LOPO Clay Wall Bricks China Project: China Resources Archives

China Resources Archives Library: grey brick case study

This source-bounded archive preserves all 13 original photographs and the historic light-grey handmade brick record for the China Resources Archives Library at Xiaojingwan, Guangdong. It separates visible design evidence from conflicting location and area labels, incomplete product data and an unverified LOPO contract role.

Formal project nameChina Resources Archives Library / China Resources Archives
Location used hereXiaojingwan, Huizhou, Guangdong, China
Historic campus labelSouth Campus, China Resources University
Architect creditStudio Link-Arc, per ArchDaily
Project year2018, per ArchDaily; exact opening / handover not established
Archived construction start15 September 2016, per the old supplier article
Brick recordLight grey; handmade rock texture; one recorded size 290 × 95 × 75 mm
Item / piece quantityNot stated
Complete exterior view of the China Resources Archives Library at Xiaojingwan
Original 767 × 506 px overall view. The stepped, low-rise massing and grey exterior are visible; the image does not establish product quantities, wall build-up or contract responsibilities.

Project identity, team and date record

ArchDaily identifies the project as the China Resources Archives Library, names Studio Link-Arc as architect, credits Yichen Lu and Qinwen Cai as lead architects, and records 2018 as the project year. Its published team list also credits CCDI as contractor, Yoshinori Nito Engineering & Design PC for engineering, Studio Link-Arc for interior and landscape, and China Resources Construction Co. Ltd. as client.

The legacy supplier article separately says an unnamed translated “Southern Branch of the Construction Division” undertook civil, electromechanical and curtain-wall general contracting, while a “southern decoration branch” handled interiors. Because those phrases do not identify legal entities and do not align cleanly with the published architecture credits, they remain historical source wording rather than merged team assignments.

Date and role boundary: the legacy article records a 15 September 2016 construction start; ArchDaily gives a 2018 project year. The WordPress publication date, 22 August 2018, is not treated as the completion or opening date. No contract, purchase order, delivery record or independent project credit establishes LOPO as architect, facade designer, general contractor, installer or supplier for a defined quantity.

The old account says the building was intended to preserve records from China Resources’ preceding 80 years and meet a further 50 years of archive-storage needs. This is retained as a 2018 program statement, not a current capacity, preservation or operational guarantee.

Historic brick specification and quantity boundaries

FieldArchived recordHow it is treated
MaterialGrey clay wall brick; architectural sources also describe handmade grey brick.Historic project description, not a current product approval.
Colour / faceLight grey; handmade rock texture.No colour code, range, master sample or current availability is supplied.
Recorded unit size290 × 95 × 75 mm.One size in the 2018 page; tolerances, orientation and whether it is nominal are not stated.
Item / modelNot stated.No number is assigned from another product page or photograph.
Brick familyA dated LOPO release says seven mould sets, 12 sizes and three pewter-grey tone series were developed.Supplier-authored historical claim; the full size and colour schedules are unavailable.
Facade areaA dated LOPO release says approximately 2,400 m².Not independently verified and not a piece quantity.
Piece quantityNot stated.Cannot be calculated without the full module mix, joints, openings, waste and as-built record.
Building area9,671.8 m² in the supplier archive; 9,000 m² in ArchDaily.Conflicting gross/project area records; neither is clay-brick area.
Site area4,600 m² in the supplier’s Chinese project page.Historical supplier figure; it does not describe the facade package.

The archived appearance combines grey brick with brushed or vertically textured concrete. Rectangular bricks form solid fields and projecting, perforated screens. Geometry visible in these photographs should not be converted into bond, projection, support, reinforcement or opening dimensions.

What the photographs support

Stepped massing

The low, receding volumes follow a sloping setting and create terraces around the archive. “Built with the terrain” remains a design description, not geotechnical evidence.

Material contrast

Light-grey handmade brick, darker glazing, textured concrete and warm soffits establish the palette. Exact finish and colour acceptance still require current physical samples.

Solid and open brick fields

Projecting units form permeable-looking screens beside solid walls. Current work must define structural support, restraint, openings, movement, edges and access through project engineering.

No performance transfer

Appearance does not prove structural, fire, water, thermal, acoustic, impact, weathering, durability, maintenance or environmental performance for this or another wall.

Information to verify for a comparable brick facade

Confirm the responsible project parties; current brick item, body, dimensions, tolerances, colour and texture range; solid and perforated layouts; bond and joints; structural support and restraint; backing wall; interfaces at openings, corners, bases and tops; movement, drainage and water control; applicable fire, impact and weathering requirements; representative mock-ups; cleaning and replacement access; batch records; measured quantities; and the exact commercial scope.

Prepare a current brick-facade brief

Send the project location, elevations, wall and screen zones, target modules, colour and texture intent, preliminary quantities, structural and backing-wall concept, applicable requirements, mock-up plan, delivery destination and programme. Request current samples, scoped evidence and a written commercial proposal.