About Exchange
Exchange is a platform developed by Make Architects that explores the trends and challenges facing the built environment. Previously we have looked at higher education, workplace, retail and hospitality.
Working with Future Places Studio, in this white paper we look at how the life science sector has moved from out-of-town science parks to being located to central city locations. What has stimulated this move, how has the design of laboratories adjusted to a new location and what does the future hold for city-based labs?
Speaking with investors, designers and developers, we examine the real estate market for this burgeoning sector within London in particular and look at international benchmarks to forecast the future for those considering the industry.
About Make
Make is
a different kind of architecture practice. Founded in 2004 by Ken
Shuttleworth, we’re motivated by a single purpose: to design the
best places, spaces and buildings in the world. We’re a team of 150
in London, Hong Kong and Sydney providing architecture, interior and
urban design services from concept to completion.
Contributors
Jennifer is a Director at Arup with a focus on promoting and integrating sustainable laboratory design.
Lloyd serves as the Managing Partner of Yoo Capital Management with overall responsibility for the firm’s investment strategy as well as for originating and negotiating its major transactions.
David has acted as Development Director and Chief Operating Officer for a number of leading life science parks and bio-innovation centres across the country and internationally.
Pete leads Make’s science and research sector specialism and delivered the BREEAM outstanding Big Data Institute for the University of Oxford.
Charlie heads up all the design, construction and fit-out works for Scale Space, a new business innovation hub in partnership with Imperial College London and The University of Nottingham.
Charles specialises in the development process with a specific interest and expertise in Life Science.
Jack is a researcher, writer and speaker. In 2016, he founded Future Places Studio.
Contents
Introduction
We are in the midst of a ‘Bio Revolution’. A report by McKinsey in
early 2020 forecast that biological science will become the globe’s
next trillion-dollar industry.
As biotech has evolved, so has where the sector anchors itself physically. In the UK, out-of-town science parks were the typical solution from the 1970s onwards, but that is no longer the case. Companies in search of the best talent have migrated into our cities. Innovation districts and knowledge clusters have formed around London’s top universities, such as Imperial College London and UCL, creating an ecosystem that draws in even more talent and more research. These places include White City, King’s Cross and Whitechapel.
But despite these growing clusters, there is a fundamental shortage of
lab space for biotech in London. We can see that in rental levels for
labs in the capital, which can be as high as £125 per square foot –
more than 20% above prime office rents in Mayfair, the most expensive
office market in London.
As we consider the future of our cities, post-Covid, now is the time to start reimagining London with a focus on biotech and life sciences. After all, the pandemic has been a time for re-evaluation and even discovery: we have seen, first-hand, the crucial role advances in bioscience play in our lives, as rapid genetic sequencing led to a faster-than-expected vaccine roll-out.
At the same time, demands on London’s physical space have shifted. Will a surplus in office space be an opportunity to convert old stock into new labs? Will Covid prove to be the final nail in the coffin for the traditional high street – and can the biotech sector help breathe life back into it? And will the government’s ongoing planning system reform prove to be the catalyst for change, the change that finally oils the wheels?
Over the last decade, a series of factors and trends have come together which have created the right environment for the growth of urban labs. Those factors include:
Location Trends
1. Urbanisation
People in the UK want to be in cities. In the 1980s,
‘counter-urbanisation’ – where net migration was highest to the
least urban areas and vice versa – was the defining feature of the
country’s internal migration, but that has now reversed, and cities
are once again growing. By 2050, more than 90% of the UK will live
in urban areas.
A critical mass of jobs and opportunities in cities has meant that
highly educated people are drawn to places like London. The Centre
for Cities found that although the capital is home to 19% of jobs,
38% of all graduates with a first or upper second degree from a
Russell Group University who moved after university, moved to
London. Some 77% of graduates at London universities stay in London
after graduation.
Location - Drawing © Stuart Blower
2. Pharmaceutical industry
Big pharma has become leaner and more focused in the last 15 years.
A flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s and early
2000s led to bloated firms with sites scattered across the globe and
declining R&D productivity. The years that followed saw these major
firms focus on a few areas of research and, as a result, they also
consolidated their physical footprint, moving into key innovation
bioclusters.
White City, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
White City, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
The ‘hubs to hotspots’ model helped drive the growth of London’s
biotech clusters. Novartis moved to White City, while
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) anchored itself in King’s Cross. On Novartis’s
move to White City, the company’s UK President Haseeb Ahmad said in
2018, “The nature of healthcare and medicine is changing, and as we
pivot towards becoming a focused medicines company, powered by
digital and data, we want to be closer to our customers and partners
and become better networked in the healthcare and life science
ecosystem.” Dr Hal Barron, Chief Scientific Officer at GSK, said of
the company’s move to King’s Cross, “We are convinced that both the
talent and the ecosystem will help us build a very vibrant hub.”
As the 2015 Drug Discovery Today report “The changing model
of big pharma” noted, the hotspots model has led to a “much
more open and collaborative model, versus the ‘not invented here’
syndrome of the hubs model.”
3. Universities
The relationship between ‘town and gown’ has also shifted in
recent decades. Campus boundaries designed for impenetrability are
now becoming edges that encourage connectivity, as Prof Michael
Hebbert from The Bartlett School of Planning argued in Make
Architects’ recent Exchange publication.
Open spaces, active frontages on public footpaths, and shops for
both the campus and the public are physical ways of bringing the two
together. The greater connectivity beyond the campus boundary has
been reinforced by an increased commercialisation of
university-based research brought about by a growth in spin-outs.
Research shows that over the last five years, a graduate start-up is
born every two hours within a UK university, and 30,000 people are
employed in start-ups which have spun out from UK universities.
4. Eco-systems
Universities’ active engagement with other stakeholders in the area, whether in the private sector, public sector or, indeed, with other research centres, has seen silos broken down and innovation ecosystems born in their place. We see that in King’s Cross, where the Wellcome Trust charity works closely with UCL, and they both play a significant role in the Francis Crick Institute. In White City, Imperial College London has collaborated with venture builder Blenheim Chalcot to create Scale Space, a unique space which brings the expertise of the university and Blenheim together to help support start-ups so they may flourish.
The Francis Crick Institute. Photo © Polly Tootal
Places like King’s Cross and White City have research-intensive institutions, such as a university, as the anchor around which other organisations have clustered. Mirroring the wider pharmaceutical industry, these ecosystems directly challenge the ‘not invented here’ syndrome, bringing stakeholders together for shared advances in sciences.
Science Trends
1. Ageing population
Thanks to advances in science, people live longer than ever before.
But that presents a challenge. An ageing population means there will
be more people with chronic conditions that will require more complex
treatments. The NHS Health Survey for England shows that in 2016, 29%
of people between 60 and 64 had two or more chronic conditions. For
those aged 75 years and over, this rises to almost half.
2. Digitisation
The development of comprehensive health data and analytics has been a key focus for the NHS in recent years. Cambridge University Hospitals was an early mover, starting its collection of structured clinical data in 2014 to ensure its care is efficient and effective through the development of predictive models.
A government review in 2017 highlighted the transformative potential
of this data, arguing that NHS patient records could increase the
predictive power of algorithms to identify disease risk. It
recommended closer ties between academia, charities and the commercial
sector to work with national health data programmes and develop those
algorithms.
The NHS’s Innovative Uses of Data team now works to get better value from its data and support the life sciences with what it collects, including direct care data, GP data and prescribing data.
3. Growth of biotech (computational science)
Advances in biology have been converging with advances in computing, data analytics, machine learning and AI. Research on the CRISPR-Cas9 genome technology, for example, has given scientists the ability to edit genes and reprogramme cells – an innovation that led to a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020 for the two scientists behind it, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have led to better mapping of molecules within cells, which is leading to both a better understanding of biology and how it can be engineered and manipulated.
As these fields develop, biology and technology will increasingly overlap. Biocomputing is powering technologies that interact with neural signals in the body, which is used for neuroprosthetics that can, for example, restore sight. Research is also underway on biocomputers, which can use DNA to store data more efficiently than computers can now. As the McKinsey report suggested, the development of biology and computing side by side will accelerate R&D within the sector in coming years.
Given these factors, other industries that support biotech, such as real estate, should see an opportunity to power its growth in cities like London. The momentum is undoubtedly there, but the challenges are stifling. For real estate, a lack of data, the design complexity required, and a dearth of space in London have all inhibited the industry’s ability to properly plug into this space.
1. Lack of data
The fundamental problem real estate faces is a knowledge gap. Success for commercial real estate in London has for decades centred on offices, and this is the market the industry knows through and through. Demand and rents will always ebb and flow, but, unless there is a sudden, seismic event – such as a pandemic and ensuing lockdowns – the industry generally knows how to respond to these trends.
The laboratory space is different. Those interviewed for the report, including Jennifer DiMambro at Arup, remarked that developers don’t have clear data about the market. What is the demand? Who will drive that demand? What are their requirements? What is the ROI? Many players in London simply do not know.
Another fear in the industry is that, unlike offices, which have a wide use and can be adapted for any number of sectors, labs are more specialised and potentially less adaptable. What if the growth of these districts has been a bubble? The risk of investing in such complex, expensive spaces is perceived to be high, compared to the relative ease and familiarity of offices.
Granary Square, King’s Cross, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
King’s Cross St Pancras, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
Coal Drops Yard, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
Research for this white paper suggests that fears of a bubble are unfounded. Not only is biotech in general a major growth area, but it continues to be a major growth area in London, years after the city’s clusters first formed. In King’s Cross alone, the second half of 2020 yielded several major announcements. MSD (known as Merck in the US) unveiled its plans for a £1bn research hub opposite King’s Cross Station, and a month later GlaxoSmithKline opened a £10m artificial intelligence hub nearby. There have also been several smaller deals in the city, with Scale Space releasing 60,000 square feet of office and lab space for life sciences at White City in March 2021.
The combination of labs and offices will likely mitigate some of the uncertainty in the market. These ‘lab-enabled offices’ have all the design characteristics of a lab building, but they can be converted to a high-spec office space, should the demand for a lab fall away.
Further encouragement for the UK market can also be found by looking
at the sustained growth of life sciences in locations such as Boston
in the US. Boston shares many of the innovation district
characteristics found in King’s Cross and White City, not least a
cluster of leading international universities, but the real estate
market for lab space is five to ten years more advanced. Over the
last ten years, employment in life sciences in Boston has grown by
nearly 90%, which has resulted in over 20 million square feet of
commercial lab space being developed to accommodate that growth.
2. Complex design
Labs come with a series of considerations that make designing and delivering that space more complex than a standard office:
Life Science wet labs have tended to use 3.3m module as the planning grid (giving 1.65m) whereas the BCO best practice for offices sets 1.5m as a standard for planning grids. Space in existing buildings would have to be designed with the Science and BCO’s standards in mind.
Labs require a floor-to-ceiling height greater than the BCO’s standard of 2.75m. The exact height of the ceiling will also vary depending on the type of science that takes place within the lab and the kit required for that. For example, if the space is used for chemical science, it will need a chimney for extraction.
Labs need more plant and machinery to run, which creates two challenges. First, it has implications for the net lettable area, putting greater pressure on pricing. Second, it can limit where a lab can be located, especially in a city with less available space.
Structurally, buildings need to be more robust and stiffer to facilitate labs. Some of the imaging equipment companies use is very sensitive to vibration, which means labs in urban areas need to be equipped to deal with that. In the same way certain buildings have seismic retrofitting to withstand earthquakes, there are options to stiffen buildings that contain labs.
Mechanical, electrical and plumbing requirements are significantly more demanding in labs. Ventilation is a particular concern, with more hazardous science requiring more air changes to provide a safe environment. The Natural Environment Research Council guidelines state that labs should have air change rates of between 6 and 15 per hour (10 should be sufficient in most cases), falling to 3 or 4 out of hours. Alongside this, fume cupboards are needed to run through to exhaust fan ventilation equipment on the roof and an overall increase in power is required to run scientific equipment, facilities and HVAC.
Labs need loading bays for deliveries and separate lifts and storage for hazardous materials, supply and waste.
3. Lack of space
The biggest challenge the sector faces is not a lack of money, but a shortage of land, several interviewees said. Traditionally, if demand is high and supply is low for commercial space, a developer can afford to look beyond the main geographies they would normally consider. Biotech, again, is different. The sector has intentionally grown around clusters because of the benefits they provide, and a life science firm will not want to be based ten miles from King’s Cross, when its peers and the nexus of scientific advances have co-located there.
Real estate, therefore, must be able to deliver space in already crowded areas, while also competing with other sectors. The housing crisis has put particular pressure on the city to deliver more homes, and permitted development rights, which allow developers to bypass the planning system to convert offices to residential, have led to a loss of commercial space. In 2015, the Greater London Authority reported that London lost 834,000 square meters of commercial space in two years due to office-to-residential conversions. With the introduction of expanded permitted development rights this year, pressure will increase to balance commercial and residential needs in the city.
In the US, New York City is grappling with a similar space-related challenge as it works to build a thriving life science market to rival those in places like Boston. In addition to space limitations, the city also has to contend with a less mature life science ecosystem than competitor locations. In 2016, with a view to address these challenges, New York state pledged $650 million to stimulate the growth of a world-class life science research cluster in New York City. The state support included a $200 million investment to support landlords to convert space into lab space.
4. Expertise
Because the biotech and lab market is relatively new in the UK,
there is understandably a lack of expertise and experience in
delivering the product. One report described London as a ‘ghost
town’ when it comes to developers considering labs, despite the city
being an epicentre for life sciences.
However, as Charles Walford from Stanhope explained, there are significant opportunities to learn from looking across the water to the US, with cities like Boston leading the way in delivering labs. Many of those interviewed for this research agreed that if it’s a product you are serious about delivering, then ‘dipping your toe in the water’ won’t work; you need to commit to properly understanding the market.
The UK, like much of the world, is at an inflection point: the
pandemic has forced us to reconsider fundamental questions about how
our cities function and what they provide. According to CBRE, London
office take-up in February 2021 reached its lowest point so far in
the pandemic, down 81% on the ten-year average. With offices staying
empty and occupiers considering how much space they will need in the
future, availability rose to 73% above the ten-year average.
Retail’s struggles have also been well publicised, from the collapse
of big names like Arcadia to landlords struggling to collect rent.
Shopping has shifted online, and while undoubtedly a proportion of
online retail spend will eventually return to bricks and mortar, how
big that shift will be is unclear. Estates Gazette reported
in December 2020 that across the UK, 975 million square feet of
retail and F&B leases signed since 2015 will expire by 2025. A
staggering amount of retail space has an uncertain future.
That uncertainty is an opportunity to rethink the post-Covid future of our cities, reimagining the basic make-up of the built environment to match emerging trends such as the growth of the biotech market. In that way, changes brought by the pandemic can be viewed as a fresh start for cities looking to the future. With this in mind, we look at some of the future trends for urban labs which we expect to see in the coming years:
1. Retrofit and re-use
With Covid reshaping the office market, the pandemic could lead to a surplus in office space in our towns and cities. If so, could it be an opportunity to retrofit old office stock into labs? Pete Matcham at Make Architects argues that this could be a sustainable way to breathe new life into old buildings. Between London’s scarcity of space and a growing number of major office occupiers adopting some form of home working as standard policy, repurposing office stock is a prudent use of existing buildings.
Sustainability - Drawing © Stuart Blower
As explored in previous sections of this report, that comes with opportunities and challenges. The opportunity is to tap into a growing market where rents are considerably higher. A 20,000 square foot prime office in London would yield rental income of just over £2m per year. A similar amount of high-end lab space could total £2.5m in rent. The challenge for a building owner is determining whether the space they own can meet the requirements for lab space and whether the necessary retrofits are financially viable. The main areas to consider are: floor-to-ceiling heights, structural limitations of the building, column spacing, and space for plant and MEP.
Jennifer DiMambro from Arup believes that organisations such as Arup and Make have an important role to play in advising landlords on whether their buildings are suitable for conversion into labs and, if so, how.
The high street retail crisis pre-dates the pandemic, but as with
other longer-term trends, lockdown has sped up the changes we’ve
seen slowly growing for years. As the high street exists today, it
faces an enormous challenge: footfall on London’s high streets in
February 2021 was down 83% compared to pre-lockdown levels, figures
from Centre for Cities showed.
Scale Space, White City, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
Scale Space, White City, London. Photo © Polly Tootal
Labs offer an opportunity to breathe life back into these vulnerable high streets by reshaping their basic function. “We have high streets which aren’t going to be shops anymore,” said Charlie Mitchell from Scale Space. “The potential is in introducing anything from ‘light lab’ workshop space for tech companies all the way to high-spec labs for established life science firms.”
The introduction of the Class E use class in September 2020, which placed most commercial premises under a single classification, will simplify conversions from retail to lab space. Since planning applications are not needed for a change of use within a single use class, landlords will be able to make these changes with little difficulty.
2. Mixed-use
Space constraints require the industry to think creatively about combining lab space with other uses. In London, we are already seeing the growth of ‘lab-enabled offices’ being introduced by the likes of Scale Space in White City and by Stanhope in the British Library extension. Indeed, ecosystems such as the one in King’s Cross demonstrate the interconnectedness and collaborative nature of science, which lends itself to space with multiple uses.
Addressing another urgent concern – a shortfall in housing – should inspire the industry to also consider the prospect of combining lab and residential space. This can be a real growth opportunity, Arup’s Jennifer DiMambro said, although it will require complex design to ensure that neither the residents nor the scientists in the building have to compromise with their space. One option would be to develop lab space on top of housing, which would keep the living space separate from the range of the machinery, MEP and extraction equipment required of labs.
Pete Matcham from Make identified some of the key considerations for designing lab/resi mixed-use spaces:
Layout of the building to enable zoning
Security of the building and the lab space
Fire strategy to encompass all building types
Finding a column spacing that suits all buildings
Floor-to-ceiling heights and finding the sweet spot that works for labs and housing
Loading bays
Where it is technically possible to mix housing and labs, the scientific community will have a social and communication challenge to meet: can it convince residents to live below labs? Although a potential challenge, it is also an opportunity for the industry to become more inclusive and communicate better with the general public. In the way universities opened themselves to the cities around them, scientists can help develop the bond between them, their work, and the communities around them.
3. Changing user needs
Science is becoming ever more collaborative, and more collaboration
has meant a change in how scientists use their space.
Tech and connectivity - Drawing © Stuart Blower
At the same time, technological breakthroughs have allowed for, and even necessitated, greater flexibility. The rise of computational science has led to more automation and smaller equipment for analysis. The growth of in silico studies (performed on a computer) has led to less demand for space compared to in vitro (outside a living organism, e.g. in test tubes) or in vivo (in living organism) studies. Unencumbered by clunky equipment, labs can accommodate a mix of roles and teams. Although they are still complex compared to offices, this has simplified some of their fit-out requirements and will continue to do so in coming years. For real estate, this lowers the barrier to entry for new entrants.
However, flexibility – whether that involves modular walls, movable desks or flexible equipment – must be incorporated to acknowledge that a substantial amount of individual work still goes on in labs.
4. Design innovations
The future of laboratory design has to start with flexibility. Looking at laboratories Make delivered ten years ago, Pete Matcham says the key alterations by occupants over the years have been to upgrade and enhance their digital technology, whether to allow for more remote experiments, enable greater analysis, or to simply enhance connectivity. It is clear that the ability to retrofit space for new technology will be fundamental.
“It’s great to see that within our portfolio the tenants have been able to adapt their space to accommodate their changing requirements without fundamentally altering the building structure. Whilst research-driven buildings can’t be off-the-shelf, they can be designed with enough inherent adaptability to allow the building to flex according to the needs of its tenants, with inbuilt infrastructure to accommodate a range of requirements.”
Adaptability - Drawing © Stuart Blower
“When designing with a tenant in mind, it will be important to collaborate to predict power requirements and the variety of equipment, as well as deliver flexible space to cope with that change. This in itself will be a challenge to foresee, and it will be harder still for the speculative laboratory.”
Matcham also believes there will be a greater focus on integrating amenity and collaboration within the spaces. Current research-focused projects for Make are picking up on how the hospitality and workplace sectors are learning from each other. Indeed, Make is seeing some of that in client briefs: more space for workers to meet and discuss, a range of spaces for a range of working typologies and, aligned with this, more amenity uses integrated within the building to attract and retain talent.
5. New locations
London has a blueprint for how ecosystems work in White City and King’s Cross. The next step is to consider where the biotech sector can grow beyond this. As the report has shown, these ecosystems grow around a research-driven anchor that draws in both companies and people.
Those interviewed suggested three growth areas: Whitechapel, anchored by Queen Mary University of London’s medical school; Stratford, anchored by UCL’s UCL East campus; and Waterloo, with St Thomas’ Hospital. Over time, we can expect London to evolve as a series of science-based hubs, each with a slightly different focus.
If this does happen, we need to consider whether, in the short- to medium-term, limiting lab development to these clusters will stifle London’s growth as a science hub. There is a finite amount of space in each of these areas, and limiting lab development to only them would overlook other places that otherwise have the potential to house them. However, the clusters individually have a greater opportunity to develop a critical mass that attracts talent. Given the quality of London’s transport infrastructure, the city is also well placed to bring new areas into play in the future. The hubs that exist now will eventually represent only the tip of the iceberg of what London has to offer.
6. Beyond London
The future growth of the biotech and life science market isn’t a story which will just play out in London, as Jennifer Dimambro from Arup noted, locations such as Manchester, Nottingham and Edinburgh are already doing some really interesting things in the world of life sciences and we can expect to see that grow in the coming years.
Local governments up and down the UK are working in partnership with business, academia and developers to use the innovation district model to drive growth and inward investment. Such locations include Leeds, Belfast, Birmingham, Glasgow and Swansea.
A similar story is true globally. The Global Institute on Innovation Districts lists locations such as Adelaide, Monterrey, Milan, Galway and Lyngby-Taarbaek (Denmark) among the innovation districts in their network.
7. The campus is dead. Long live the campus.
The future model for the life sciences and biotech market is one which will gravitate towards urban locations, but this doesn’t spell the end of the campus model. Connectivity and walkability are synonymous with campus design, and both of these are key features of the innovation district model. Where the urban model will differ from the out-of-town science park model will be around the permeability and inclusivity of innovation-based locations.
In a recent report, Imperial College London stated that future
innovation-based locations need to be “embedded in the communities
which they aim to serve”.
8. Expertise
The industry needs to continue its learning journey especially by looking at how the market has evolved in the US. The market there has real estate investment trusts dedicated to lab development, some of which, such as Alexandria Real Estate Equities, have nearly three decades of experience in the sector. Meanwhile, in cities like Boston, which have world-renowned life science hubs and multi-sector developers, such as Related Beal, are as likely to develop housing as they are to develop state-of-the-art labs.
The sector is undoubtedly young in the UK, but it is growing: the likes of Scale Space, YOO Capital and Stanhope are among those leading the way. Outside London, Bruntwood and Legal & General’s joint venture with the University of Manchester, Bruntwood SciTech, is continually growing its regional science and tech presence.
These relatively early movers can be a blueprint for others in the industry – architects, developers and investors – to emulate and build on. This decade will be defined by biotech, and if London wants to not only keep up, but also thrive and lead in the area, real estate must learn these lessons, step up and deliver groundbreaking innovative spaces.
Conclusion
London has nearly everything it needs to be a scientific superpower. It has world leading academic institutions, a rich pool of talent, investment, an active and growing private sector and a supportive public sector at both a local and national level. However, space for the sector to grow into is a key missing element and one which shouldn’t be underestimated.
As this paper has detailed, delivering lab space in a city such as London is complicated. Data on the depth of the market is scarce, availability of sufficient (and suitable) space in key locations is small and the product is complex to build. All of this leads to long lead in times to deliver a market requirement which is hot now and will only get hotter in the coming years.
In the short term the markets need for lab space now will see those locations with available space pushing to the front of the queue. The site of the London Cancer Hub in Sutton, a partnership between The Institute of Cancer Research, the London Borough of Sutton and The Royal Marsden will soon open (Nov 2021) the Innovation Gateway, an incubator space for companies working in life sciences. The speed of take-up of space in this project will be interesting for the real estate market to follow as Sutton tests the willingness of the market to locate beyond zones 1 – 3.
In the long-term London may have science hubs dotted across the city each with a different scientific focus and anchor institute and each with a slightly different set of user requirements. As a vision, this is an exciting place for London to strive to be. Ensuring that the city gets there depends to a large extent on the actions of real-estate companies today.
Exchange team
Stuart Blower, Roshan Dsouza, Tom Featherby, Daire Hearne, Ben Hutchings, Emily Lauffer, Pete Matcham, David Patterson, James Redman, Ken Shuttleworth, Giuditta Turchi, Sarah Worth
With special thanks to
Thomas Cawston, Jennifer Dimambro, Lloyd Lee, David Lupson, Charlie Mitchell, Jack Sallabank, Charles Walford
Edited by
Photography by
Copyright
© 2021 Make Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopy, recording
or any other information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from Make Ltd.
Make Architects
Make
32 Cleveland Street
London W1T 4JY
www.makearchitects.com
info@makearchitects.com
@makearchitects
GDPR Data Protection Policy