin the design feasibility stage of work for the Rec.
Question 4: None of the options for internal alterations consider the original ethos of the building which was a large public space for leisure activities. For instance how the atrium acts as a public square not just a means of circulation. We are concerned that the report throughout deals with the use of space in a purely functional manner rather than seeing the building as a whole. The atrium is an asset not a hindrance. The report tends to look at different activities in isolation. This goes contrary to the other part of the report, which says that the Rec is used by widely different socio economic groups, that users like the atmosphere of it, and people see the Rec as important for the community. It's where people of all backgrounds and ages mix. We feel the report should have looked at the bigger picture in design terms. How will Council in its developing brief for the architects, ensure that the original ethos of the Rec is retained? How will the council assess any> reinterpretation of the ethos for the future?
Answer: As stated above, this is a high level review of the building layout, based on standard principles for the evaluation of accessibility. It is far too early at this stage to comment upon reinterpretation of the existing ethos – albeit that it must be sympathetic.
Question 5: BRUG believes that it is vital that the design, current usage, facilities and the experience and perceived qualities that are so appreciated by users, are properly valued. The 'existing building critique' see section 3.0 to 3.5 fails to address the significance of the buildings architectural assets and interprets critical design features of the building as 'inefficient' circulation design, and the key visual language as 'dated finishes'. No evidence is produced to support these judgement. When and how does the council propose to make a proper, fully researched and professionally evidenced critical analysis of the architectural assets?
Answer: There is little objective doubt that a number of the finishes are quite dated. This will need to be discussed as part of a more detailed assessment process during the design feasibility process.
Question 6: The Rec has proved to be extremely flexible to changing user needs, this has in part been due to initial generous space standards. This has not been addressed in the current study. When and how will the flexibility of the existing building be analysed so as to help understand the practicality of any further use changes?
Answer: As above, issues around layout, access and flexibility will be further reviewed during the forthcoming feasibility process.
Question 7: We noticed in the report that it’s the only recreation centre in Lambeth that has separate facilities for younger people. (Youth Zone: see section 2.8 of report and conclusions p17). This is reflected in the relatively high use by younger age groups. How will Lambeth build on the use of the Rec by younger people in plans for reconfiguring the Rec? How will Lambeth consult youth, bearing in mind that they are not necessarily in clubs? Adults often speak on behalf of young people. Will the Council also separately consult the young users of the Rec, not just the adults who run their classes?
Answer: This issue will be considered in designing further the public consultation programme as we move forward, which will need to demonstrate a clear methodology on engagement with young people and indeed the wider community which may include schools, existing young users and club members and the Lambeth Youth Council.
Question 8: The report suggests plans for reconfiguring the Rec- pool, crèche, atrium, entrance which would radically alter the Rec. Are these suggestions serious propositions? Does the Council have preferred options? Some of the options would entail a considerable change to the layout of the building. How are they to be consulted on?
Answer: See response to Q6 above
Question 9:We see the Enterprise Hub was asked for its opinion on the Rec. What was the result of this consultation?
Answer: The Enterprise Hub was not asked specifically for an opinion on the Rec. The reference to it in the report is in the context of capturing potential demand or alternative use, on the proviso that suitable capacity was available and stakeholders supported such a usage proposal.
Question 10: At the last public meeting about the Rec people made it clear they did not want to see parts of the Rec permanently hived off for commercial use, but were not opposed to the current shared arrangement, whereby facilities such as for the Conference Suite can be hired out to companies at commercial rates while community groups can use it either free or very cheaply. There is already a lot of commercial office and light industrial space in the Brixton area. We do not feel the Rec is appropriate for these uses. Will the council confirm that the Rec is an inappropriate location for more commercial office and light industrial space? Will the Council make sure that the current community use of the Conference Suite is retained?
Answer: The Rec is a venue designed principally for recreation and as we have stated previously it is this integrity we are seeking to preserve for future generations. The site is currently providing mixed-use space and hosts a number of retail units at ground level. As you state in your opening “We are also ambitious for the Rec to be a beacon of culture and sustainability.” We would agree with this approach and this will help shape the future financial modelling for the facility. In keeping with the integrity of the building this would continue to provide a balanced programme of activity, including community use of conference suite facilities.
Question 11: At p4 Executive Summary, the report says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project. How will Council make sure this project to refurbish the Rec will meet the above principles? Will the Council use an outside assessor to see how these principles are applied and independently report on how the Council is doing? Are said reports to be made public?
http://www.bioregional.com/services/ Bioregional can do this.
The One Planet Living Principles are http://www.bioregional.com/oneplanetliving/
Health and Happiness
Equity and local economy
Culture and Community
Land use and wildlife
Sustainable water
Local and sustainable food
Sustainable materials
Sustainable transport
Zero Waste
Zero Carbon
It's a good list.
Answer: This aspiration will be carried forward into the next phase of the project and from part of the brief for the professional team. The adoption of these principles is consistent with the objectives set outin the Brixton SPD. At this stage, it is simply too early to comment on the detail given it all be subject to final design and budget.
Questions 12: The report says that around 60% of the users who responded say that they are satisfied with the charges. The report also says that due to the local area being deprived some people have neither the time nor the funds to use the Rec. The report also says that the wide range of socio-economic users means that improvements to the Rec need to be done in a sensitive manner (see conclusions p17). How will the Council make efforts to consult all residents, including but not only the local Council, Housing Association and estate residents, to see what they want from a refurbished Rec?
Answer: We are likely to, but have not agreed as yet, to appoint a specialist consultant to lead the consultation process. The successful party will be required at tender to demonstrate precisely how they will engage with all parties. Question 13: Around 60% being happy about cost of Rec means 40% are not, which is a lot. How will the Council address this in future?
Answer: Through our new pricing policy, which embodies the principle of fairness. As part of our Culture 2020 consultation we are also proposing the establishment of a Sports Innovation Fund to provide subsidies for community-led sports clubs in the borough. We would welcome your views on this proposal.
Question 14: The report says the aim is to make the Rec self-sustaining. Does this mean that the council is expecting to remove all subsidies from the Rec, considering that the norm is for a local authority to subsidise recreation centres because of the health and well-being benefits to the local community?
Answer: Setting costs within the existing management contract aside the building does not currently operate on a subsidy basis. Applying the principle of self-sustaining allows the Council to establish whether the building operates at a surplus or loss and thereby builds an appreciation of its relative financial position. Please see reference above to the proposed Sports Innovation Fund.
Question 15: The report projects an ageing population. (Section 2.5 and conclusions on p 17). Yet the graph at section 2.5 p 12 shows that even if there is a 40% increase in the over 55s, all other age groups apart from 16-24 have more forcast users than the over 55s. In 20 years’ time many things could happen. We note that past predictions about the need for e.g. school places did not anticipate> the baby boom of the last decade. BRUG believes too much emphasis being laid on the changing demographics. How will any new design be flexible enough to allow for unforeseen demographic changes over the next decades?
Answer: Elements of the building are effectively fixed, such as the pool and the sports hall. Elsewhere space could potentially be used more flexibly. For instance some of the surplus storage and plant areas could be opened up and subdivided, as required to meet a specific demand for a given period of time. The initial review process appears to suggest that there would be capacity to do that.
Question 16:m See Section 4.1. We are surprised that the areas that have been identified in the study as'underused' have not had any new uses explored. What new uses is the Council considering?
Answer: The council has no view at this stage. Any potential uses for ‘underused’ areas will be considered and explored during the next consultation phase.
Question 17: The report says that the underused space is 24%. But with the bowling green at Level 1 it’s 35%. This implies that the bowling green may go. Is the Council thinking of other uses at Level 1 other than the bowling green? If so will the bowling club be rehoused in another part of the building?
Answer: As above, this is not a decision to be made at this stage of the process. It has simply been established that the usage of the area, in relation to other parts of the building, is relatively low. Question 18: Please explain "Community Safeguarding" referred to on one of the drawings, and its relevance to the Rec.
Answer: Community safeguarding covers a broad range of policies including policing, crime and disorder, reducing re-offending, anti-social behaviour, trading standards, substance misuse, domestic abuse, fire, etc. Many of which the council has a statutory duty to comply with.
Question 19: There appears to be nothing written about the use of above ground level outside space around the Rec, e.g. closed off walkways. Why does the report omit this? Have any options for the use of these spaces been considered?
Answer: This will be addressed as part of the more detailed consultation process.
Question 20: At section 4.2 the sketches on circulation and entrance location are next to meaningless as they are not assessed against the context of the existing building layout, proposed building use, site location, and orientation. When and how will these assessments be made?
Answer: This work was undertaken to develop an early understanding as to how a new entrance or revised circulation strategy could be applied. This is currently a ‘high level’ review to allow consideration of the impact a change to position of the entrance may have on different areas of the building. In the future the architect working on subsequent phases of the project would develop/ formalise proposals for these elements with input from stakeholders as part of the formal design process.
Question 21: Why when we understand that a BIM study has been made has there been no analysis of the buildings structural grid or system been attempted? It is surely critical to assess the structure when any proposed changes that would affect the building structure.
Answer: As previously noted, the structural engineer informing this study is very familiar with the
building and worked on the June 2014 Building Condition survey. They have appraised it as being of a robust construction in reinforced concrete and in a reasonable condition for its age. However they have also advised that although major structural alteration would be feasible it is likely to be costly and therefore not represent good value for money. During the next stage it is proposed there would be a more detailed structural survey, at the point of further developing any design options.
Question 22: BREEAM. Executive Summary p42 is an excellent summary of BREEAM standards. The BREEAM rating is divided into five levels, PASS, GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT & OUTSTANDING. The report states that the Council is considering a BREEAM score of PASS, with the further possibility of VERY GOOD. BRUG finds this distressingly unambitious and dismally inadequate as the propose targets for improved sustainability. We believe that the Rec should aspire to an OUTSTANDING BREEAM status. Why is this not the goal?
Answer: The assessments included seek to reflect the expectancy of what may be achieved within a ‘reasonable’ budget given the age and condition of the building. A BREEAM target will not be set until the budget is known and the design principles have been set by way of formal consultation.
Question 23: 3.7 (p26) Energy Use. Figures are given for the Rec's energy consumption for 2013 of well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds. The accompanying bar charts compare actual energy use with two of the three standards that this project could aim to adhere to: UK Good Practice and UK Best Practice. The third standard that is also included for assessment in this report, but has been omitted from these bar charts, is the Passivhaus EnerPHit standard (see Appendix B, p78). It should be included on these bar charts and would show for Gas (i.e. heating), just 25 kWh/m2 per annum, compared to UK Good Practice of about 600 kWh/m2 per annum and for UK Best Practice of about 270 kWh/m2 per annum. The only energy item being considered, if BREEAM VERY GOOD was aimed for, is energy monitoring. The centre manager is already taking daily meter readings. Only BREEAM EXCELLENT and OUTSTANDING cover actual energy saving measures. BREEAM PASS basically just requires that any wood used comes from a sustainable source. The Passivhaus Assessment on p78 is nothing more than a one page list of standard Passivhaus criteria that could be applied to any potential retrofit plus two sentences specific to swimming pools. The report goes on "We have further identified design features/processes which should be considered early in the scheme to ensure that opportunities to achieve high BREEAM ratings are not missed." This could also be said about Passivhaus. Is the Council going to undertake a proper Passivhaus assessment at a very early stage in order not to miss design opportunities?
Answer: Please refer to the previous response.
Question 24: 3.8 (p27) Plant Space - this is primarily a commentary on ventilation.There appears to be no planning for MVHR - Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery. Contemporary good practice is to have a heat recovery system. Many London local authorities would require this for the refurbishment of an existing non-domestic building. Why has this been omitted?
Answer: We are working from an assumption that given its age that all existing air handling units will be removed and replaced. Heat recovery would then be incorporated where not currently provided. Additionally, where opportunities for combining ventilation plant are available, such as in the swimminpool, then centralised MVHR units may be provided enabling a greater proportion of heat energy to be recovered.
Question 25: Why has no analysis of public transport accessibility to the Rec been made?
Answer: The PTaL rating of the Rec is excellent (6b) and transport links are shown at section 2.1, Brixton Transport Links and 2.2 ‘Local Movements’ in a diagramatic form.
Question 26: BRUG's request for Office/Meeting Space for all the Recs Clubs and Activities is now shown as "Community Space". We would like other non-commercial community space as well as the aforementioned office space. Please provide clarification of what community space is intended.
Answer: As above, issues around layout, access and flexibility will be further reviewed.
Question 27: 4.1 (p31) Pool locations. The Lambeth survey and BRUG members both say that the existing pool one of the best and most appreciated features of the Rec. The BRUG committee consider that the existing location for the swimming pool is the best one - a view shared by BRUG members at the workshop on 25th October 2014. Why does the report include an option for remodelling and moving the pool? Is the Council considering this as a realistic proposal?
Answer: As part of the study it was necessary to address Sport England targets for additional pool space. In reviewing the issue, the Council has been able to demonstrate that the relocation or extension of the pool would be difficult as considered in the response to Qs 6,15 & 21 above.
Question 29: Why is there is no mention of a café, or café location?
Answer: A café is referred to on the diagram at Section 4. However the size, position etc… would be subject to further consideration.
Question 30: The Rec is featured on the Sport England web site as model for wet changing area refurbishment. Why has there been no assessment of how the Rec meets Sport England standards?
Answer: Any such standards will be considered in detail as part of the design development process
‘proper’.
___________________________________________________________________________
COMMENTS
Report sections 3.1 -3.3 (p20 -22) Circulation & Use. Layout and Accessibility
LIFT CORE
Report comments: Street level lift inconvenient. BRUG comments: We are not aware of there being any street level lift at present.
Answer: I understand that the context of the text in the report is that the access to the lift from street level is via a ramp and through the main entrance, which is not the most convenient route. Report comments: Lift and main entrance in different locations (we assume that this refers to the main lift situated behind the escalator). BRUG comments: Our understanding of modern building design aimed at reducing the unnecessary use of lifts and reducing energy consumption was that stairs should be closer to the entrance than the lift, otherwise people will naturally use the lift rather than the stairs. The situation currently for the internal lift and stairs is that the lift is wellsited. This principle should still be applied if arrangements are made for a ground floor entrance.
Answer: Access to lifts is often assessed as an important issue for people with restricted mobility or sight impairment. Thus it is generally accepted as good practice to have the lift located close to the entrance and with level access from the street, which at present it is not.
ATRIUM SPACE
Report comments: The atrium is separated from the Main Entrance. BRUG comments: The BRUG committee does not regard this as a problem.
Noted
Report comments: Deep ledges reduce visibility. BRUG comments: We are not aware of such an issue. The planters should be brought back into use.
Answer: This is an observation made by the architect and could be addressed if improved visibility was desired. Your comment regarding the planters being brought back into use, have been noted. Report comments: Ventilation & Fire performance. BRUG comments: Ventilation - we agree that it is not fit for purpose. Fire Performance - The BRUG committee agree with the approach as outlined in paragraph 9.7.1 of the Building Survey Summary dated 23 June 2014 regarding fire safety, which is sensibly pragmatic on this point: "Building Survey, Para 9.7.1 The review has highlighted that there are deviations in the building’s design compared with modern design guidance. However, these deviations do not present a significant risk to the life safety of occupants and would not be reasonably practicable to change as they form the core design of the building, e.g. all escape stairs are external, escape around the void (central circulation space) is necessary at some levels via a balcony."
Noted
Report comments: Layout creates obstructions to circulation. BRUG comments: Rec Users did not raise circulation problems in the Council survey, nor done so with BRUG. If there is no problem a solution is not required. Please provide evidence of what is regarded as problematic. Answer: Due to the ‘Pedway’ concept (elevated walkways) the original design relied on access into the building at 1st floor level. As this town planning concept was not fully carried out, the Rec stood alone without any high level walkway connections. At present, access into the building is either via series of steps or via what appears to be a non-compliant ramp (Approved Document Part M). The main entrance is not currently visible from street level so it’s hard to see facilities, and activity spaces clearly – or other features of the y internal layout. Although there are some difficulties with the existing layout, the report highlights the original building concepts which provide very good potential into the next phase of the project.
3.3.4 Report comments:
Some of the highly used spaces are a comparatively long distance from the Entrance Foyer. BRUG comments: The BRUG committee does not regard this as a problem nor have general users reported this as a problem. If there is no problem a solution is not required. In fact the distance allows for social interaction amongst the different user groups within the building. Answer: As noted previously, access for people with restricted mobility or sight impairment is an important issue to address, and we must consider new visitors to the centre.
3.3.5 Report comments:
The small foyer area creates a circulation pinch point which contributes to congestion at the Reception. BRUG comments: This is partly due to not enough staff in peak periods and/or layout of entrance. The latter is being addressed in current refurbishment of the entrance and reception area.
Noted
3.3.6 Report comments:
Gym & Halls located on the top floors at the furthest distance from the entrance. BRUG comments: Users did not mention the as a problem in the Council survey, nor with BRUG. If there is no problem a solution is not required - as 3.1 and 3.3.4 (above).
Answer: See 3.3.4 above
3.5 (p24) Space Utilisation.
The atrium is included is designated as underused space (yellow on plans). The atrium is a circulation space, well used by most REC users coming and going to and from their various activities. There appears to be no appreciation of the atrium's architectural importance and contribution to social interaction and a feeling of community safety that users experience within the building. The BRUG committee therefore request that this designation be removed from the atrium immediately.
Answer: As noted previously, this stage of the review process is intended to address high level issues. The designation of this space as underused does not imply it could or would be used for something else.
4. (p30) Brief Development GLL: 'glass lift in the atrium'. Our comment about 3.1 (P.20) above applies, in addition to its detrimental effect on the atrium.
Noted
Lambeth: Car Parking. The BRUG committee consider that using any of the Rec as a car park is an inappropriate use of the building. The Rec is superbly located for public transport. There is also new car parking being created on the Popes Road site beside the Rec.
Noted
4.2 (p32) Circulation Strategies.
Our comment at 3.3 (Circulation & Use) applies. In addition the BRUG committee see the mixed nature of the building as an asset rather than a problem.
Noted
4.3 (p33) Entrance Locations
BRUG agrees that the entrance should be at street level on the ground floor.
Noted
__________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
We do understand that the scope of the study is limited and the brief for the study may have mutated or been constrained. For the study to have any true usefulness it is really important that the brief and scope of it is stated clearly at the beginning.
The lack of a clearly stated study brief and scope has resulted in a lack coherence and form to the study. This study may be regard as ' just a start', but as such it is a poor one. We believe it falls short of the general professional understanding of what a ‘feasibility study’ should be. We sincerely hope that any future feasibility studies are less superficial and more considered.
Last year BRUG was asked to comment on a proposed brief for a Rec feasibility study.
Three issues were top in BRUGs comments:
1) a comprehensive assessment of the Rec’s architectural significance and improvements to its sustainability.
2) the ways the Rec could serve the community even better.
3) show how the Rec could be made more energy efficient and sustainable for the future.
None of these key issues has been addressed in the current study.The passion that local users feel for the Rec and the political significance of the Rec's preservation and improvement is in no small measure due to the success of the Rec's original concept and design. This design was guided by the ambition and vision of Lambeth and their Architect George Finch to produce a safe, visually entertaining, truly accessible building to all local residents and that would encourage a diverse recreational usage. It was planned so that the diverse users would mix and be aware of the all the amazing range of activities. From the evidence provided in the current feasibility report. Lambeth and the contributors to the report, do not appear to have understood why the building works so well and is so popular and loved in the local community. If the original vision for the building is to continue it is vital that both Lambeth today and any new Architects, properly understand, value, and appreciate the extraordinary building, that is, the Brixton Recreation Centre.
.JPG)
.JPG)
