Meeting at No 92, Wednesday 21st November 2007, 4pm

Present: Matthew Sampson, Mark Barratt, Lisa Procter, Helen Cook, Chris Gray, Sarah Green, Paul McKay

We began by talking Mark and Matthew through the ‘Book of No 92’ – identifying consultation documentation, our reception proposals and flexible furniture concepts, the atmosphere section of the document and the manuals.

The Client was made aware of the fact that had we known of the imminent ‘shake up’ in restructuring the departments of No 92, then our conclusions would have been different. We elaborated on the fact that moving departments around would raise issues of security and circulation in the context of our reception proposals. The Client informed us that Connexions were not being moved out of the building, just to a different area within the building, and Business Support would then occupy their space. The Client understood, however,that the flow of visitors passing through Business Support (if situated in the former Connexions space) would not be appropriate (as in the Council’s proposal). On the realisation of this, the Client then turned their attention to our proposal set on the left hand side of the building as a potential option, citing this for consideration as an alternative reception. We pointed out that the fact that this proposal provided viewing windows into the space could help to avert potentially problematic situations between young people, as any visitors would be able to ascertain who was in the drop-in space and then decide whether they wanted to remain in or leave the building.

The Client asked us whether any of the young people had mentioned what kind of activities they would like at No 92. We informed them that the evening drop-in sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays had been popular with the young people, as they had been able to learn new skills and build relationships. The Client told us that this feedback was very useful to them and that it would help them to move forward in terms of providing more of the services at No 92 that the young people wanted most.

The Client was particularly pleased with our Manuals, as they provided potential for future participatory activities that could be undertaken by a selected group of young people with the guidance of necessary consultants. Constructing the designs would also promote a sense of ownership amongst the young people which has always been a favourable outcome. The Client felt that the Library Pod could be useful as a multipurpose installation, and suggested that it could even be used as a concealed space by the ante natal group, for example. The screens and flexible furniture were also seen to have similar benefits.

In the same way, guidance from the atmosphere manual could be followed in order to redecorate the space or add murals, graphics and so on.

To sum up, the Client felt that some of our proposals had a lot of potential as benefiting No 92, that they were ‘thought provoking’ and that they ‘could see them happening’ at some point. These comments were positive and as a group gave us hope that our work could be put to good use in the not-too-distant future.




Photo courtesy Peter Lathey.

As if we could forget that this project will be being assessed at the end of this week, here’s an email received by students today on the subject of self-assessment of the project.

Assessment of Live Projects

For clarification and information

You will appreciate that it is always potentially problematic to assess a group project but we enclose the following to help you understand what we are looking for. This is a breakdown of the importance of various criteria for your guidance. It varies from other studio projects in the increased weighting for management issues of teamwork, communication and the process.

We also appreciate that as the live projects are student led you should really lead the assessment. This year we would like all students to assess there own involvement and understanding of the success of the Live Project, with consideration to the criteria below, with a mark and a sentence or two of comments. This mark will be taken into consideration.

We would like this to continue a discussion on the assessment of the Live Project that we started last year.

Assessment criteria:

  • 30% The process, structure, ingenuity and development of the project.
  • 20% The outcomes of the project.

– These two aspects can/may be further assessed at the portfolio submission.

  • 20% The success of the team and/or analysis and awareness of the problems.
  • 30% Presentation – the preparation, content and giving of the presentation.

– These management and communications aspects are recorded at the presentations

We would appreciate any comments


Overwhelmed by the end of project panics? Time flying too quickly? Turn to Shakespeare for some suitable thoughts…

“She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”

— Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-27)


Last week a number of care leavers who use Number 92 took part in the Sheffield LifeSwap. The LifeSwap event seeks to promote awareness of different life experiences amongst ‘hard to reach’ young people. The project was introduced as follows:

October 22nd to 27th 2007 is National Care Leaver’s Week. Life Swap is a Sheffield City Council A group of seven young people and five councillors from across the city have taken the photos on this site using mobile phone cameras, supplied by O2. On Wednesday 24th October 2007 they took photos and posted it to this site to show each other what an ordinary day is like. They swapped their life experiences. project to help create a better understanding of the lives of Care Experiences young people and promote improved communication with their ‘corporate parents’, the Council.

We hope to get the nod to use some of the images as part of an internal school workshop next week during the School of Architecture’s Whole School Event. Until then you can see the images at the Sheffield LifeSwap page.

A conversation amongst various members of the group yesterday reminded us of a quote infamously attributed (amongst wordy architects) to the late Cedric Price (1934-2003).

Finding ingenious and elegant solutions for everyday problems he championed ‘anticipatory architecture’, firmly believing in impermanent architecture designed for continual change. Price redefined the role of the architect as an agent of change, whose main responsibility was to anticipate that, and offer new possibilities for society as a whole. Constantly challenging and questioning the accepted mores of architecture, his approach was witty and irreverent; he famously suggested that the man hoping to transform his life with a new house might be better off getting a divorce.

Source: http://www.designmuseum.org/design/cedric-price

Two members of this live project worked together in last year’s ‘Inconspicuous Yellow Office’ live project, which investigated alternative methods of architectural practice, including the live projects themselves. A kind of manifesto was created, which may serve of use to ourselves and other live project students during the last week or two of the projects.

More information about that project is online at liveproject.wordpress.com