Boathouse Redevelopment Plans

10th November 2011

This section introduces you to the design: its need, how the architect was chosen, the design process and how it was financed, planning approval, purchase of land, obtaining access, and preparation for construction.

We are all affected to some extent by the astounding buildings in Cambridge during our time in the city, and the boathouses fringing Midsummer Common are no exception. Tim Rawle, in his definitive book, Cambridge Architecture, refers to their “playful and decorative elevations”.

Ours is well known to local commuters, being the only one situated on the upstream side of Victoria Bridge in a Conservation Area. Built by alumni subscription in 1887 in a half-timbered style and presented by those people to the College, it is the oldest surviving wooden framed boathouse on the Cam and kept fully functional by the College. So, why the need to renew it? Surprisingly, this is part of a trend along the Cam, caused by colleges becoming co-ed and by development of land-training. These require much more space on upper floors. Six colleges have adapted already, either by expanding or by rebuilding their boathouses, and Christ’s is the next one to do it. However, it’s neither easy nor cheap, as most of them are of historic importance, built on poor foundations, on cramped sites and beside a river which can flood. Accordingly, in Jan ‘08 the Steering Committee resolved to seek a way ahead, and appointed a sub-committee.

Contents
Detail of how we chose the architect
How the plans evolved
Use
Progress – Planning application
Progress - Land and access
Planning for construction
Drawings

Detail of how we chose the architect

Four architects were briefed in April 2008, from one of whom an Option Study was to be commissioned, financed by The Blades, to establish the best way ahead. Above all, we were seeking improvement in the following areas:

Changing Rooms: On inspection of eight other boathouses, it was clear that, while our changing and washing facilities were not bad, they were not up to the hygiene standards expected nowadays, and the women’s showers simply did not work.

Fig. 1

Road Access: When our boathouse was built, road access was not difficult, and, in addition, a path led down its upstream side from Chesterton Road to a ferry. Two years later, Victoria Bridge was built, cutting us off on the downstream side but making the ferry path redundant. Selwyn’s boathouse was built alongside, with road access for our boat trailers possible in between, using the drive of a cottage behind (just visible in Fig 1 - 1963). However, when Selwyn joined Churchill and King’s with a new building in 1968, this boathouse, together with the cottage and a large house on Chesterton Road, were demolished, the site being sold for a Bank, with its car park leading down to the river (Fig 2). Road access to our boathouse is no longer welcome, but, in preparation for this Study, at least the precise boundary between our site and the Bank’s had to be negotiated with Emmanuel (the freeholder), and registered. Whether anything else could be achieved remained to be seen (though buying the empty house next door wouldn’t have been a bad start).

Fig. 2

Land Training Facilities: With the growth of both student timetables and crowding on the river, land training had become an essential ingredient to any successful top crew (both men’s and women’s). While CCBC had worked hard to grow its facilities in this area, particularly with the installation of a small dedicated free-weights area on the ground floor, and ownership of eight “Concept 2” ergometers and a “Row-Perfect”, it was clear that we were limited by a floor plan which was not designed for it. The Option Study would investigate ways to optimise arrangement of our equipment and space to make land training, and the associated fitness benefits, more attractive.

Fig. 3

Balcony: The original design of our boathouse incorporated a handsome balcony (Fig 3), with access to the first floor Club rooms through a door at the downstream corner, which still exists. By 1963 the balcony was much shorter (Fig 4), and soon after it was removed as unsafe (Fig 2). However, balconies are a delightful feature of many of the boathouses (eg LMBC, Queens’, Goldie, Jesus, Clare and even the newest built Downing and Fitzwilliam). The sub-committee thought it would be wonderful to reinstate ours.

Fig. 4

The Option Study was to report in autumn ‘08. If any substantial investment was recommended it would have to be financed by alumni (The Blades), but this has always been the case, and not only in Christ’s. Downing’s Millennium boathouse was largely funded by Old Boaties, but with a contribution from the College, based on the rents chargeable for the six student rooms on its new third floor; and it was thought that this might be a possibility for us if a major expansion of our boathouse seemed to be the right course (and if this could be steered through the planning authorities ).

The architects reported in October ‘08, with a refreshing variety of solutions (though none of them managed to resolve the lack of road access!) and the best two were selected to conduct a more detailed, funded study, following a revised brief, as the sub-committee had learnt much during the initial phase. In preparation for this, we invited the two winners to come on a tour of several other boathouses on the Cam to get a flavour of good (and bad) practice; and also to observe our boathouse under “race pressure” during the Fairbairn Cup Races. The parallel studies ran from January to April ‘09. With some clarification work, the final concepts were presented in May, and the winner from the two excellent candidates was Julian Bland, of Bland, Brown and Cole (BB&C), a local practice.

How the plans evolved

First, it is important to understand that all concepts assumed the right to expand onto the old “ferry path” on the upstream side of the boathouse. This was no longer a right of way, half belonging to Christ’s and the other to Emmanuel, the freeholder of the Barclays branch next door, so negotiation to secure the right for us to build on it had to start. BB&C’s winning concept (fig 5) proposed:

• Replacement of the tub (VIIIs) shed by a wider building with a balcony and a full first storey (set back slightly to accentuate the original).
• Continuation of the balcony in front of the existing boathouse and round the corner, joining a new entry platform at first floor level.
• Expansion of the original first floor to the back of the existing building by raising the rear roof to the level of the front one.

Fig. 5

On the ground floor, the VIIIs shed became much wider while still having the height to stack five boats on roller racks each side, and the balcony was reinstated, now sweeping across the front of both parts of the building (figs 6&7.). In the existing boathouse, the downstream bay, though narrowed, remained the workshop, but able to take a full length VIII without restriction, while the other bay was widened and used for storage of small boats, as it was shortened by a transverse corridor and a stair. Tubs (always cumbersome) were to be stowed under cover but outside, under the entrance ramp. Switching to the view from further along Victoria Avenue (fig 8), the rear roof of the old boathouse was also to be raised.

Fig. 6

Upstairs, the “historic rooms” were retained and enhanced: the gym being in the rear area while the boatman’s office (with a good view of what’s happening on the hard) and a “Blades room” (for entertainment, academic work or watching videos of training outings) took up the front. The rest of this vast new first floor (over double) was to house expanded changing and bathrooms, bikes and a large ergo room, able to train a whole VIII together, and even of linking the ergos in two sliding groups of four. There were large doors out onto the new balcony (where you could even use the ergos in summer!).

Fig. 7

So, what were the problems and why didn’t it immediately forge ahead? Firstly, there was a need for some land acquisition. Next, all the architects advised that the only practical way to carry out the building would be by negotiating access through Barclays’ car park. Thirdly, planning permission was needed, of course, and this is in the Cambridge conservation area, though we were helped by using a local architect who had done this before and knew the planners well. Fourthly, as mentioned above, we hoped to be able to generate some income by including accommodation in the design and thereby helping to defray the initial cost. However, though all the architects tried to shoehorn in some rooms, it soon became clear that our site simply was not large enough for anything useful, even if planning objections (met when Fitzwilliam tried to do the same) could be overcome. Fifthly, CCBC would have to move out for at least two terms, during the work, having to find another friendly club on which to camp, and this must be paid for; adding to the amount to be raised.

Use

Use of the new building was all based on BB&C’s analysis of people-flow. Our rowers arrive at the existing gate off the bridge, with their bikes, coats and baggage. Directly opposite, they stow bikes (in a double-deck suspension store cunningly invented by the Dutch), mount the steps and proceed to the (new) front door. In the lobby they hang coats, leave bulky baggage and look at notices. The boatman can see them entering from his/her office and so is alerted to imminent outings and can come out to speak. The rowers then proceed to the appropriate changing room. Now in kit, they emerge directly to the gym for exercises or warm-up (which can be as a full crew) on the ergos, after which they walk through the lobby and downstairs to the boats.

Fig. 8

On return from an outing, they reverse the process, putting wet kit in the drying room if necessary. If they arrive early for an outing, or have to wait afterwards, they can use the Club room for quiet work or to make themselves a drink. This room (expanding into the gym if needed) can also be used for social functions, as can the balcony (accessible from the outside too) in good weather. The boat bays can also be accessed from the gate or the balcony by stairs which lead down to the hard (fig 6), under which is a dry stowage for two tubs, thereby removing the most inconvenient boat one has to stow in the sheds. Lastly, a mounting position for a weather vane has been included on the peak of the new gable, should any benefactor want to provide it!

Progress – Planning Application

In autumn ’08, as part of the College’s normal maintenance programme, the boathouse was painted outside, including the shield, much rotten timber was replaced, jammed windows were made to work, chimneys were repointed, and a new hot water system was fitted. In Oct ’09, Dr Yusuf Hamied (Honorary Fellow) offered funding to progress to RIBA Stage 4 (full Planning Application), which enabled the College to place a contract with the winning architects, BB&C. A month later they were ready to meet the City Planners and Conservation Officer on site, describe our proposals and gather feedback. This came in Jan 10 and was almost entirely supportive, but some small aspects of the design were adjusted as a consequence, culminating in submission of the first Planning Application in Apr 10. To take account of a neighbour’s concerns, it was withdrawn and resubmitted in early Sept, with a lowered roof line and a hipped end to the new part. This was refused in Nov, following objections, on the grounds of “loss of light and overshadowing” recommending a 3m set-back of the design. A “right of light” consultant was engaged, who felt that only a 1.5m bevel to the corner of the hipped-roof (second) design was justified, with consequential rearrangement inside. The third planning application was submitted in Feb 11, including the 1.5m bevel , and, despite renewed objections, this was approved on 27th Apr 11

Progress - Land and access

Purchase of the strip of land from Emmanuel took about 18 months, and became involved with their granting of a new lease to Barclays. “Oversailing rights” were also needed, to ensure our continued ability to swing boats across their hard while being manoeuvred into and out of the sheds. Negotiation of access through Barclays’ car park for demolition and construction proved equally tortuous. At one stage (a) significant funds were going to be required to compensate the bank for temporary loss of parking spaces, and (b) it seemed a sub-lease preserving access for Camrowers’ boat storage on Emmanuel’s hard, would hold up progress. However, in Oct 10, BB&C proposed a new approach to the land use which resulted in loss of only two spaces, and Camrowers were persuaded to relinquish their lease early, leading to agreement in Jan 11.

Planning for construction

A competition for the various specialist consultants needed, once the construction phase has been authorised, was conducted in spring 11 (Quantity Surveyors (QS), Structural & Civil Engineers, Construction, Design & Management Coordinators and Party Wall Surveyors). Henry Riley LLP were chosen as QS and directed to re-estimate the overall cost of the project so as to inform the Appeal process. As a risk reduction measure, preliminary ground investigations were conducted in July 11 by the Structural/Civil Engineers, the Andrew Firebrace Partnership, to enable the foundations to be designed. Their report indicated a soft and unstable river bank, requiring drilled concrete piling, some deeper test boreholes to confirm this, and possibly a suspended concrete raft floor, permitting escape of gases.