Bildungs- und Informationszentrum für Schutzgebiete in Tiflis (GE) / Design of the Protected Areas (PA) Education and Information Centre in Tbilisi

The Jury positively assesses the search for sustainable architectural solutions. The proposal includes ventilated facades, green surfaces and water surfaces. However, the building is architecturally not very outspoken and does not establish a strong presence in Rike Park.
There is a minimal internal-external relationship that does not present a greater interest. The rather classical and rigid internal distribution, could work better as an administrative center than as a great cultural information point. The double-level situation in the exhibition hall is evaluated as positive. But more interesting spatial situations would enrich future exhibitions.
The basic structure is very simple and compact, which is good for structural, seismic, Energy Efficient, maintenance, costs aspects etc.). The facades are also built up of basic, usable materials. All details of building materials or wall however are missing, and no u-values (and thus no insulation) are indicated, which seems inefficient in terms of summer thermal protection. Despite the proportion of glass façades, the maintenance and upkeep of the building envelope is expected to be manageable. Building installation however, seems to be more elaborately planned and probably needs regular, professional maintenance (photovoltaics, geothermal energy, etc.)
Energy Efficiency class A ++ is targeted which according to EU guidelines means to have a heating demand below 10kWh / (m²) for non-residential buildings. However, this specification may be a less relevant climate zone (and easier to reach) than a limitation of the annual primary energy demand from non-renewable energy efficiency. It could also be considered to limit the maximum permissible value for CO2 emissions. The project also does not elaborate on cooling, which will probably need to be considered.
Accessibility and fire safety are at first glance sufficiently considered.
Information about areas, floor height, building volume, usable area etc. is missing completely and dimensioning is insufficient. The project is overall not very detailed and therefore carries a relatively high risk in the further development that the basic ideas presented are not quite as simple and economically feasible.
Conclusion: Simple approach, efficient in construction and probably cost-effective in maintenance and upkeep. Risk in the further planning, because the design is not very developed, partly incomplete. Ideas for energy efficiency appear without a consistent concept, but must still be tested for feasibility and then for profitability.
Suggested improvements:
- Visitor and staff circulation is not separated
- Relation with the surrounding is not well defined in the site plan
- Shop storage is not directly related to shop.
- Specification of construction system
- Specification of energy demand/admissible CO2 emissions
- Proof/study of possible energy sources