Intensity Without Density: R&D Typologies in the Countryside

In 1994, Manuel Castells and Peter Hall argued in their Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes, that successful research environments benefit from the density of talent, culture, knowledge and infrastructure. This ‘creative milieu’ for collaboration and innovation is social and can be found in dense urban centers. Unsurprisingly over the past two decades, the city has been the site and model for developing innovation districts, until now.

This year the studio will be looking at an emerging and ambitious endeavor to develop innovation districts in the English countryside, seeding research & development buildings close to established university research ecosystems but fundamentally on open countryside landscapes, without the critical densities as argued by Hall and Castells.

The site for our investigation will be the new Begbroke Innovations District, in Oxfordshire, UK. Located within the Oxford-Cambridge research cluster arc, the masterplan for this 170-hectare development aims to deliver a world-leading innovation district for scientific research, knowledge exchange and enterprise. It will house 155,000 sqm of science and related employment space, 1,800 homes, and 6,000 sqm of amenities. Our design task is focused on two landmark buildings — a research & development building and a welcome center — that will serve as critical anchors to the revitalized Begbroke Science Park.

We will begin with the conjecture that the intensities naturally afforded by urban centers can be re-imagined without an associated density in a new R&D typology in the countryside. Our response will be framed by three considerations at their respective operative scales. First, the idea of ‘city-ness’ in the countryside questions the possibility of embodying the qualities of a city in a single building, standing in and gazing over the countryside. This punctuated building in an open field invites the re-thinking of the notion of the countryside and what makes such a combination attractive, not only for research but for living and leisure. In other words, what is the alternative vision of a centre that is neither in the city nor the village?

The second consideration is typological, and the possibility of conceiving a building as an open framework. This is important as research labs tend to be hermetically sealed buildings because of the secrecy of their research content and the toxicity of their expelled fumes. However, for a research lab to simultaneously act as an anchor point for the innovation district, its ability to perform more than a single role requires re-thinking. To this end, we will draw lessons from the archetypes of ‘urban condensers’ — amphitheaters, prosceniums, arcades, promenades, atriums, colonnades, oblique surfaces, and city rooms — to engender a transformed or hybridized version of this peculiar building type into one that is charged with intense use and engagement.

Lean architecture, our third consideration will deal with the potential of research lab buildings pared down to their bare minimum for a low-carbon construction. We will approach this by investigating the relationship between structures, cores, shafts and façades as interrelated elements that can induce clear spatial arrangements that are both performative and emblematic. This lean architecture as an open framework should encourage a multitude of uses through the richness and openness of its configuration.

Darryl Chen, Urban Design Lead of Hawkins\Brown and master planner of Begbroke Innovation District, will help us understand the site and masterplan. Anna Strongman, CEO of Oxford University Development will offer insights and critique on our design proposals. Eugene Sayers and Anna Shapiro will hold a short seminar on designing Life Sciences Clusters and Buildings.