Nichtoffener Wettbewerb | 05/2012
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
Teilnahme
Architektur
Architektur
Landschaftsarchitektur
Bauingenieurwesen
Beurteilung durch das Preisgericht
Architecture and function
As the only proposal in the competition, this is based on an analysis of the landscape,
organising the newbuild in a structure that includes both buildings that are aligned
north/south and buildings that are aligned east/west. This creates a very complex figure
that creates a fine link to buildings 1233 and 1234, and which results in the southern part
of the construction field being kept free of buildings. However, the building's scale appears
to be somewhat out of step with the place, and the building takes up so much space that
in a number of places the distance to neighbouring buildings becomes very cramped. At
the same time, the proposal ignores the District Plan's stipulation that east/west-aligned
buildings must be lower than north/south-aligned building volumes.
The proposal gathers seven research groups in the newbuild, three groups in buildings
1233 and 1234, and six groups in the Bartholin Complex. The individual research groups
are organised with support functions centrally located and with laboratories and offices
placed side by side.
The composite figure of the newbuild is basically made up of two L-shapes, which are
linked to form a cross. Where the two parts meet, common areas are located in a rather
elongated atrium called Venue Space, which at the northern end is orientated towards the
University Park where the main entrance is located. At its southern end, the atrium opens
up to the west and Høegh-Guldbergs Gade.
The Jury has found it interesting that the individual research groups are ‘bent’, so that the
internal corridors become very short, and that the groups are divided into two parts, which
are united in the common areas. However, the atrium seems to have become rather
elongated, and the recreational areas are found to be too open in character. The facade
expression outside the common areas seems to be quite unfinished, just as the
proportions of the end walls do not seem to be adequately integrated into the overall
architecture of the University.
The basement is designed as one level, which is reached from the main stairs in Venue
Space. An open goods delivery yard is established towards the south with access from the south, and a large underground parking facility is also established here.
The architectural expression of the newbuild's Venue Space is repeated in the proposal for
a conversion of the Bartholin Complex. At both ends of the long building, organically
shaped figures are thus cut out between the floors to create visual contact and open stairs between the floors, creating a fine cohesion between the newbuild and the Bartholin
Complex. In buildings 1233 and 1234, the common areas are established in the bend
between the two buildings, and this is the only proposal that has found room for three
research groups in these buildings.
Technical aspects
The load-bearing concrete structures are made mainly of prefabricated elements. The slab
elements are supported by facades and a supporting line at the centre of the building,
which is executed as a beam/column system with a number of bracing wall sections. This
is a well-known and rational structural principle, which is flexible for the routing of
installations through a careful positioning of the bracing wall sections and the use of
composite beams.
In the through-going common space between the buildings, footbridges and balconies will
be made of prefabricated steel modules. The underground car park is said to be a
standard modular system from selected suppliers without any further description. The
concept for other basement structures is not described, and foundation conditions are only described in general terms.
Structural interventions will be carried out in the existing buildings in order to
accommodate function, flexibility and the routing of installations. Where this implies new
structural elements to ensure load-bearing capacity and stability, this will be carried out
using new steel structures.
Technical rooms for ventilation of the upper floors are placed in roof spaces. Ventilation
rooms for the lower floors and other technical rooms are located at level -1.
Technical rooms and shafts are found to be well laid out, and access to these appears
reasonable, as it is to be expected that minor constructional interventions will be
necessary at the replacement of large components for ventilation systems in roof spaces.
Apart from that, all installations are very well documented and adapted for the present
building design. This is also the case for the interior design of the laboratories, and it is
evident that a lot of work has gone into accommodating the flexibility requirements across
all disciplines.
Offices, meeting rooms and laboratories are described as being connected to the same
ventilation system, which is not considered to be in compliance with the Competition
Brief's requirements for separate ventilation systems for comfort and process.
An extensive and relevant sustainability concept is described in connection with the
newbuild, dealing with a number of relevant parameters, which are relevantly
implemented in the newbuild project. However, this is missing in connection with the
renovation of the existing buildings.
The proposal states that it complies with LE2015, and that ingress protection complies
with the requirements stipulated in LE2020. A number of relevant measures are indicated
for the reduction of process energy. All indoor climate parameters are relevantly
described.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposal is very well communicated and well-prepared. The proposal has
been interesting because as the only one in the field, it has suggested buildings in both
directions; however, although the Jury found this interesting, it is also the proposal's
Achilles' heel. It is the Jury's opinion that the site seems too narrow for this concept, and
at the same time it is difficult to believe that an exemption will be granted from the
District Plan's requirement that transverse buildings must be lower than the rest.
As the only proposal in the competition, this is based on an analysis of the landscape,
organising the newbuild in a structure that includes both buildings that are aligned
north/south and buildings that are aligned east/west. This creates a very complex figure
that creates a fine link to buildings 1233 and 1234, and which results in the southern part
of the construction field being kept free of buildings. However, the building's scale appears
to be somewhat out of step with the place, and the building takes up so much space that
in a number of places the distance to neighbouring buildings becomes very cramped. At
the same time, the proposal ignores the District Plan's stipulation that east/west-aligned
buildings must be lower than north/south-aligned building volumes.
The proposal gathers seven research groups in the newbuild, three groups in buildings
1233 and 1234, and six groups in the Bartholin Complex. The individual research groups
are organised with support functions centrally located and with laboratories and offices
placed side by side.
The composite figure of the newbuild is basically made up of two L-shapes, which are
linked to form a cross. Where the two parts meet, common areas are located in a rather
elongated atrium called Venue Space, which at the northern end is orientated towards the
University Park where the main entrance is located. At its southern end, the atrium opens
up to the west and Høegh-Guldbergs Gade.
The Jury has found it interesting that the individual research groups are ‘bent’, so that the
internal corridors become very short, and that the groups are divided into two parts, which
are united in the common areas. However, the atrium seems to have become rather
elongated, and the recreational areas are found to be too open in character. The facade
expression outside the common areas seems to be quite unfinished, just as the
proportions of the end walls do not seem to be adequately integrated into the overall
architecture of the University.
The basement is designed as one level, which is reached from the main stairs in Venue
Space. An open goods delivery yard is established towards the south with access from the south, and a large underground parking facility is also established here.
The architectural expression of the newbuild's Venue Space is repeated in the proposal for
a conversion of the Bartholin Complex. At both ends of the long building, organically
shaped figures are thus cut out between the floors to create visual contact and open stairs between the floors, creating a fine cohesion between the newbuild and the Bartholin
Complex. In buildings 1233 and 1234, the common areas are established in the bend
between the two buildings, and this is the only proposal that has found room for three
research groups in these buildings.
Technical aspects
The load-bearing concrete structures are made mainly of prefabricated elements. The slab
elements are supported by facades and a supporting line at the centre of the building,
which is executed as a beam/column system with a number of bracing wall sections. This
is a well-known and rational structural principle, which is flexible for the routing of
installations through a careful positioning of the bracing wall sections and the use of
composite beams.
In the through-going common space between the buildings, footbridges and balconies will
be made of prefabricated steel modules. The underground car park is said to be a
standard modular system from selected suppliers without any further description. The
concept for other basement structures is not described, and foundation conditions are only described in general terms.
Structural interventions will be carried out in the existing buildings in order to
accommodate function, flexibility and the routing of installations. Where this implies new
structural elements to ensure load-bearing capacity and stability, this will be carried out
using new steel structures.
Technical rooms for ventilation of the upper floors are placed in roof spaces. Ventilation
rooms for the lower floors and other technical rooms are located at level -1.
Technical rooms and shafts are found to be well laid out, and access to these appears
reasonable, as it is to be expected that minor constructional interventions will be
necessary at the replacement of large components for ventilation systems in roof spaces.
Apart from that, all installations are very well documented and adapted for the present
building design. This is also the case for the interior design of the laboratories, and it is
evident that a lot of work has gone into accommodating the flexibility requirements across
all disciplines.
Offices, meeting rooms and laboratories are described as being connected to the same
ventilation system, which is not considered to be in compliance with the Competition
Brief's requirements for separate ventilation systems for comfort and process.
An extensive and relevant sustainability concept is described in connection with the
newbuild, dealing with a number of relevant parameters, which are relevantly
implemented in the newbuild project. However, this is missing in connection with the
renovation of the existing buildings.
The proposal states that it complies with LE2015, and that ingress protection complies
with the requirements stipulated in LE2020. A number of relevant measures are indicated
for the reduction of process energy. All indoor climate parameters are relevantly
described.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposal is very well communicated and well-prepared. The proposal has
been interesting because as the only one in the field, it has suggested buildings in both
directions; however, although the Jury found this interesting, it is also the proposal's
Achilles' heel. It is the Jury's opinion that the site seems too narrow for this concept, and
at the same time it is difficult to believe that an exemption will be granted from the
District Plan's requirement that transverse buildings must be lower than the rest.