It could be argued that architectural elements was used to create a physical connection to the immediate context. This was done by trying to match the use of stone within this conservation area, mainly through expressed stone lintels. These stone lintels predominantly sit above the ground floor or repeated across the façade. This forms a physical relationship throughout the site creating a range of horizontal banding or string courses. These horizontal lines could be understood within the immediate context through the window cill and head level which could be followed. The repetition of these elements becomes rhythmic, following it you can experience regularity and a sense of rhythm. In doing this, the building has some architectural connections physically to the context; however, due to this being quite abstract, would the Layperson understand this connection? The surrounding buildings have a clear articulation between the lintels and the brick face, creating a coherent rhythm and elevation within the immediate context. Therefore, by implementing a grid where architectural elements of the horizontals and verticals are not articulated, any physical connection to the site is abstracted to the Layperson. This ultimately gives a very different feeling proportionally to anything Classical or traditional forming a dominant yet unsettling, questioning why this form was approved. Upon further investigation, this grid façade was granted planning permission in 2013 but, the proposal was shown in brick. Therefore, as the material was the only thing that changed following approval, raises two prominent issues. Is materiality the only issue within this context or was the narrative forced into an architectural form only because it was approved?

As explored, the main reason the proposal came under a large amount of criticism was due to its materiality. Christopher Alexander in A New Theory of Urban Design (1987) explains the character of “every project must first be experienced and then expressed as a vision” which can be seen by the eye, communicated to others, and felt by others. If not embodied Layperson will question its fundamental position of: What is it? Why has it been done like this? Due to the use of stone being contrasting to the eye physically and metaphorically, the Layperson does not acknowledge or comprehend any relationship to the context. There is a clear dominance and difference between the stone and brick colour / haptic qualities. This is emphasised as the use of brick being the primary material across immediate context. 

The way of understanding space, we need to experience the patterns of elements within a place. These patterns are the elements that buildings are made of and if this pattern is broken then their character can be lost. With the use of brick being this physical pattern, it defines the place’s experience and feeling because it can be experienced and understood by the Layperson. Breaking this with stone creates an instant disconnection with the immediate context and ultimately drove Islington Council to demand its demolition. Islington Council outlines that the existing character of the area depends on the survival of a range of vernacular building materials that are mainly brick with slate/tile roofing. This is remarked by them as ‘important’ so that all new buildings blend in with the physical context and reinforce this character. Due to this, it could be argued that the building does not respond to the vernacular of the site and the narrative appears to be forced into an architectural form only because it was approved at planning.