A_POCKET STUDENT COMPETITION JURY REPORT, 2. STAGE

Transcription

1 A_POCKET STUDENT COMPETITION JURY REPORT, 2. STAGE

2

3 UNDERGRADUATE CENTRE Otakaari 1X A-Wing Alvarinaukio Harald Herlin Learning Centre

4 1. Competition objectives and process A_Pocket Student Design Competition was organized in autumn 2017 by Aalto University and Aalto University Campus & Real Estate. The objective was to find innovative and feasible proposals for the A-Wing courtyard at Otakaari 1 X. Participants were encouraged to propose ways to enhance the social and spatial character of the site as part of the campus. After the 1. competition phase ( ), the jury selected five proposals as finalists out of the total of 38 qualified proposals. A complete list of submitted 1. phase entries and an evaluation of each qualified proposal were published in the Jury report 1. At the beginning of the 2. stage, each finalist team was assigned a specialist mentor to assist in the development of their proposal. The finalist teams and their mentors were: Aalto ATM: Chengxin Hao & Xiaohan Liang, mentor: Anna-Marie van der Lei (Aalto University) A_Fire: Rouven Grom, Tigran Khachatryan & Jasmine Chui Chung, mentor: Johanna Brummer (Wanderlust) Kaija: Matias Murole & Juha-Matti Lappalainen, mentor: Mikki Ristola (AOR Architects) PLAYGROUND: Siiri Mikola & Susanna Virolainen, mentor: Ashish Mohite (Aalto University) Voices of Aalto: Andre Vicentini & Miki Sordi, mentor: Markus Ahola (Aalto University) As part of the 2 nd stage process defined in the Competition Programme, the finalists presented their work to the jury at an interim event on November 15, At the seminar, the teams and the jury were able to discuss different aspects of the proposals and suggest ideas for further development. Final presentations took place as an open event on December 7, The presentation material had been made available to the jury for review prior to the event. After team presentations and questions from the jury, the jury held a final meeting to evaluate each proposal and decide on the distribution of competition awards. The feedback and awards were announced to the participants and audience after the jury meeting in an award ceremony. The results were also published later on the competition website at apocket/ and Facebook-page. 2. Evaluation guidelines Guidelines for jury evaluation followed those of the 1 st stage, with an additional 4. dimension, as defined in the Competition Programme: 1. A strategic, argumentative approach to design, communicated in an effective manner that is engaging and understandable for the jury. 2. An ambitious vision that is not merely conforming to traditional disciplinary boundaries and a well-proven solution space. 3. A design strategy taking existing restrictions and boundary conditions of the site and its planning context as foundational for innovative work.

5 4. How well key qualities of the competition proposal would translate into a real project on campus. This includes overall feasibility and integration of legal frameworks such as building protection specifications in the design to avoid major modifications to an awarded work. The aim is that the design should become more impressive if implemented, not lose its original charm. In addition to these aspects, the jury also considered each proposal s overall potential for positive contribution for the campus and the competition site. 3. Final evaluations, 2. stage Aalto ATM what is to be the authors objective. For example, the jury could imagine the Aalto ATM as an impressive art installation of glowing eggs with strong symbolic meanings and experiential qualities, instead of technological functionality. Designing with light is a positive factor in consideration of the dark Finnish winters, and the proposed round objects create an interplay with the rectangular building. The visual character is at once interesting and subtle. The glowing eggs could create a playful form of lighting that would even be visible from under snow. Furthermore, the art piece like presence could attract passers-by to visit the courtyard, and create a scene that can also be experienced from indoors. The team of Aalto ATM developed their proposal from an initial range of technological and social elements into a simpler intervention of illuminated outdoor furniture. During the design process, the egg-shaped objects were replaced by illuminated curvilinear benches that would interact with people with a change in the color of lighting. Depending on how many persons are using the furniture, the illumination would shift from subtle colors to bright white light. Excerpt from the 1 st stage jury statement: The proposal offers diverse technical elements as part of the design, from printing and storage devices to seating with integrated heating, light and sound systems. Aalto ATM combines the design of objects to functionalities aimed at establishing communication among people. Further development of the project could take many different routes, depending on The selection of materials in the design had been carefully studied by the authors. Polyethylene (PE) was proposed as a durable and non-toxic choice for outdoor use. In principle, the modular furniture could be rearranged on site, yet the concrete base of the seats would make them too heavy to be spontaneously moved. Thus, the seating would present a public fixture with a 3 4 m diameter rather than a mobile arrangement. In this way, the benches would to some extent fix the use of the courtyard.

6 The jury had some reservations concerning the proposal s development from whimsical glowing eggs into a more practical seating arrangement. The egg had been appreciated as an exciting and even surreal form that would not set too many parameters on how people can engage with it. The bench, on the other hand, came across as more predetermined and less bold as an intervention. The jury liked the playful approach to lighting that could spark spontaneous interaction with and among passers-by, as well as the clarity of the concept. The idea of creating new kind of outdoor furniture for the site was commended, and the value of an interplay with light in an environment supporting year-round well-being and activity was recognized. The proposal was also considered very feasible in terms of site impact, choice of materials, and technical aspects of the light interaction and production. A_Fire Excerpt from the 1 st stage jury statement: The proposal is a microcosm, yet the primary element is a fireplace sunken into the courtyard, inviting social gatherings. The graphic presentation is convincing, especially the simple black-and-white diagram communicating the concept. Fire as an element and the sheltering form of the fireplace auditorium propose a new social space, which is strategically sunken towards Alvarinaukio to decrease the instant visual effect in the landscape. However, since the fireplace-auditorium is such a strong element, the jury recommends that the proposal could be enhanced by giving up some of the secondary activities proposed and simplifying the design agenda to match the scale of the site. Despite the subtle visual connection to Alvarinaukio, the program and the design offer a bold project for the site that also reframes Alvar Aalto s architecture. The proposal transforms the landscape of the building at the courtyard, today characterized by white marble and low grass. The effects of light from the fire and proposed projections are intriguing and suggestive. The authors of A_Fire rigorously developed their design over the course of the 2 nd phase and at the end displayed a beautifully illustrated and impressive proposal. The team focused on the canopy and fireplace as suggested initially by the jury, and the bold original quality and clarity of the proposal were of very high level at the final stage. The canopy design was presented as a hyperbolic paraboloid, a thin undulating structure interacting with site topography and functionality of the fireplaceauditorium. While the team had carefully studied the form and structural solution of the canopy, the feasibility and practical safety of the structure in combination with the fireplace raised some questions.

7 The A_Fire proposal presented an objectual approach, and as such the design would pose a radical transformation in the currently open spatial character of the site. The design would effectively install an enclosed room within room at the center of the courtyard along with specific programming. After discussion, the jury concluded that the design strategy in this form would benefit from a more spacious and architecturally less definitive site. The full potential of such a powerful intervention could be realised in a location where the pavilion could form a less contested relationship with its context. Suitable locations for the proposal could well be imagined in other parts of Otaniemi, but for this particular competition site some drawbacks were considered. Kaija Excerpt from the 1 st stage jury statement: A bold and minimal design intervention that proposes a rectilinear wooden platform to extend from the courtyard entrance to a pedestrian pathway on Alvarinaukio; a bridge between building and nature. Starting off as a somewhat private platform by the door, the design gains a more public nature as it extends towards Alvarinaukio. The clear idea is powerful in its potentiality to produce a new connection that is not only about access but also staging presence and free form activity on the site. The jury recommends the authors to further explore these informal and social opportunities in the 2nd stage. The strength of the proposal lies in its clarity, and the radical simplicity of the gesture. The Kaija team refined their design of the wooden pier to explore the potential of its simplicity. In addition to preliminary structural consideration and detailing, the authors integrated design elements supporting seasonal presence at the courtyard such as lighting. The promising potential of Kaija was supported in the presentation by the consideration of four distinct seasons in terms of campus activity and climate. The flexible design was respectful of its architectural context yet still introduced a strong concept for the landscape. The jury found the approach appealing and wellfounded for the site. The jury appreciated Kaija as a platform: for entering and leaving the A-Wing building, or staging events and accommodating informal presence on the site. A key aspect appreciated by the jury was that the proposed design would not too closely determine possible future programming but still frame new and exciting opportunities. Kaija could be seen as a third system, an interface mediating indoors and outdoors, building and nature. The open and horizontal character of the design underlined distinct elements of the courtyard landscape: the open lawn and the vertical marble and brick facades.

8 While the jury deemed that the presented quality of detailing was not yet at an advanced level and further study of the design in relation to site topography would have been necessary, Kaija was commended as a feasible and elegant project that would offer a strong positive impact without compromising the original unique quality of the A-wing site. PLAYGROUND Excerpt from the 1 st stage jury statement: This proposal integrated a Design for All philosophy in creating a playground concept with an emphasis on visual and experimental aspects. The most praised element in the project was the LED-swing idea, which also introduced components of augmented reality. The cables and the frame propose new geometry and material palette to the courtyard, yet delicately leave the A Wing buildings facades unobstructed with the thin structures. The idea was presented with beautiful sketches displaying the atmosphere through the use of lighting. Playground would reprogram the courtyard with a combination of light, augmented reality and a slender web of cables and frames for different modes of engagement. The three-dimensional nature of this structure is very intriguing, yet the podiums and surface materials proposed as secondary elements in the presentation seem off in their scale and extent on site. Over the course of the 2 nd phase, the authors of Playground studied alternative approaches for their design. The final presentation focused on creating framework a physical site in which augmented reality scenes could be navigated, and LED-lit swings to provide a tool of interplay between the unaugmented and augmented reality. By swinging, visitors could switch back and forth between the realities. The augmented reality content would be evolving and interactive as it could be modified digitally on location. Thus, the courtyard could become a site for exploration and display of student work using the technology. The installation could also be temporary or mobile with the structure proposed. The swing structure was noticeably simplified from an intricate web into a rectangular steel frame based on axes offset from the courtyard facades. The final proposed design of the swings, benches and the frame was not entirely convincing to the jury. Some jury members raised questions regarding how comfortable or practical the drop-shaped swings as presented would be to use. The jury appreciated Playground s fun and playful quality of the swings as well as the interactive nature of the AR landscape. Overall, the technical aspects of the design were considered feasible.

9 Voices of Aalto Excerpt from the 1 st stage jury statement: This project suggests an interesting framework for opening up the university as a community and introducing new forms of interaction and engagement. This would be materialized by using the marble-clad walls as projection surfaces displaying diverse content, which would activate the site during dark months of the year. The projections are complemented by some interventions on the landscape of the site. The bold graphic presentation is visually inspiring and communicates effectively the spirit of the proposal. The authors manifest a strong concept for new social interaction on campus based on an analysis of the current state. While also some other proposals introduced the idea of projecting onto the walls, in Voices of Aalto the idea was taken into a larger framework for facilitating engagement. The concept enables the display of all the things that take place within the walls of the university. The materialization of other parts of the intervention aside from the projections remain abstract (platform, bench, ramp, lighting), and should be developed further in consideration of this core idea. Voices of Aalto built on their 1. stage proposal by developing the architectural elements (wooden platform as event space, lights, ramp and benches) and more specific technological solutions necessary for the projections. Furthermore, they worked on formulating different methods and processes for producing and curating content as part of their intervention. Key themes of the design were communication and interaction; mediating what is happening indoors in Otaniemi to the outside and beyond. The jury found the concept very appealing and imagined many potential touchpoints with existing Aalto University programmes and projects. These could be explored to benefit both the courtyard site and strategic objectives of interaction and collaboration. Seasonal shift in the proposed programme (event hub and sound-based displays in summer, media projections and light in winter) was commended, although the question was raised if an outdoor site is optimal for this kind of a concept. The proposal had many strong qualities: the socially motivated approach for community engagement was considered strategic and founded on an insightful analysis of the current campus. The jury also highlighted the potential positive impact for the site and life on campus. The integration of existing structures (marble walls) into a new programme was appreciated. In terms of practical organization, the jury would have wished for an even more advanced framework for the maintenance of such programme as part of the final proposal. The interface(s) for creating and displaying content and organising events at the courtyard would be central to launching the programme successfully.

10 4. Results and prizes The jury decided unanimously to distribute euro in prizes: 1st prize e, two honorable mentions of 800 e for runner-ups, and two finalist prizes, each 300 e. After jury deliberation, the prizes were distributed to the teams in the following way: Janne Kupiainen, Design Director, Kuudes Helsinki Oy Competition secretary: Heini-Emilia Saari, Project Manager in Campus Development, Aalto University 1st Prize: Kaija (1800 e) Honorable mentions A_Fire (800 e) Voices of Aalto (800 e) Finalist prizes Aalto ATM (300 e) PLAYGROUND (300 e) 5. Course credits Authors of finalist entries received 5 ECTS credit points (1 + 4 cp) for their work in the 1st and 2nd stage of the competition. The credits were registered as ARK-E5003 Urban Planning and Design, Special Project. 6. The jury panel Outi Turpeinen, Art Coordinator, Aalto University Juanjo Galan-Vivas, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, Aalto University Tommy Lindgren, Lecturer in Urban Design, Aalto University Säde Palmu, AYY representative Riikka Manninen, Service & Spatial Design, Aalto Campus & Real Estate ACRE

11

12