Prof. Lars Steffensen TU Berlin Architecture for
Health Doc. Arch. Veneta ZlatinovaUACEG Architecture and Urban Planning
1 SOFIA LAND Amusment Children Venue & Community Center Donka TU0414789DimitrovaBerlin|M-Arch-T
2
3
Berlin, 25.08.2022
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own, unaided work, completed without any unauthorized outside help and exclusively using the sources and aids listed.
Donka Dimitrova Dimitrova M-Arch-T0414789
Als ein abgetrennter Stück von der Sofioter Grünanlage und öffentliches Eigentum, spürt man den Ort natürlich, als hätte er schon immer zu den Bürgern Sofias gehört. Das folgende Diplomarbeitsprojekt ist ein Versuch in diese Richtung, eine Zukunft zu konstruieren, die aus der Vergangenheit gelernt hat. Besonders relevant ist in diesem Fall die Situation der Umgebung, die ohne zentrale Planung entstanden ist, um den aktuellen Bedürfnissen des Marktes gerecht zu werden, und der es an bestimmten öffentlichen Funktionen und Beziehungen zur Entwicklungslogik von Sofia mangelt. Das Projekt stellt eine Strategie vor, wie die Typologie und die „Ästhetik“ des Vergnügung sparks transformiert und in einen gesamtstädtischen Mehrwert bringenden Eingriff an geeignet werden können, ohne die bestehende Infrastruktur komplett auszulöschen und von vornherein zu beginnen. Seine Hauptaufgabe besteht darin, die rechtlichen Mechanismen zu überdenken, die solche Phänomene wie das Sofia-Land zulassen, um zu verhindern, dass öffentliches Land assimiliert und in Eigentum umgewandelt wird, das einigen wenigen dient.
Das anschaulichste und großflächigste Beispiel für den oben beschriebenen Prozess ist der Vergnügungspark Sofia Land. Seine Überreste sind noch immer vorhanden, seit der Freizeitpark 2006 aufgrund des angekündigten Konkurses seines Eigentümers, nur nach vier Jahren Betrieb. Seine Nachbargrundstücke werden jedoch als gemischt ge nutztes Viertel (hauptsächlich bestehend aus Wohngebäuden und Büros) gebaut, um die höchsten Immobilienpreise in der ganzen Stadt zu erzielen.
4
DEABSTRAKT
Der ehemalige Vergnügungspark Sofia Land liegt auf eine Fläche von 35.000 m2 und war zum Zeitpunkt seines Aufbau im Jahr 2002 der größte Open-Air-Themenpark auf dem Balkanhalbinsel. Das Grundstück, auf dem sich die Anlage befindet, war früher Teil des Sofioter Grünsystems und übernahm ein Stück einer der ältesten und für die bulgarische Hauptstadt wichtigsten Grünzonen - des Boris-Gartens und der einzigen königlichen Jagdwald. Der Boris-Garten war ein Teil des ersten Masterplans von Sofia aus den späten 1890er Jahren. Der Park fängt von dem historischen Zentrum an, das die bulgarische Hauptstadt von Süden abgrenzt, und breitet sich in Richtung des Vitos ha-Gebirges aus, um die umfangreichste Grünanlage zu bilden, die in der Stadt angelegt wurde.Zwischen 2001 und 2016 entstanden in den Grünanlagen mehrere Vergnügungs-, Themen- und Aquaparks, die ein großen Teil Sofias Grünflächen beraubten und den Weg für nachfolgende bauliche Eingriffe und die Privatisierung des Bodens erlaubten. Auch in der näheren Umgebung wurden zahlreiche Gebiete durch den raschen Bau von Wohnungen und Wohnkomplexen auf Kosten der Flächenverlust des Grünsystems der Stadt beeinträchtigt.
The former amusement park Sofia Land spreads over a territory of 35,000 m2, to be the biggest open air theme park in the Balkans during the time of its construction in 2002. The plot that the facility occupies used to be a part of Sofia’s green system and took over a piece from one of the oldest and perhaps most important for the Bulgarian capital green zones - the Knyaz Boris’ Garden and the onetime royal hunting grounds. The Boris Garden was an object of the first master plan of Sofia from the late 1890’s. The Garden starts from the historical center flanking the Bulgarian capital from the south and spreads towards the Vitosha mountain to form the most extensive green development in the city fabric ever achieved.
As a detached piece from the Sofia’s green system and expropriated public property, the place feels naturally to always have been a belonging of the Sofia’s citizens. The following thesis project is an endeavour in that direction, to construct a future that has learned from the past. Especially relevant in this case is the situation of its surroundings, which emerged without central planning to cover the current necessities of the mar ket, and lacks certain public functions and relation with Sofia’s development logic. The project introduces a strategy, how the typology and the “aesthetics” of the amusement park can be transformed and appropriated into an intervention that brings value for the overall city, without the complete erasure of the existing infrastructure and start from the outset. Its main task is to rethink the legal mechanisms that permit such phenom ena as Sofia Land, in order to prevent public lands to be assimilated and converted to properties that serve a few.
ENABSTRACT
5
Between the years 2001 and 2016 several amusement, theme and aqua parks emerged within green areas, depriving Sofia from substantial parts of its greenery; clear ing grounds for following built interventions and privatization of the land. Considerable nearby areas were also affected by the rapid construction of dwellings and residential complexes at the expense of shrinkage of the city’s green system.
The most vivid and large-scale example of the above-mentioned process is that of Sofia Land Amusement Park. Its remains are still present since 2006 when the theme park closed doors due to the announced bankruptcy of its owner; after just four years of functioning. Its neighbour plots, however are being built as a mixed-used (primary consisting of residential buildings and offices) district to reach the highest real estate prices in the whole city.
· Sofia and Vitosha Mountain
· Kindergarten’s distribution and capacity
· Philosophies of early childhood education
I.
·CONTENTSLocation- Bulgaria & Sofia
6
· Sofia’s Green Structure state - 2021
· Interventions within green zoones - 2001- 2021
PREFACE
· Districts accession to Sofia through the years
· Sofia’s Green Development - Ideas and “evolution”
· Sofia’s Green Structure state - 2001
During that time the city has undergone immense transformations in terms of its urban tissue, its func tional and infrastructural layout. A big preponder ance has been given to private developments which were and still are dominating the market. Following the rule “to build what is buyable” the city has been scattered with large residential complexes, extensive areas of office spaces, but with minor interventions for the public realm. The polemic however doesn’t stop here. Those built interventions spreaded as well to the green zones of the city, depriving and erasing green spaces. The private investors have fig ured ways, how to detach pieces of land from green territories, very often with the help of the current governning aparatus. This project aims to rethink one of the most iconic sites for the aforementioned process - Sofia Land.
The motivation behind choosing such a site-specific theme stems mainly from my conviction that Sofia is my most familiar urban environment, having spent my formative years as an architecture student there.
PAST & PRESENT TENDENCIES OR WHAT LED ME TO SOFIA LAND?
7
Sofia
Sofia Land
Sofia
5 000 000 496 110 994 km2
1 276 434 492 km2
Sofia Land
Sofia
LOCATION
Bulgaria
8
Sofia Land
9 2km 5km0
SOFIA AND VITOSHA MOUNTAIN
699 - 2290 m.s.l.
Sofia
10
Vitosha
Sofia is located in the Sofia field and has an alti tude between 500 and 699m. The city is not lo cated evenly on the field, but is significantly shift ed to the south, where it borders Vitosha. Vitosha Mountain and Sofia are two territories that are comparable in area. They share very special rela tion in terms of their geographical postion, natural interdependences and infrastructural links. The mountain is a natural shield, stopping the strong winds coming from the northwest. This is one of the reasons for the shift of the city to the foothills of Vitosha, where large residential districts have been formed. The rich nature, clean air and easy access to the central parts of the capital deter mine the growth of these neighborhoods.
500 - 699 m.s.l.
11 2km 5km0
1938 · Plan Musman /Project/ 1945 · General Master Plan
The project Master Plan for Sofia from the german archi tect Adolph Musman plans the concentric zoning of the capital’s territorial structure: - central core within the ring boulevard - compact zone within the second ring - industrial zone to the north - residential area and developing of green system to the east and south - external agricultural zone
The General Master Plan from with the outcome of the bombing high increase of the Sofia’s population In a socialist manner, a polycentric posed where each district should infrastructure (including green
The north areas of Sofia preserve portation character.
Fig.1 Plan Musman for Sofia, 1938. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg
12
The plan wasn’t realised due to the outburst of WWII, however it became a basis for the development of the following Master Plans of Sofia and providing the idea for the wedge-shaped parks starting from the city’s heart and reaching Vitosha Mountain.
SOFIA GREEN AREAS MASTER PLANS 1938-1949
Fig. 2 General Master Plan of Sofia, 1945.
13 from 1945, main task is to deal bombing of Sofia, as well as the population right after the war. polycentric development is pro should be provided with own green area access). preserve its industrial and trans
Fig. 3 General Master Plan of Sofia, 1949. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg
From west is developed a green belt to stop the severe north-west wind.
1949 · General Master Plan
The Plan of 1949 is based on the previous Master Plan from 1945 and considers the development of a larger territory. The project emphasizes the development of the west and south parts as residential areas.
1945. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg
Some of the major interventions Plan from 1982 include the of the Metro in Sofia, the development transport ring, as well as the the East and South parts of The plan is characterized by recent districts in the capital
SOFIA GREEN AREAS MASTER PLANS 1961-2007
Fig. 5 General Master Plan of Sofia, 1982.
Fig. 4 General Master Plan of Sofia, 1961. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg
14
1982 · General Master Plan
Except the central part, the General Master Plan from 1961 concerns the therritories located on the north slope of Vitosha mountain, also the east parts and the territories flanking the Iskar river. The plan increases the radial transport connections and develops the entry/exit transportation punkts to the capital. The green zones between the mountain and the capi tal are maximized, and the green areas and built devel opments have approximately equal ratio in that Master Plan.
1961 · General Master Plan
interventions of the General Master construction of the first line development of the outher the extensive urbanization in the city. by the appearing of the most capital and their rapid population.
In the last approved Master Plan the green connection between the Capital’s center and the Vitosha mountain is completely abandoned. Preference is given to the den sification of the built structure. Extensive parts from the green system are privatazed and receive transitional status (from Green zones to * Multi-functional ones).
1982. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg Fig. 6 General Master Plan of Sofia, 2007. Source: https://nag.sofia.bg
15 2007 · General Master Plan
* The Multi-functional zones according to the General Spa tial Planning Law has the most freeing built parameters, e.g. the most dense planning and the highest Cornice ele vation.
Natural green areas
8. Vitosha Mountain
2. West Park
4. South Park
Sofia Land
16
The year 2001 is one year before the construction of Sofia Land amusement park. Although the idea for green wedges from Vitosha to Sofia has never been realised, there are still big areas of the parks spreading towards south of the city.
3. Sofia’s Central Cemetery
5. Knyaz Boris Garden
Parks and municipal green areas
7. Park Vyrtopo
SOFIA GREEN SYSTEM STATE 2001
6. Sofia’s Airport
2.
8.
1. North Park
17 2.8. 1. 3. 2. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 7. 1km 2.5km 5km0
2021, Vision for Sofia
3. Sofia’s Central Cemetery
Parks and municipal green areas
Sofia Land
2. West Park
6. Sofia’s Airport
4. South Park
“In Sofia, there are 13 square meters of green space per inhabitant, with 21 square meters set by regu lation.”
Until 2021 any sort of physical “green” relation be tween the mountain and the city is erased. The only links left are visual and transport.
18
8. Vitosha Mountain
SOFIA GREEN SYSTEM STATE 2021
2.8.
1. North Park
Natural green areas
5. Knyaz Boris Garden
7. Park Vyrtopo
19 2.8. 1. 3. 2. 4. 5. 5. 6. 7. 1km 2.5km 5km0
BUILT INTERVENTIONS WITHIN GREEN 2001-2021AREAS
Between 2001 and 2021 areas from the city’s parks have been released on concesion. In those territories the land usage has been changed and permanent structures emerged. In many cases the neighbour plots have been sold by the munic ipality.
20
The case of Sofia Land Amusement Park is not separate.
Sofia Land
Amusement Facilities built within Green zones
Amusement facilities are existing in every big park in Sofia. However most of them are not function ing at the moment or function in very low capacity.
Other Built Interventions within Green zones
21 1km 2.5km 5km0
1946 - 1990 after 1991 main roads around which the city is developed
Throughout the years 1898-1945 the cen tral parts together with small satellite ar eas were formed. In the period after World War II was emphasised on the functional zoning of the capital and the construction of the main roads. The north part received its industrial character, while the south had been layed out as residential. After 1991 started the most dynamic evolution of the new districts. They were considerably densified, however in some areas the infrastructure that was needed to service those interventions fell behind. The plot of Sofia Land is located in one of the most recently evolved areas, densified more than 50% in the last 20 years.
1898 - 1945
DISTRICTS ACCESSION TO SOFIA
22
Sofia’s districts evolution, and their acces sion to the city and the green system de velopment are intrinsically correlated.
Sofia Land
23 1km 2.5km 5km0
On 15th May 2020, over 10 000 children for another year were left out of the rank ing for kindergartens and nurseries and the numbers are going higher. Places in private daycare centers are also insuffi cient, and the lack of admission to kinder garten or nursery groups is forcing many parents to look for alternative admissions, which often lead to corrupt practices.
24 Deficit of places in bykindergardensandcrèchesNovemver2021 15 001 Places to be opened by 2023 7 075
Fig.7 Own graphics
Based on information from:
DISTRIBUTIONKINDERGARTENS&CAPACITY
Sofia Land
For example, in the newly built neighbor hoods, no kindergartens are planned be fore their dense construction.
When speaking about provision of infra structure big demand comes from social infrastructure like creches and kinder gratens. The severe shortage of places in nurseries and kindergartens in Sofia is a problem that has been deepening for years.
https://www.capital.bg/
The reasons for the shortage are rooted in inadequate urban planning, on one hand, and poor management and organization of the already existing building stock, on the other.
25 1km 2.5km 5km0
26
Fig.9 Rudolph Steiner School Source: https://steiner.edu/history/
In 1837 Friedrich Fröbel grounded the first kin dergarten, which was based on the principle of “learning through play and activity”. Main ele ments that he was deploying in his education al methods were a sequence of “gifts” (objects ranging from simple forms like spheres, cubes and cylinders to entire sets of wooden geomet ric blocks in different sizes and colors) and “oc cupations” (the ways these materials could be manipulated by children). His goals were to teach kids how to learn, observe, reason, ex press and create through play, employing phi losophies of unity and interconnectedness. According to Fröbel nature was the perfect en tity and children can be educated through their discovery of it. By the end of the 19th century kindergartens became a recongnized instituion not only in Europe, but in the whole world.
OFPHILOSOPHIESEARLYYEARS EDUCATION
Friedrich Fröbel (1782–1852)
Rudolph Steiner was an Austrian born scientist. He developed a three-fold vision of the human being, comprised of body, soul, and spirit. He named the spiritual element of his work Anthro posophy. The educational branch of Anthropos ophy, Waldorf Education, was born out of this activism in the aftermath of WWI. Activities in Steiner/Waldorf early childhood ed ucation take into consideration the age-specific developmental needs of young children, from a focus on will-oriented physical activity in the first three years, then on imaginative play in the mid dle years of early childhood, and later a more cognitive approach to learning after the child enters school.
Fig.8
Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925)
1840s 1890s
bel/friedrich-froebelSource:Fröbelgabenhttps://www.froebel.com.au/about-froe
• Ages 12-18 - the humanist mind; enquiring about society and the whole
Source: gio-emilia-approach/loris-malaguzzi/https://www.reggiochildren.it/en/reg
27 1900s 1950s
• Ages 0-6 - the absorbent mind; absorbing from the environment, culture and language
Maria Montessori (1870–1952)
• “A child should be free to think for themselves (and move freely around).
Source: maria-montessori-enhttp://www.lesvoyellescolorees.com/
Fig.10 Montessori Space
“Montessori’s method is based on the belief that a child’s education should be constructed to develop all aspects of a child: social, emo tional, physical and academic. In each Montes sori preschool, areas are set up for children to discover maths; language (including music); the senses (primarily touch); practical life (such as tying shoelaces, kitchen skills); culture (includ ing geography and biology); and art. The role of the teacher is that of observer and facilita tor.”(Scott, p.10)
• Ages 6-12 - the reasoning mind; abstract thought and imagination
• Ages 18-24 - the specialist mind; concerned with their role within the whole
Fig.11 A Мaths Workshop,1966
• The interpretation of play as a form of work, a science that needs a laboratory, an art that needs a workroom—the playroom should fulfil these criterias.” (Scott, p.14)
Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994) and the Reggio Emilia approach (post-WWII) Loris Malaguzzi has an instrumental role for the development and proclamation of the Regio Emilia approach for the childhood education. The democratic educational method was rec ognizing the child as a capable individual with necessary skills for constructing knowledge of its own. Teachers and students have an equal voice in the process of learning.
Maria Montessori has differentiated four devel opmental stages in the children’s growth:
Regio Emilia’s spaces for children are defined by three concepts:
• The centre should operate as a cohesive com munity with open dialogue.
The great outdoors and neuroscience - ‘I Ur Och Skur’
The approach of the ‘I Ur Och Skur’ (rain or shine - ‘forest schools’) schools are following two main principles:
1970s
2. “The schools seek to teach environmental ism: cycles of life, recycling, making things from scratch, enjoying nature, observing nature and being a caretaker.” (Scott, p. 19)
28
The spatial arrangement stems from the idea that nurseries and kindergarten have to feel and look like home, in which way children can feel comfortable and free to play, explore and learn. Teachers also benefit from the home-like environment where most unformal communi cation is encouraged.
1. “We were designed to be outside” not in a classroom. During the human’s evolution we have changed the pattern to spend more times outdoor. The main aim is stimulating children to learn by actively engaging them with the nature and avoiding unnecessary classroom rituals as dressing and undressing in warm clothes.
1990s
Fig.13 skurSource:Naturknutenhttps://www.naturknuten.se/i-ur-och-
Source: la/forskola/i-ur-och-skur-vindleken/https://forskola.stockholm/hitta-forsko
The architectural arrangement of those kinder gartens and schools is provisioned with mini mal infrastructure, so children spend the most amount of time outdoor during all seasons and atmospheric conditions.
“From the 1960s through to the 1980s, chil dren’s preschool facilities in Sweden were built as little house-like compartments. The standard arrangement was four identical units, each unit consisting of two rooms and a shared kitchen. But now a more multivalent approach has been adopted, with space for art, craft, science exper iments and computers.” (Scott, p.16)
Influences from the North
Fig.12 Preschool Vindleken
OFPHILOSOPHIESEARLYYEARS EDUCATION
The outdoor space is the space where more ex ploration can be practiced by the kids. Usually the rooms can be customsed and adapted for play and have easy access to outdoor.
Source: community-service-ideas-families.cfmhttps://www.signupgenius.com/home/
Fig.14 The Carpenterboy
Source: competencehttps://www.ahaparenting.com/read/
Post-modernist contextualism and where we are today
The competent child
An important element of this approach is the shared space, where children from different age groups, parents and teaching staff can mix and dialogue.
For example children are enabled to see how other groups move in the building, to see the parents come and go, by creating maximum transperancy of the spaces.
The competent child is a democratic vision where particular emphasis are put on the archi tectural arrangement of the spaces.
Current thinking and phylosophies recognize children as an early stage community members and engage them in community service to give them sense of belonging to larger group. Those approaches are looking not only at the child, but at its family context and community. The role of the education institution is to be an interface and facilitate communication between larger groups. In many cases family services and outreach facilities are integrated in childcare in stituions. The programme of the kindergartens and schools is enriched with community areas such as dinning halls, libraries, galleries and etc.
Fig.15 Community Service
Scott, p. 23).
Often a stage is provided in the classroom (“it is used a lot and is constantly being customised”
29 2000s
2010s
ANALYSIS
· 2002 & 2018 Plot Situation
· Programmatic analysis within the district
· Site typologies
· Public Transport Network
· Plot details
II.
· Schwarzplan
30
·CONTENTSTheKnyaz Boris Garden Location Sofia Land
· Kindergartens and Creches distribution
31
The former amusement park is situated within one of the most dynamicaly developing residential ar eas where the real estate prices highly accelerate through the years. It is adjacent to the oldest of the Sofia’s Parks and also is a middle point between the capital center, the mountain and the airport.
SITE SPECIFICS
Nowadays the amusement facilities are dismantled and removed from the place, where few structures together with the big main building are left. The small buildings on the plot are in considerably bad condition, mainly because of their initially temporary character. Nevertheless the main building remains appropriate for adaption, while its structure is intact.
Considering as well the quite free built parameters of the plot it becomes a place of a great interest among the private market. Significant lack of child care spaces is present in the area however.
Fig.17 Knyaz Boris Garden, 1920-1930. Source: https://www.lostbulgaria.com/?cat=268
Fig.16 Knyaz Boris Garden, 1890.
THE KNYAZ BORIS GARDEN
Sofia Land
Fig.18 Knyaz Boris Garden, 2018.
Source: http://stara-sofia.com/
Source: Screenshot from M8eNtW2QQ&list=WL&index=18&ab_channel=KaloyanNikolovhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx
The plot of Sofia Land was one time within the boarders of the Knyaz Boris Garden and the royal hunting grounds. The Boris Graden is a park called by the Sofia’s citizens “the lungs of the capital”. It is the most extensive and old green development ever achieved and dates back to 1882. The Park was used as a nursery garden to provide plants for all the others Sofia’s parks and public gardens.
32
33 1km 2.5km 5km0
Sofia Land 8,6km Sofia’s Airport
Vitosha Mountain
34
Sofia Land 3,3km Sofia’s City Center
Vitosha Mountain
Sofia Land
LOCATION SOFIA LAND
The position of the plot within the city is on the boarder with the Sofia’s central part. It is easily ac cessible by all means of transport. The place great ly benefits from it neighbourhood with the Knyaz Boris Garden and its not far from the Airport and Vitosha mountain. Those characteristics and the built developments in the district where it is located makes it attractive for future interventions.
Sofia Land 8,4km
Sofia’s Airport
Sofia’s Center
1km 2.5km 5km0
35 Mountain
36 SCHWARZPLAN SITE ON THE BOARDER WITH THE
37 THEBOARDERPARK 100m0
38 PROGRAMME SITE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. FORMATION OF STRIP AROUND THE
39 7. 8. 1. Home for children medical care 2. Kindergarten - 120 children 3. Private School 4. Creche - 86 children 5. High School 6. Day Care Center 7. High School 8. University Faculty PublicOfficesServices Residential F A THEMIXED-USEBOULEVARD 100m0
40 B B B BTT T T PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK proposedfrom PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK
B B
BT 100m0
Bus stop /covered radius 800m/
Tram stop /covered radius 800m/
fromfutureroadconnectionthelastMasterplan
41 B B BBB
42 KINDERGARETNS AND CRECHES DISTRIBUTION Capacity 120 children 1·К Capacity 86 children2·CCapacity 179 children 3·К Capacity 117 children 5·К Capacity 100 TOTAL KINDERGARTENSCAPACITY 1 661 children 27% coverage THE DISTRICT HAS WORSTCHILDCARECOVERAGES
43 Capacity children 4·К Capacity 223 children 6·К Capacity 100 children7·C Capacity 155 children 8·К Capacity 290 children 9·К Capacity 291 children 10·К CAPACITY OF KINDERGARTENS AND CRECHES childrenofthedemand HAS ONE OF THE COVERAGES WITH CHILDCARE FACILITIES 100m0
Type of Property · Private
Years of Functioning · 2002-2006
Exsisting Built Footprint Area · 4,605m2
Parking Area · 5, 810 m2
Years of Construction · 2001 - 2002
Area · 34, 867 m2
3. Bumper cars building · only platform left
Green Ratio · min 40% from the plot area
44 P2
2. Information center · 1 storey
7. Shop
P1
Property of the same owner company as the Sofia Land Amusement ParkP2
Private property, sold by the Municipality in 2017
bld. Nikola Vaptsarov
4. Summer theatre · 1 storey
5. McDonalds
After the building of Sofia Land Amusement Park two of its neighbour plots were privatazed and shortly sold. In 2018 south from Sofia Land the same owner starts to build a residential complex of closed type. For the private property P3 there is no public information such as who is its owner and what are the plans for its future.
Maximum height · 26m (cornice height)
P3
Built Ratio on GF · 40% from the plot area
The Plot of Sofia Land
1. Main Building · 3,279m2 · 3 storeys commercial center, cinema, caffee, bowling area
6. Guard
Built Parameters
PLOT DETAILS
45 P1 P3 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 7.6. P 181m 230m
Green patches
Maps are products of external gathered information and
Around 85% of the plot are covered with pavement
PlanSite2002
Pavements
Fig.19 Source: https://www.google.com/
46
viewAerial2002
viewAerial2018
PlanSite2020
Removed elements
47
Pavements and elements in bad condition
Green patches
Fig.20 Source: https://www.google.com/maps/ site visits. They don’t pretednd to be completely accurate.
The main building is the most present typology on site. In the project certain elements and its post-modernist character are rethought and changed.
Greenery is considered the most valuable element on the site. Furthermore the existing trees are in a good condition.
main building · reused & rethought
48 elementsDynamicelementsStatic High Permanence SITE TYPOLOGIES
greenery · left intact
The outdoor parking 20% from the overall In the project this dedicated to public
The artificial lake on however the existance is continued in and recreated in different
outdoor parking · moved
water elements · reused
on the site is dry, existance of water element in the differentprojectmanner.
activity elements · interpreted
fence · removed
moved underground parking takes more than overall plot area. exterior space is public purposes.
In the nearby park, people created bike ramps from soil. Therefore this element is recognized as necessary to be introduced in the project.
49 Low Permanence
reused & rethought
There is a massive fence surrounding the whole plot. In order to open the place and make it accessible for the people the fence is removed.
III.
CONTENTS
CONCEPT
· Courtyard
· Landscape intervention
Architectonic interventions
· Users and Actors
· Time Usage
50
· Inner and Outer Spaces Programme
51
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTONIC
PROGRAMME
The third element of conceptualization is the pro grammatic distribution of spaces. The line of thoughts was initially considering the idea to dedi cate the whole plot to the childeren. However this was not resonant with the overall strategy to return the plot to the Sofia’s citizens and make it “Space for All”. Therefore community spaces were presented. Core for the programmatic distribution is the inter relation of inner and outer spaces.
A grid following the proportions of the main build ing inner grid is introduced. The landscape grid is in a sense equalizer of all the content appearing out door, but also a distant “relative” to the Knyaz Boris Garden, which in the project is considered natural entity, while Sofia Land landscaping is purposely fol lowing specific order.
As a place with such great importance for the Sofia’s green system, the landscape became an equal force for the intervention.
Taking into acount the existing building formal pres ence, its tectonic conceptualization is a perimeter build tissue that embraces inner court yard. In this formulation, the courtyard addopts special meaning and binary nature of both indoor and outdoor space. The formal content is enriched by the additions that in certain way mimic the main building but also pre tend to differ in their outlook and program.
The main building is charcterized by the many elements of which it con sists and the eclectic nature with which they are gathered together.
All the unnecessary elements that have non-stuctural role are subtract ed. The aim is to achieve more subtle silhoette of the building. The metal structure roof is also removed, on one hand for aesthetic reasons, on the other because of the overheating it creates.
52 Initial SubtractedStateElements axoNorth-westaxoNorth-west ARCHITECTONIC
53 axoSouth-eastaxoSouth-east
54
The silhouette of the building is com pleted to become an elipse in plan. In this way it completely embraces the inner yard. From east and west two new additions are added, which have simple shapes not to disturb the overall composition.
State Interventionafter
Added Elements
In its final form the building consists from one main volume and several secondary volumes that aim not to compete each other. The auditorium structure remains intact, exept the removal of the exterior staircase sur rounding it.
ARCHITECTONIC axoNorth-westaxoNorth-west
55 axoSouth-eastaxoSouth-east
The inner facade looking towards the yard has been and transparent, to invite people to gather and actively “island” the building create different sequences of atmospheres, interconnected dependencies between inside and outside
56 COURTYARD
“Island” within the building
horizontalofatmospheres
The inner yard is a central piece for the building, as it where the building grid and the landcape grid overlap. natural together both in their tension and harmony.
atmospheresof
been treated very different from the outer, more open actively use this central space. Together with this small atmospheres, in oreder to explore and showcase the outside – between building and nature.
57
horizontalatmospheresrhythm
rhythmvertical
it is for the entire complex. The patio is a pivotal point overlap. Its treatment seeks again to bring artificial and harmony.
axisofintersection
The two environments however have different languages, on one hand the new is arranged and scenic, and on the other hand the park is natural, unplanned.
The project imagines the symbolic reunion be tween the Knyaz Boris Garden and Sofia Land. The landscape intervention pays a tribute to the park by the repetition of the axis of intersection within the territory of the plot. This formal gesture is enriched by introducing tree types that can be found in the Garden, in the Complex of Sofia Land. In this way the transition between the park and plot becomes smooth.
58 LANDSCAPE
The Knyaz Boris Garden
The Plot of Sofia Land
59
axisofintersection
Culturally conditioned, children have always been considered the most important member of the society in the context of Bulgaria. Child is suggested as the bonding essence between the family and the socium, therefore its proper education and care are core duties. The project steps on these relations in order to create a quality space not only for the kids, but also for their parents and the community. Thus the building is programmatically hibri dazed to create such rich environment where children interact not exclusively with their peers but with people from different age groups and social environments, following the visions of the most recent childhood education phylosophies (treating children as mentally equal and able to assimilate and respond to differences).
COMMUNITY
CHILDREN & YOUTHS
PARENTS
USERS & ACTORS
60
ORGANISATIONSCHILDCARE
COMMUNITY
PEDAGOGICALWORKERS
Тhe community is considered in the form of three groups - neighbourhood, childcare or ganisations, pedagogical staff. Due to the lack of closed public spaces in the neighborhood, the complex provides such - cafeteria, meet ing rooms, canteen, library, cinema. In this way, the residents of the district become directly involved in the future of Sofia Land. Аnother unit in the building serves the needs of child care organizations. After the studies, the main problem appears to be the lack of physical spaces where these organizations can operate. The third group is the pedagogical workers, for whom meeting rooms, offices and rest areas are provisioned.
61
NEIGHBOURHOOD
62 I. Community branch 1. Leisure - Coffee, Canteen 2. Medical Block - First Aid room and Isolation room, Psychologist cabinets - Parents Academy room II. Partners branch 1. Multy - purpose halls PUBLICOutdoorIndoor I. Entry Plazza 1. Green divisions 2. Urban furnitures 3. Bicycle spaces II. Sport field 1. Multi-purpose yards 2. Seating Area 3. Changing rooms 4. WCs and showers 5. Storage 6. Skate park PROGRAMME III. Teaching 1. Cabinets for 2. Teachers 3. Meeting4.Resting IV. Service 1. Kitchen for 2.3.StoragesToilets 4. Washing machine 5. Technical SEMI-PUBLICIII.“Crops” 1. Green 2. Vegetable, fruit 3. Water playground 4. Sand IV. Camping 1. Tents 2. Central Covered 3. Observatory
63 staff branch TeachersadministrationcabinetsMeetingroomsx2Restingarea Service branch for the TechnicalStoragescanteenToiletsmachineroomrooms SEMI-PUBLIC“Crops” Green house and flower garden Sandplaygroundarea Camping Tents ObservatoryCoveredplaceSpacepoint-Tower LandscapeBuilding V. Nursery /Day care/ branch 1. Creche x1 2. Kindergarten groups x2 3. Playrooms 4. Workshops 5. Performance and common space VI. Youth branch 1. Study rooms x3 2. Workshops - Labs x2 3. Library - “home area” 4. Play rooms - Computer room 5. Auditorium SEMI-PUBLIC V. Kids palygrounds 1. “Adventure” structures 2. Leisure VI. Open air classrooms 1. Seatings and Urban furniture 2. Open air exhibition space
Entry Plazza & Parking II. Sport's Fields
IV.
Service Branch IV. Camping V. Day Care & Nursery V. Kids Playgrounds VI. Youth Branch IV. Open air Classrooms Low Usage Moderate Usage High Usage Feb Mar Semi-publicPublicPrivate
III.
I.
I.
64 TIME USAGE yearly
Crops & Experimentarium
III.
Community branch Jan II. Partner's branch
Teaching Staff
65 UsageApr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
66 TIME USAGE hourly I. Community branch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II. Partner's branch I. Entry Plazza & Parking II. Sport's Fields III. Teaching Staff III. Crops & Experimentarium IV. Service Branch IV. Camping V. Day Care & Nursery V. Kids Playgrounds VI. Youth Branch IV. Open air Classrooms Low Usage Moderate Usage High Usage Semi-publicPublicPrivate
67 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
··CONTENTSSitePlanProgrammePlanUnderground Level
· First Floor Level - Intial & Project State
· Visuals
· Underground Level - Intial & Project State Plan Ground Floor Level
· After School Part Addition
· Kindergarten Addition Plan First Floor Level
ARCHITECTURE
· Ground Floor Level - Intial & Project State
· Structural Diagram
· Sections
68
IV.
Timber cladding is used to reformulate the old fa cade, as well to reconnect symbolically the building to its environment and make a holistic treatment of the whole complex.
The two new additions are purposely distinct from the main building logics, in order to be recognizable as a new stage of the Sofia’s Land life.
FORMAL INTERVENTIONS AND ORGANIZATION
69
The spatial transformations that the building under gone have been respectful to its structure, aiming to benefit at most from what is present on site. The adaptation opens it to four sides of the plot (north, south, east and west) to make accessible the most important spaces on ground level. This floor is con sidered as more lively, mixed-used and communal area, reminiscent to the atmosphere of a little “vil lage”, while the upper floor becomes more intimate and specialized (dedicated mainly to the usual users of the complex). All roofs are accessible and walka ble, so people freely can occupy them. On the rooftop level there is an open-air auditorium which is adapted from the former building’s state. The verti cal circulation is through four communication cores, so the stairs remain hidden, which creates a bit of a mistery effect when observed at a glance.
SITE PLAN
bul. Nikola Vaptsarov
1. 2. 7.3.9.8.
bul. Nikola Vaptsarov 1. Main Building 2. Ramp Undergroundfor level 3. Entry Plazza 4. Sport Area 5. Kindergarten’s Yards 6. Camping Place 7. Observation Tower 8. Crops 9.ExperimentariumandOpen-airClassrooms 10. Open-air Auditorium 4. 5. 6. 10. 0 5m 15m
72
PROGRAMME
Horizontal Circulation
Public (foyers, cafeteria, canteen, meeting and training rooms)
Staff areas (kitchen, medical and psychologist cabinets, administration, rest area)
Service (storages, technical rooms, WCs, wardrobes, archives)
Parking
Cinema and Auditoriums
Children Spaces (kindergarten, after school spaces, library, ateliers)
Vertical Circulation (cores)
73 Underground Floor -5.05 Ground Floor ± 0.00
Floor and Roof +4.46
First
PLAN UNDERGROUND LEVEL - 5.05 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. 5.5. 6. 6. 8. 7. 1. Server 2. Storage 3. Technical - Electric 4. Technical - HVAC 5. Kitchen Storages 6. Kitchen 7. English Yard 8. Kitchen Waste 9. Shower Rooms 10. Washing Room 11. Technical Rooms 12. Storage Cinema 13. Antrakt Room 14. Backstage 15. Cinema 16. Projection Room 17. Cinema Foyer 18. Parking - 41 PP 0 2m 10m5m
9. 10. 11.11. 11. 12. 13.14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
UNDERGROUND LEVEL
Initial State
UNDERGROUND LEVEL Project Proposal
1. Cafeteria 2. Medical Room 3. Psychologist Room 4. Archives 5. After School Class Rooms 6. Canteen 7. Creche 8. Kindergarten Rooms 9. Play Room 10. Auditorium Storage 11. Auditorium 12. Projection Room 13. Auditorium Foyer PLAN GROUND FLOOR LEVEL ± 0.00 1. 3.2. 4. 4. 5.5. 5. 5.5. 5. 5.5. 6. 0 2m 10m5m
7. 8.8.9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
GROUND FLOOR LEVEL
Initial State
GROUND FLOOR LEVEL Project Proposal
AFTER SCHOOL PART
The new additions are treated in different man ner from the main building, in terms of their stucture and visual language...
82
ADDITION
0 2m 5m
I
83
84
... however they strive to create a dialogue with the overall context.
85 ADDITION II
0 2m 5m
KINDERGARTEN
86 1. Library 2. Archive 3. Library Storage 4. Music Atelier 5. Drawing Atelier 6. Meeting Rooms 7. Storage 8. Training Room 9. Staff Rest Area 10. Administration 11. Storage 12. Roof Terraces PLAN FIRST FLOOR LEVEL + 4.46 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.6. 6. 7. 12. 0 2m 10m5m
87 1.8. 9. 10.10. 11. 12.
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL
Initial State
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL Project Proposal
90 SECTIONS
91
92
CLT structure of the BeamPerimetraladditionsConcrete&Foundation
Wooden skin
Walkable Rooftop
Stiffening Perimetral Concrete Beams
CLT structure of the additions
STRUCTURE
“This material is extracted from the world of the living. This means that it is a material capable of adapting itself. it does not mimic as an inert rock. It constantly adapts while the building ages, as a tree in its environment. This quality gives the material the warmth of life, which was also its attraction in the origins of architecture: the first hut, the first home.”
93
Josep Ferrando
BUILDING WITH WOOD absorbs CO2 while butgrowingthat stops when they mature
Source of information: https://exmaterials.com/en/materials/
dismantablere-usable useful cleanbi-productsenergy
typically all parts of the log are used no littlewastepolutionsimple manufacturing transportationeasier
storesrenewablecarbon
Fig.21 Own graphics
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
·CONTENTSLandscape Interventions
· Entry Plazza
· Camping area
· Crops and Experimentarium
· Outdoor Classrooms
· Tower Plazza
106
· Inner Yard and Rooftop
· The Green Palette
· Sport fields and Skate park
· The Complex
V.
LANDSCAPE
· Kindergarden Yards
107
LANDSCAPE INTERVENTIONS AND ORGANIZATION
Each of these steps is extracted from the way we work with built entity, namely - (1)creating organisa tional grid, (2) distributing the functional spaces, (3) overlaying the structural elements (in this case trees are understand as the landschaft structure), (4) de veloping the in-between circulation, (5) differentiat ing the spaces in horizontal and vertical direction and lastly (6) giving the final touches of the materi Inality.this process the outer and inner spaces are in vented in parallel, hence they interrelate and sup port each other.
The landscape organisation of the project unfolds in six rational steps.
V.
overlapping of the two grids II. distribution of eight
108 LANDSCAPE
INTERVENTIONSI.
IV. organic path and cirrculation concave and convex
V. convex treatment
109 II. eight landscape “zones”
VI. treatment and
III. trees gradation and links
zones
fences
110 ENTRY PLAZZA site plan 0 15m5m
111 ENTRY PLAZZA axo
112 SPORT FIELDS site plan 0 15m5m
SPORT FIELDS axo
113
KINDERGARTEN YARDS site plan
114
0 15m5m
115 KINDERGARTEN YARDS axo
0 15m5m
116
LAKE & CAMP site plan
117 LAKE & CAMP axo
118
0 15m5m
OBSERVATION TOWER site plan
119 OBSERVATION TOWER axo
120
CROPS & EXPERIMENTARIUM site plan
0 15m5m
121
CROPS & EXPERIMENTARIUM axo
122 OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS site plan 0 15m5m
OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS
123
axo
COURTYARD site plan
124
0 15m5m
axo
COURTYARD
125
126 THE GREEN PALETTE 41 types Contiferousof trees 116 types Broad-leavedof trees 46 types of Bushes Fir tree · 139 Cypress · 374 Birch tree · 82 Willow tree · 161
*the numbers show how many of the trees can be found in the park, not in the plot of Sofia Land *proposed types for the landscape intervention are not claiming complete accuracy and lack the demanded expertise on the subject
Oak ·
In order to create a landscape intervention respectful to the Knyaz Boris Garden, the surrounding most common tree types are studied. Presented species are the ones that can be mostly found on the site and typical for the Bulgarian climate.
203 types of Trees and Bushes in total
Chestnut · 77 Ash tree · 227
Sycamore339·101
127
NEW308TREES ON THE
308TREES THE PLOT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· SOMERVILLE, MARGARET. “The critical power of place.” In S. R. Steinberg and G. S. Cannella, (Eds).Critical Qualitative Research Read er. New York, NY: Peter Lang. 2012.
ARCHITECTS. Detailed Layout Plan for Regulation and Develop ment of The Boris Garden Park. Preliminary Analysis. Sofia. 2019.
· SAMUELSSON, INGRID. SHERIDAN, SONJA. HANSEN, MICHAEL. “Young chil dren’s experience of aesthetics in preschool”. Nordisk Barnehageforskning. 2013. Vol 6. Nr 31. Sid 1–12.
·(67)KOVACHEV
· SOFIA MUNICIPALITY, DIRECTION “ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLAN NING”. Master Plans for Sofia. Available at: https://nag.sofia.bg/Pages/Ren der/993
130
· GALEV. DOBRICHOV. ALEXANDROV. SHTILYANOV. GURKOVA. Analysis of the state of the Tree and Shrub Vegetation in the Forest Park of the Boris Garden. Sofia. MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 6/2017
· SCOTT, SARAH. “Architecture for Children”. ACER Press. 2010.
· DUDEK, MARK. “Children’s Spaces”. Architectural Press. An imprint of Else vier. 2005.
· PROPERTY’S TYPES. Cadastral map of Bulgaria. Available at: https://kais. cadastre.bg/en
· UNWIN, SIMON. “Children as Place-Makers. The Innate Architect in All of Us.” Routledge. 2019.
· BONEV, BORIS. “Report on the shortage of places in nurseries andkinder gartens in the Sofia Municipality”. Article, 14.09.2020. Available at: https:// spasisofia.org/bg/doklad-nedostig-detski-gradini.html
· TONEV, LYUBEN. “About the General Master Plan from 1945”. Magazine “Architecture 7-8/92. Available at: https://nag.sofia.bg/Pages/Ren der/995
· OPEN LIBRARY. “Vision for Sofia”. Available at: https://sofi · aplan.bg/api/
NOTIONS & PERSONAL REFLECTIONS Sofia Land is a place that has been generating multi ple meanings throughout the years. During its short life it has been a venue charged with joy, laughter and amuse, at least for one generation of children. By the time of its construction it was seemingly inno cent intervention aiming for well-fare. Nowadays those attitudes drasticaly changed in light of the undercovering of particular intentions behind the place.
In conclusion, at the risk to sound cliche, green zones are these parts of Sofia without, it will turn into grey, dusty, soulless “monster” we would never enjoy liv ing in. Valuing and preserving city’s green “islands” has a vital importance not only in the context of Bul garia, but worldwide.
No matter that Sofia Land still holds the great poten tial to serve a common interest and be a site where everyone is welcome. “We construct places through the stories we tell, and that different stories meet, collide and converge in this place of cultural contact (Somerville, 2012, p.71).”
131
The presented thesis project is utterly based on this belief and dares to imagine Sofia Land in this new better after life and to tell you a good story...
cease