Centre for Music: 27 Feb meeting with the architects

Representatives from Ben Jonson House and the Barbican Association attended a meeting with the architects for the proposed Centre for Music (referred to by trendy people as C4M).

Here are notes, first those of the chair of the BA and then those of a house group (not Ben Jonson House) rep:

From the chair of the Barbican Association:
___

Notes of the meeting with C4M architects 27 Feb 2019
Present
Ben Gilmartin architect
Chris Hilyard - architect
Simon Johnson - proj mgr
Kieran Edwards, Iceni, stakeholder engagement
Nick Kenyon director Arts Centre
Peter Lisley Assistant Town Clerk
Several Barbican residents

Ben Gilmartin started by running through slides, most of which had been in the public domain - so we know what the concept looks like.

• They haven't done any work on the back - (the Barbican facing side) but Ben said that it would hold the business side of the centre - offices etc. His instinct was not to invade residents' privacy - but he didn't want it to be a wall - he wanted it to be interesting – to be a good neighbour to the Barbican.
• Simon Johnson said in answer to a question about blocking out sunlight and daylight to flats - that the architects had been given a brief that restricted the envelope they could work in. That included some analysis by GIA of sunlight and daylight effects [I have asked if we could see that and the brief]

Nick Kenyon said that the reason the C4M was that funny shape was to angle it away from flats as much as possible.

• The next year will be spent not working on the design but setting it in context, developing a master plan for the whole site alongside City Surveyors and DBE - would include pedestrian flow modelling [Buro Happold] and traffic modelling.

They (city surveyors especially) will also be looking at how the site might develop if C4M isn't built.

We said we'd like to meet again during the year to hear more about the masterplanning and contextualisation - they agreed.

• They emphasised the strong connection with the highwalks, and we talked a bit about more pedestrians on the highwalk. One or two people said they were Ok about that, but we raised the issue of the subpodium flats and noise on their roofs
• we raised the possibility of insulating those flats as part of the podium leak works.
• Nick Kenyon also said he didn't envisage huge traffic of public walking from C4M to the arts centre on the same day. They'll go to one or the other for an event.

Sarah Hudson mentioned light spillage - and protection for the bats

And said wanted the building to encourage greening and biodiversity - Ben Gilmartin agreed.

Chair, Barbican Association

--- and now the notes from a house group rep who attended ---

Notes of meeting with C4M architects 27 Feb 2019
Introduction

1. PL introduced and said that he now assumed everything was in the public domain (hence we can communicate onwards)
2. DS+F then ran through a 30-40 slide presentation of the site, surroundings and lots of views of the proposed COM building: a slightly more detailed version of what had been released publicly a few weeks ago.
3. NK said that this was a "full concept design" and the Barbican/LSO/GSMD were very pleased with it.
4. PL then confirmed that CoL had allocated a further £2.49m for work in 2019, the main focus of which would be to set the COM in context of a Masterplan around the COM area, and to more strongly engage with the City Surveyor and the Dept of the Built Environment. It was not intended to progress the detail of the COM design during 2019.

Q&A

1. The North Face of the COM. Little work had been done on this, although DS+F said that the picture window on the top floor would face up Aldersgate St rather than directly at residents' flats.
2. Impact on daylight and sunlight. SJ said that COL had commissioned 'light experts' to advise on this, and the architects had been given a brief for the building location and dimensions which would ensure that legal requirements were complied with. It was noted by DS+F that the concept design angled the floors above the concert hall level (ie the commercial floors and the 'CODA' on the top) away from the Barbican flats.
3. Commercial floors. NK said that these had been included to provide revenue to help meet the running costs of the COM, which would not be viable otherwise. PL was even more forthright and said that they had been included as a possible incentive for a sponsor organisation to occupy, as part of a philanthropic funding option to help meet capital costs.
4. Visitor access and movement. The COM is designed to be connected to the highwalks, and people will have options to use the highwalks or street-level to access the COM. But more work needs to be done on this aspect during 2019, in particular the access from Farringdon and Barbican stations at street level. This will be part of wider vehicle/people analysis, the impact of closing some routes through the roundabout, the future of Aldersgate and Beech Streets etc. NK also mentioned that they will be using specialist consultants to advise on footfall within and without the COM.
5. Footfall disturbance for under-podium flats was raised – sound-proofing as part of a podium retiling plan may be an option.
6. Catering outlets: we raised a concern about the problems these can/have caused. Noted but no specific response.
7. Interaction with CLSG plans: these have not yet been taken into account, but will be when they are decided.
8. Bastion House redevelopment: PL said that it would be included in the Master Plan for the area. They will also be talking to Ironmongers about opening up the aspect to the Livery Hall. It is likely that Bastion House will be demolished and the most likely future use will be offices. There are some complex issues about phasing in relation to COM, as there are common services that run across the whole site. There are no specific plans yet.
9. Timescales: The earliest date that MOL could move to Smithfield is 2024, but this is still uncertain.
10. Funding and business case: we didn't really discuss this, but PL mentioned more than once that funding was a key factor on which the team would be working during the year. He also said that officers had been asked to look at the "no COM" option and that the City Surveyor would be considering other options for the MOL site during the year ahead (aka if you object too much, you may get something worse). NK said that it was a 'once in a generation opportunity' with Crossrail and the MOL move which needed to be grasped or it would disappear.