modgnikehtotsyek
ALLE WETTBEWERBSERGEBNISSE, AUSSCHREIBUNGEN UND JOBS Jetzt Newsletter abonnieren

Offener Wettbewerb | 09/2013

Campus 2015 - Otaniemi central campus of Aalto University

Anerkennung

ALA Architects ltd.

Architektur

ARUP Ireland

Bauingenieurwesen, Energieplanung, Tragwerksplanung

MASU PLANNING

Landschaftsarchitektur

Trafix

Verkehrsplanung

VIZarch.cz

Verkehrsplanung

Stoltmodels Oy

Modellbau

Erläuterungstext

Instead of creating a singular landmark object to compete with Alvar Aalto's Otaniemi, we propose a conglomerate of buildings to form an incubator of activity. The aim is to connect existing structures and projects to create a new areal hotspot, an urban concentration with vivid street life. The new project will be something currently lacking in Otaniemi: an open display of creativity.

The tight street web allows most learning spaces, shops, bars and cafeterias to open to public space. The main building ingredient of the new Aalto identity will be “action”.

The general planning solution of the project follows the Aalto masterplan: soft against hard - green environment to the east of the main building against a more structured and rough environment to the west. Three major outdoor entities are created: the Metro-Poli Square with a grand formal feel, the extended Alvarinaukio square with park-campus-like atmosphere, and the streets of the New Central Campus as a new urban ingredient.

The proposed learning environment is both flexible and pragmatic yet also intensive and memorable - designed to inspire both cognitively and emotionally. From urban scale to the finest detail, we aim to promote the values of Aalto University.

Beurteilung durch das Preisgericht

GENERAL
“HIPSTERKASBAH” consists of a number of separate buildings and pavilions that form an interesting urban composition. Instead of creating a singular landmark to compete with Alvar Aalto’s Otaniemi, the designers of “HIPSTERKASBAH” propose a conglomerate of buildings to form a new, village-like neighbourhood. Their aim is to create an urban experience with its own strong identity and vivid street life. The tight street network allows learning spaces, shops, bars, and cafés to open up into public spaces.

Although the proposal consists of a number of separate buildings, it seems to have started off as one large volume, which has been cut into pieces, making room for streets, alleys, and squares. The alleys are narrow and give an attractive and intimate, almost medieval feel. The proposal has a very strong urban feel, which is new for Otaniemi.

“HIPSTERKASBAH” moves away from an all-embracing homogenous campus architectural style towards a more pluralistic and diverse concoction – and shows us some-thing that is currently lacking in Otaniemi: a dense urban environment that encourages spontaneous creativity.

URBAN LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE
The new buildings are robust and workshop-like in character. The spaces are not precious, but rather adaptable and inspiring. The solid volumes are clad with contemporary interpretations of Otaniemi’s classic textures and materials. “HIPSTERKASBAH” fits into the existing urban structure quite well and creates interesting exterior spaces around and inside it.

The main plaza is well-proportioned and is successfully located in front of the former main building. The new main axes lead naturally towards the former main building and its entrances. Aalto’s library is also naturally located in the middle of a large park. The general planning solution follows the Aalto master plan: soft vs. hard – a green environment to the east of the former main building against a more structured and rough approach to the west. The additional building in front of the existing Library is not entirely convincing, however, as it feels too weak and remote.

During the first phase, the architecture in “HIPSTERKASBAH” looked a little clumsy and dubious. Further work has improved this tremendously. This very exciting and promising scheme has been further developed in many respects on the basis of the Jury’s recommendations.

USABILITY
The street layout has been completely revised. Much effort has been given to reducing the number of alleyways, varying in width and overall length, bisecting the area and reassessing their routes and relative widths.

The new buildings and the former main building are connected through the plaza. The alleys are narrow and, given the Finnish climate, might be problematic in use. The sheer number of alleyways may even hinder the effective day-today workability of the ARTS Building. Some could be covered, but would they lose their appeal and become dead gallery hallways instead? The metro is in a separate building, in line with the existing metro plans, but would be easy to incorporate within the proposal.

Faculties are located in individual buildings, which function both as separate units and as a combined campus. Each building contains a separate faculty or other unit. Is there the danger that with so many individual buildings they would become enclaves for different disciplines, rather than encouraging cross-disciplinary cooperation?

The basic configuration of the buildings is vertically divided into three areas. The ground floor contains large, hall-like functions, with extensive goods and people traffic. Most of the workshops are located on the ground floors. Other ground floor functions include amenities, such as restaurants, shops, galleries, and showrooms.

The upper levels of the buildings contain teaching space, studios, and administration and support spaces. Classroom spaces have windows to the street and alleys, as well as skylights and views within the building volume as appropriate. These elements should guarantee plentiful daylight in the upper levels.

Rooftops are also used, which is positive. Some of the roof configurations, however, seem somewhat constrained and unjustified.

The floor plans have been improved tremendously since the first phase. There is still a lack of consideration for long-term flexibility, however, as the plans are over-specific in many places and would benefit from being more generic in terms of spatial organization. There are still too many building volumes and include some sharp corners that could prove difficult to use effectively.

The large footprint of the design undermines its economic efficiency. Numerous expensive elevators are needed to gain vertical accessibility in many buildings. The large footprint also reduces the opportunities for expansion in the surrounding area.

UNIQUENESS
Some of the irregular shapes of the volumes are visually interesting. The architectural outlook of the village-campus concept has been reconsidered in line with the Jury’s comments during the first phase. Material choices and differences in dimension follow their location and orientation. The robust and understated architecture of the first phase has been retained successfully. The rough nature of many of the workspaces is very appropriate, as this learning environment is very much based on the notion of learning by doing.

“HIPSTERKASBAH” is unique among the entries in its urban village concept. The originality of the concept is the design’s strength. Phase 2 revealed the difficulties and weaknesses inherent in the concept, however, despite the tremendous improvements made to the overall design.