Developing our Holloway campus

Welcome to London Metropolitan University. In 2016, we developed a masterplan for our

Holloway campus which identified key areas
We are embarking on an exciting journey to where we can improve the site to benefit
bring all of our teaching together in one location both the University and local community. This
at our Holloway Road campus: One Campus, masterplan has led us to the proposals set out
One Community. in this display, which outlines how our Holloway
As part of this project, we want to transform campus has developed over the last 120
our Holloway Road site to increase capacity, years, and how we hope to improve it.
create new facilities for both learning and We have chosen to invest in our future in
socialising, and become much more open to Islington, and have some exciting ideas about
our local community. how we can work with local communities to
ensure as many people as possible benefit
from our University. We want to hear your
thoughts about our plans, so please take a
look at the display and tell us what you think.
You can find details about how to get involved
at the end of the exhibition.

We want our campus and facilities to be more open to

the people of Islington and members of the public. We
are committed as a university to playing an active and
constructive role in our community.
The proposals in our project, One Campus, One Community,
will benefit our students, staff and members of the local
and wider community. We will create more opportunities for
collaboration, enhanced spaces in which to teach and learn,
and a greater sense of community both within the University
and reaching out to our context of Islington and London.
Professor John Raftery
Vice Chancellor
The existing campus
The University has been in Holloway for over 120 years, and in that time the campus has
expanded and developed incrementally as the institution gained control over adjacent
portions of land. The buildings have been developed in an increasingly piecemeal fashion
to meet short-term needs as the institution grew. This has led to a diverse collection of
buildings that occupy almost all of the developable footprint of the site.
The current security line (in red) is pushed out to just behind the pavement line on
Holloway Road, with other potential entrances into the site gated and closed off. This
offers very little of a welcome for users and visitors to the University.
The buildings on the campus are of varying quality and condition. Many are in need of
refurbishment and upgrade in terms of external fabric, and provide poor quality interior
space. The environmental performance of the existing spaces is also poor, resulting in
inefficient building servicing and proportionally high running costs.

Despite the obvious presence of Tower Building, the campus offers very little at the
pedestrian level in terms of active frontage to the street. The majority of the frontage at
street level consists of buildings with blank walls and blanked out windows, services
entrances and alleyways. Many of the buildings have no street level indication that they
are part of the University at all and offer nothing in terms of openness or permeability.
This lack of welcome and external presence has been reflected through the consultation
process, as many times staff and students have highlighted the lack of presence the
campus has. The reality is that, unlike many university campuses, London Met does
have a significant street frontage despite it facing on to a main arterial route into London.
Yet this frontage is rather opaque, with an almost fortress-like character with blank
facades facing on to the public realm and no permeability into the campus.

A significant proportion of the There is an irregular distribution of The above image is of an

existing campus buildings are space uses across the site, and architectural model of the
low-rise, low density, making up a significant proportion of spaces campus as it was in the 1930s.
around half of the site’s building suffer with poor functionality and A series of robust brick buildings
footprint. The buildings are limited underuse due to access and developed from the original
in potential for densification and circulation issues. Navigating 1880s Rocket building facing
expansion and so represent a the campus today can be a on to Holloway Road (1) and
future limit in terms of available disorientating experience. The culminating in J Block (2).
space. In the above diagram, the different colours in the above
light grey buildings are two-storey, diagram highlight various key phases
with darker greys representing of development which have resulted
taller buildings. in the campus we see today.

During the development of the masterplan it

became apparent that almost all of this original
core of buildings still exists, but is hidden
behind layers of subsequent development. The
above diagram highlights these buildings within
the current campus. The final masterplan seeks
to bring greater focus on this collection of
buildings as well as seeking to enhance them.
Relating to the urban realm

Holloway is an area of great diversity in building The area enjoys excellent strategic links but this has The majority of buildings in the area are domestically
grain, ranging from the fine historic character of come at the cost of local permeability. The A1 is a scaled at between one and five storeys, with the
the Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian housing to busy road running north-south, creating a barrier majority being between two and four. There is an
the XXL grain of the Emirates Stadium. Between to east-west movement. It separates the University increase in height along major transport corridors,
these extremes are London Met’s buildings. Other from Holloway Road Tube station, Caledonian Road particularly along the railway viaduct and particularly
buildings within this intermediate grain include Tube station (though this is a bit of a walk from the where the railway viaduct meets Holloway Road.
the Islington recycling centre, the Nag’s Head University) and student housing to the west.
It is noticeable that, with the exception of Tower
shopping centre (towards the courser grain of the
Main line railways running north from King’s Cross Building, the majority of the London Met campus
spectrum) and the new blocks of flats and nearby
also carve up the area and form distinct edges to is of a low scale, with J Block (A) and the Graduate
student housing – the floor plates of which are not
character areas. Land use has also played a part in Centre / F Block (B) out of character in their low
as large as the teaching spaces of the University,
stifling the permeability of the area, in particular the height.
but are noticeably bigger than the historic built
University and the Emirates Stadium.
form of nearby terraced housing.

Like the growth rings of a tree, areas along Holloway These urban flow diagrams illustrate, at a conceptual level, how the engagement with the surrounding
Road get progressively older moving south towards public realm might create a more permeable and integrated campus. The consequence of this could be
central London. North of the viaduct is substantially a campus with a much higher profile and more positive sense of place.
Edwardian. Around the University, the historic fabric
The diagram above left illustrates the current condition, with the University making little impact on the
is mostly Victorian, giving way to the Georgian
urban context. In the diagram above right the opening-up of the campus has two impacts. The first is
townhouses of Highbury Fields to the south.
to encourage better student flows between buildings, particularly to the library and between buildings
Redevelopment has impacted upon this simple surrounding the courtyard. The second is to welcome the public into the campus and in doing so create
reading. Sometimes this is in the form of infill buildings a stronger relationship between the University and the community.
that may add or detract to the general character of
the area, but not fundamentally change it. In other
instances, significant change, either comprehensive
or incremental, has created a whole new character for
the area.

The current campus forms an impermeable barrier Creating routes through the site and forming an
within the urban grain of this part of the city. enlarged central courtyard as a semi-public space,
controlled by the University, provides the opportunity
to open up the site and contribute more to the local
city surroundings. The University will also benefit
from a much improved sense of accessibility and
openness, while the wider area will benefit from the
creation of a new place for Holloway.
The masterplan
re-imagined courtyard, a place where town and gown can
meet. Lower Holloway is not short of open space. There
are several parks and there is an extensive plaza around
the Emirates Stadium. There is not, however, an urban
square. The space at the heart of the University will have
vitality, fronted by places for eating, social learning, events
and a theatre.
London Met has strong links with the local community.
A large proportion of students come from the local area.
School children visit regularly. This is not evident, however,
in the built form of our campus. The masterplan seeks to
address this by making the campus more permeable and
the public life of the University more visible.
There will be improved routes into the University, open to
Around the time Tower Building opened, the campus had a students and those who work on campus. Importantly
different relationship to Holloway Road than it does today. these routes will also welcome in the local community,
Then, the polytechnic buildings faced the street with a respecting safety concerns through appropriate and flexible
more open aspect. Some buildings were set back from management.
the street edge, creating semi-public space and making
the street less of a corridor. Since then, the University has There will be two new routes either side of the Graduate
withdrawn from the life of the street. The campus has Centre. The northern route aligns with Eden Grove, giving
limited points of entry; it lacks visual as well as physical long views into the courtyard. The southern route will be
permeability and there is very little active frontage. lined with events, performance, dance and media spaces.
Rollit Street, currently a service access, will become a
The masterplan seeks to set up a more positive relationship point of entry, linking the courtyard to the library and social
between the London Met campus and its surroundings, sciences hub.
particularly Holloway Road. At the heart of the plan is a

The importance given elsewhere to place making and an enhanced public realm
requires a strong approach to the design of the external environment. If prioritised
and enacted, it is possible for the landscape to link the wider whole together,
reaching out to the Learning Centre, Science Centre and Holloway Road.
The masterplan

The combination of a more permeable campus with a One of the most notable criticisms of the existing
greater opportunity to showcase the student experience campus is how the activity taking place within the
can create a richer, more diverse and far more animated University is not evident to those passing by. In some
environment. cases, such as the base of Tower Building, there is an
opportunity to open up the facades but in others, such
With a wide range of architectural styles on campus, a
as the Graduate Centre, this is much more challenging.
common architectural approach to the new insertions
can provide an important ribbon that ties the elements The strategy developed was therefore to create a street
into a coherent whole. frontage that would wrap into a newly created central
courtyard. This new frontage (in red) could then act as a
In this artist’s impression of the central courtyard, J
shopfront to the activities of the University. In so doing, it
Block is visible to the left of the image.
further reinforces the idea of reaching out and inviting in,
and a greater University presence.

The elevation below takes this folding street

frontage and unfolds it.

The creation of the new courtyard and active ‘shopfront’

behind provides permeability and a greater depth to the
London Met experience for visitors.
The opening up of the base of Tower Building can
provide a more generous and welcoming entrance.
The juxtaposition of Tower Building and Graduate
Centre helps define this entrance point and, from an
urban realm perspective, this is further reinforced by this
opening being opposite the entrance to Eden Grove.
Tower Building

As part of the overall masterplan, Tower Building Tower Building once benefitted from some public The existing building performs very poorly in
forms an important element. In spatial terms, it space at its base, but this has now been lost. environmental terms. The single glazed sash
provides a significant area for both teaching and Of particular impact is the Tech Tower, which windows cause overheating in summer and
staff space. In urban design terms, it acts as an dominates the view of Tower Building when looking draughts in winter and allow the noise of Holloway
important marker for the presence of London south. This undermining of the appearance of Tower Road into the building. The concrete panels have
Met and will gain greater significance when offset Building suggests that a completely new cladding no insulation properties and are showing signs of
against the new central courtyard. solution, rather than a restoration, is suitable. ageing.
Some of the options considered for this refresh are
The University is at an early stage of considering the
illustrated below.
options for how Tower Building is best re-purposed,
both in terms of new internal configurations and
an external refreshing of the building. This board
illustrates some of the possible options for cladding.
Detailed proposals will come forward at a later date
as part of a planning application for this element
of the campus development. For the moment, the
planning application is focused on J Block.

This option is based upon a In this option, the existing cladding is The previous options are based In this solution the facade has been
restoration of the existing building, removed back to the structural frame. around a very transparent glass facade manipulated to create a richer and
involving a complex task of repair or The facade consists of full-height approach, akin to a commercial more diverse elevational treatment.
replacement of the existing precast glazing with a randomised array of office building. Considering the local Each elevation is composed to create
panels, some of which are spalling vertical glass fins and panels. The context, and in particular the nearby a degree of variation in the rhythm
in places. This process would glass fins are angled to encourage student residential block, a brick of the facade. This is achieved whilst
need to include the incorporation an open aspect when viewed from facade solution could be considered maintaining a 1500mm planning grid
of thermal insulation as well as Holloway Road Tube station or the appropriate. This option proposes a so that the internal layout remains
improved airtightness to address new central courtyard. This also solution that expresses the structural flexible.
the current, poor environmental means that the fins are angled to offer grid of the underlying frame. It is a
performance. solar protection from the south. solution that has a certain elegance in
its simplicity.
J Block – initial proposals

The predominately two-storey building bounded by the red line in the above
photograph is identified within the University as J Block. It is a robust brick
building constructed in the 1930s and forms the final part of the original core
of buildings on campus. Its main facade faces on to the existing courtyard,
although there is very little connection between the two. The facades are
architecturally modest but the building has a certain honesty and offers the
opportunity to be re-purposed as a key element of a transformed campus.

J Block is the lowest building of the original core The existing ground levels mean there is stepped Teaching rooms located on the east side have the
buildings and is predominately two storeys, although and ramped access to the building, which limits the potential for views into the central courtyard as well as
it extends higher at its east end. The masterplan opportunity for ground level rooms to opened out on views in.
identified the opportunity to increase the height of to the courtyard.
At level 0 the teaching spaces to the west extend
the building modestly to generate greater density
Rooms to the east are lit and ventilated by large beyond the floorplate shown here.
appropriate for this urban location and consistent with
openings, but the windows are of poor performance.
the wider context as illustrated on board 3. A single-storey element projects at the far northern
Circulation/escape stairs are located at each end of end of the building.
the building.
The internal structural frame is evident in locations
A double-banked central corridor runs not only and, in combination with the glazed screens to rooms
continuously through J Block, but extends into and (see below), suggests that the corridor walls act as
through adjoining buildings, creating a labyrinth of partitions only.
circulation that is difficult to navigate.
J Block – initial proposals
The masterplan envisaged the addition of a new
two-storey extension to J Block. This densification
of the building is critical in allowing for the creation
of the large new space at the heart of the campus.
The proposal also creates a critical mass of teaching
and learning space to generate a new and dynamic
environment.
The masterplan also suggested that this extension
should be clearly articulated as a new element,
the design of which could influence other new
developments on the campus.

To develop the external form of the roof extension the

approach has been to consider the internal spaces and
volumes to inform the envelope and massing.
The concept organogram and sketch sections shown
here illustrate early thoughts on the internal layout. Key
design drivers are the creation of complementary formal
and informal teach and learn spaces, which will benefit
from good daylighting and, wherever possible, natural
ventilation.
This approach has been developed further on the next
two boards and continues to evolve as the scheme is
developed towards a detailed planning application.
J Block – initial proposals
The design approach taken to the two-storey extension has
been to interpret the existing building in a contemporary way.
This helps tie the new and old together so the completed
building can be ‘read’ as a whole. The approach to the
extension also defines an architectural strategy that can be
used as further phases of the masterplan are developed.
This will help create a greater coherence to the campus as
a whole.
Generally the proposals for the interior of J Block consist of
the opening-up of the plan to the east side of the building to
remove the central double banked corridor and create new
study commons space supporting the adjacent teaching and
learning space. At level 0, a new food court provides a much
improved social hub. This space can now break out into the
courtyard, benefitting from the southerly aspect.

A The teaching rooms to the east side are removed creating

an open and fluid study commons space. This also has
the benefit of removing the central corridor to improve the
circulation and wayfinding experience.
B The existing teaching and learning spaces are reinstated
Carrels alongside circulation routes at all levels to create a focus of teaching space on the
campus. This suiting approach can also benefit space
utilisation.
C To provide access for all to the new extension above, a
new lift core has been added with additional toilet facilities
adjacent.
A wide variety of settings
D To further improve circulation flows and encourage a
dynamic environment new stairs have been introduced.
E A new servery space
F A new commercial kitchen
G A new food court area considerably larger than the current
Easy access to resources
facility and in a far more prominent position creates a
social heart off the central courtyard. An acoustic glazed
screen separates the space from the adjacent study
commons. This will encourage the use of the space as
additional study space outside of catering hours.

F
B
E B

D D
A A
C C

G
B
Thank you
We hope you have found this display useful and
informative, and that you share our belief that these
plans have the potential to bring a positive change to
our local area.
We really want to hear your thoughts, so please tell us
what you think.
You can get involved in a variety of ways:
Visit our website: londonmet.ac.uk/onecampus
Email us: onecampus@londonmet.ac.uk
Write to us:
One Campus, One Community Programme Office,
London Metropolitan University,
166-220 Holloway Road,
London
N7 8DB
Tell us now! Fill in a form on one of the tablets provided,
or fill in a paper form and post it in the comment box.

About the architects

Design Engine, a multi award-winning architecture
practice founded in 1999, has a wealth of experience in
Higher Education architecture, having completed projects
for the University of Oxford, the London School of
Economics and the University of Southampton. Its John
Henry Brookes Building for Oxford Brookes University
won a RIBA National Award and reached the midlist of
the Stirling Prize.
Based in Winchester, Hampshire, the practice has been
named RIBA South Practice of the Year and reached the
shortlist for Education Architect of the Year. Design Engine
works across all scales and sectors and its work has
been recognised by both critics and industry awards.
London’s
Vibrant
Inspirational
Metropolitan
University