Nybyggeri, ombygning og renovering af forskningsfaciliteter til Faculty of Health Sciences, Institut for Biomedicin, Aarhus Universitet / Expansion and renovation of the Department of Biomedicine's research and teaching facilities

Architecture and function

The research units have been distributed with two in buildings 1233 and 1234, six in the Bartholin Complex and eight units in the newbuild – laid out with two on each floor, but in a cohesive way that allows the individual units to grow and borrow area from each other. This is an important point, as research teams vary in size.

The landscape project introduces three principal and connecting elements: Arrival spaces called brick plates, new paths and ‘focus points’ of varying character and size – all new additions that quietly build on the existing without destroying it. The brick plates serve as front areas by the area's large buildings, linking them together as a family and forming an invisible network by means of the recognisability. The new paths loyally mimic the old and should be seen solely as an expansion of the area's excellent infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

The focus points, on the other hand, are innovations of varying size, character and function. By the newbuild, the design includes a functional combination of bicycle parking and recreational area surrounding a large tree. To the north of the Victor Albeck Building, however, the focus point is manifested as a circular pavilion featuring a canteen. There is no direct contact between the Faculty's buildings, but cohesion is established in the area by means of the introduction of the new elements.

As in a number of the other proposals in the competition, the newbuild is composed of parallel offset wings, but as there are only two wings, it has a liberating simplicity that is just right for the University Park. As an unobtrusive, yet strong refinement, the wings are offset a couple of metres in relation to each other, so that they stand as individual buildings on either side of an exact glass cleft that points directly towards the cathedral spire. As the design works with just two wings, space is created in relation to the neighbours, and it becomes possible to give the wings greater depth, which improves the interior design possibilities considerably. The two wings are laid out almost identically – with offices and laboratories placed side by side in flexible ribbons along the facades. Where the two wings meet, a unifying space spans across the glass cleft, creating a centre and meeting room in the middle of the building. This atrium is of an appropriate size and is surrounded by functions that are relevant in this place. It is a open space, which everybody will naturally pass through, and it therefore stands as a convincing proposal for a social gathering place in the research section. The space is a pivotal point and gathers the ends of the floors so that it will actually work as one level, which can be divided in many different ways. The support functions are located at the centre of the wings, as slightly rounded cores, and this creates natural ‘hang-out niches’. The plans are beautiful and simple; they work well and are incredibly robust in relation to both the project design phase and the following utilisation.

The building's exterior architecture is precise and elegant. It is well-proportioned and contains a new motif, which can become a ‘fine little story within the larger story’. The long sides are calm and correspond to the other facades in the University Park, while the end walls contain two new motifs, which gently expand the architectural vocabulary of the place.

On the arrival end walls, a sort of brick grate is introduced, which will appear brilliantly light and ethereal, especially after dark. One of the end walls, which includes large openings that provide a good view out, works best, but in general, the idea is fine and the effect promising. The other two end walls, those that are furthest from the central space of the building, introduce a new sort of balconies, which are practically dug into the building volume. Together, the two types of end wall form a beautiful contrapuntal effect, where the light ‘tulle of brick’ by the entrance is complemented by the weight created in connection with the recessed balconies. The architecture clearly has its origins in a genuine love and respect for the University Park. The proposal's authors manage to balance exactly between the continuation of tradition and innovation within the given framework.

Buildings 1233 and 1234 are handled carefully within the existing settings. The central walking line is retained, and the floors are laid out with laboratories in the southern wing and offices in the northern. A number of auxiliary functions, such as facility management and workshops, are located in the basement and the ground floor's northern part.

The Bartholin Complex is opened up for synergy between the floors in a through-going mini atrium, which is located to the west on one side of the walking line. In order to create a view to the Park's central lake, a large glass section is cut into the western facade – a motif already found in the western wing of the Bartholin Complex. In connection with the unifying space, a number of common facilities, such as meeting rooms and lounges, are established, while the other areas are laid out with offices and laboratories placed side by side as in the newbuild. The design includes one research unit on each floor and one unit spread across two levels in the eastern wing of the building.

Technical aspects

External basement walls in the lower basement are cast in-situ along with double floors in waterproof concrete. Foundation conditions have been dealt with project-specifically and relevantly.

In the building's two wings, load-bearing facades (rear wall elements) and a row of columns with steel composite beams are carried out without probing. In the area where the two wings are opposite each other, the beam/column system is replaced by steel lattice girders with a clear span of approx. 20 m.
Floor slabs are carried out as hollow-core slabs. Load-bearing partition walls and lift shafts are made of concrete elements.

From the drawing material it is deduced that lift shafts and stairwells are able to absorb horizontal forces in the two wings. It is believed that processing is required where the two wings are opposite each other. It appears that the concept outlined offers good flexibility for routing of installations and future alterations.

In the Bartholin Complex, holes are made in the double slab structure to make room for new installations, which will cause destabilisation. In order to secure future stability, a number of steel braces will be incorporated. Furthermore, necessary shear wall action is established by means of reinforced concrete on upper floors.

Structural solutions in buildings 1233-1234 and the Victor Albeck Building have not been described further, but it is stated that only limited interventions in the existing building will be carried out.

Technical rooms are shown to be located at basement level and on roof floors, respectively. As a whole, the technical rooms are assessed to be well positioned and of a reasonable size. Installations are routed from technical rooms in a series of vertical shafts, which are assessed to be adequate based on the outline.

Ventilation principles for the newbuild and the Bartholin Complex are outlined on cross and longitudinal sections, on the basis of which it is deduced that the following division of systems will be applied: unit for process ventilation of BSL3/GMO class 2 laboratories, unit for process ventilation of animal facilities, units for process ventilation of laboratories and units for comfort ventilation of offices. The outline also indicates that ventilation of the atrium in the newbuild is based on natural ventilation.

Sprinkling is indicated for the newbuild. This is not the case for the Bartholin Complex, where full or partial sprinkling will be required in connection with other fire technical measures.

Other technical systems comply with the requirements stipulated in the competition material.

Energy and sustainability are brought into focus in a holistic perspective, and a general account is given for this. An environmental motivator and a systematic eco-friendly project design are proposed.

The energy design outlines a number of passive and active measures. Ventilation of offices is planned as hybrid ventilation with natural ventilation outside the heating season. The proposal also focuses on a reduction of process energy, including indication of a principle for heat recovery from fume hoods.

It is assessed that the proposal complies with LE2015. However, the large glass areas to the north and south may be a challenge, also in connection with indoor climate parameters such as cold down-draught and radiation asymmetry. All indoor climate parameters are dealt with. Daylight conditions and view from the newbuild's atrium appear somewhat uncertain, and the same goes for work stations at the southern end of floor 01.

Conclusion

Even from the first sentences, you feel that the proposal is written with you in mind – that it is a both experienced and passionate architect who is communicating his/her ideas. The description is brief, but incredibly precise and well-considered, just as the architecture, the overall layout and the functionality. The competition is quite restricted by the District Plan and similar, and yet the proposer has managed to create a proposal that demonstrates the detail and the possibilities of refinement without getting into conflict with either, and exuding both love for the place and a keen interest in the competition objective. It is a unanimous Jury that selects this proposal as a clear winner. However, and this is considered inevitable, there are a number of issues that the Jury would like to see further processed in the first stages of the project design phase. The most significant of these are mentioned here in random order:

– The Jury believes that there may be a lack of daylight in the central atrium. The glass cleft, which is the only direct source of daylight, is rather narrow. This is what makes it so elegant, but on the other hand it should be investigated whether it adds sufficient light to the room. It might also be worth considering whether a better view to the surroundings would be in order.

– It has been noted that the otherwise beautiful brick sections on the end walls of the building may be a visual barrier for the rooms that they shield. It should be considered whether both versions of this type of end wall should have larger holes of window size.

– The basement has been laid out across two floors, and this may be a good idea; however, the Jury has been made aware that the animal facilities have not been arranged optimally. This should be improved, e.g. so that the areas are not spread across both basement floors.

– The new parking spaces are laid out along a newly established road that connects to Vennelyst Boulevard. As a strategy, this is a good idea; however, the University is not interested in having the access from C. F. Møllers Allé extended to Vennelyst Boulevard, turning it into a through road. The Jury feels that the parking strategy should be reconsidered.

– Goods delivery takes place from Vennelyst Boulevard, and as a starting point this is alright. On the other hand, it appears as though the actual solution of the ramp system is surrounded by a drawing smoke screen, which reveals that the issue has not been completely resolved. On the site plan, the ramp is green (grass-reinforced?), but due to its width and location, it will cut a wide scar into the landscape, creating an unfortunate space between the newbuild and building 1110. This element should be processed along with the parking and the basement, so that it becomes equally as elegant as the rest of the proposal.

– The areas inside the buildings need to be processed so that they match the requirements of the Competition Brief more accurately.