XXXIII European Architecture Students Assembly
competition report
easa013 reaction - ŽuŞemberk 04/08 - 18/08/13
CONTENT
05 07 09 21 23
INTRODUCTION
PROCESS OF EVALUATION REVIEWS OF THE REWARDED PROPOSALS CONCLUSION CREDITS
XXXIII European Architecture Students Assembly
competition report
easa013 reaction - ŽuŞemberk 04/08 - 18/08/13
accommodation site IT lab municipality
restaurant store
competition site
event’s central space
old tannery ruins
sports
sports
loka
4
public space. The specific feature of this project was the strong symbolism of the space as Saint Jacob’s church used to stand on its ground. The roots The international student pavilion competition is an idea that has been implemented at EASA for the last 10 years. The project acts as a link between the organizers, the local community and the sponsors already prior to the event. It involves all of the interested parties and as such contributes to the meeting venue by leaving a permanent mark, a result of mutual understanding, collaboration and dedication.
< all sites
INTRODUCTION
The committee for the international student competition to select the best solution to build a pavilion on Žužemberk’s main square received 24 proposals. Due to the open nature of the competition’s guidelines the proposals were very diverse. The committee is aware that the task was complex as it demanded an urban solution to revitalize the square as well as an architectural and design solution to offer the inhabitants a new – covered
The timeline The organizing team of EASA013 launched this project almost a year ago, at first dedicating most of the time to the site analysis and developing a suitable competition package for interested students. Collaborating with the municipality, conservational consultant and a couple of well known architects, we launched the competition. During the call 16.000 students checked the competition pack and around 80 teams from all over the world applied for the competition material. The organizing team then received 24 proposals that were submitted within the deadline and according to the requirements. 5
6
< site for pavilion
als and formed a general impression. The range of entries was extensive and the level of presentation varied among the received proposals. After a detailed re-examination of all the received proposals the committee selected 6 of them, which according to the criteria stood out by their urban and architectural as well as design and programme quality.
PROCESS OF EVALUATION
Session two: 26.3.2013 At the second meeting the committee re-examined all the proposals and added one to the short list while removing one of the original 6. The final 6 were then reviewed in more detail and the committee discussed them thoroughly. It also got reacquainted with the location’s situation through time, with its state before WW2 and today. Since none of the proposals particularly stood out, the committee began the eliminating process based on arguments. Three proposals remained, of which the winning solution was selected.
Session one: 12.3.2013 At the first meeting the committee reviewed all of the received propos-
Competition exhibition All 24 proposals were publicly exhibited in Žužemberk and the final 6 were also objectively presented. The locals commented on the solutions and their suggestions for improvements of the winning solution are included in this
report. It is the committee’s overall impression that the best proposals were the ones which comprehensively addressed the town, the square and the meaning of the new pavilion for Žužemberk. It was important to clearly articulate one’s view on the three dominant environments: the square, the road and the park and place the new structure among them. Some proposals considered the pavilion only in a narrow, architectural and design sense and were thus poorly placed in the context of the square’s large area, sometimes even too small. Higher rated projects gave the pavilion the dominant role on the square while simultaneously taking care of its practical value for the town’s everyday life.
Evaluation Criteria - spatial placement of the object (layout, harmony with the context and other facilities) - attitude towards the demolished building (symbolism, memory, protection of heritage) - usability, multi-purpose, programme innovation - sensible use of materials according to the function, meaning and possible temporariness (technology, construction) - the cost of maintenance, environmental friendliness 7
8
< proposal no. 928
REVIEWS OF THE REWARDED PROPOSALS
First prize: proposal no. 928 The proposal is based on a simple volume with a pitched roof, partly modelled on a traditional building – the hayrack. In its basic form it is reminiscent of the former demolished church. It is placed in the compositional centre of the square and thus forms a dividing line between the noisy road and the peaceful park while preserving the existing trees. From both directions the pavilion shapes and upgrades the new urban panorama of the town. The volume is sensibly fragmented with regard to the direction of the road by which it gains more space for the intimate part of the park facing the sunny south with a view of the castle walls and the church of Saint Rok. The central ‘house’ at the junction of the park and the square can communicate with both sides and
its interior contains a large enough stage to satisfy the need for diverse events in the town. The height of the structure is not only consistent with surrounding buildings but also with human scale. With its simplicity the object leaves open options for use. The construction is simple and interesting and with the help of local craftsmen it can be easily manufactured. The material is timber, which we have in abundance in Slovenia; it is sustainable, warm, tactile and biodegradable and it also retains CO2. It is commendable that the proposal introduces a connection between architecture and art into the final treatment of the cover panels and through their construction the participation of local inhabitants, craftsmen and finally EASA participants. Here the inspiration is drawn from local tradition of beehive panels, by which the authors demonstrate a mature understanding of tradition and its contemporary reinterpretation. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted first prize. The committee’s recommendations for improving the proposal The fragmentation of the object in the direction of the road works well in this
context, but the authors should further examine possible variations of their solution in order to partly unify the object and not make it too fragmented. The pavilion should be positioned in a way so that it has direct contact with the square. We also propose that the billboard be removed and to move the information panels into the interior. Comments/questions by locals: They suggest using high-quality local timber, primarily due to lower maintenance costs. They want the object to be completely covered due to use, maintenance and prevention of a rapid deterioration of the structure. They suggest selecting a suitable covering that will defy wind, snow and rain. They want a detailed view of the interior and a detailed arrangement of urban furniture in the area. They worry about masking the view when arriving to Žužemberk from the direction of Novo mesto. Once the object is placed, photomontages of this view should be redone. They propose that memorial plaques be placed inside the pavilion which describe the previous building – the church and present the selection process and construction of the pavilion. They suggest that the beehive panels could present the history of Žužemberk. 9
10
11
12
< proposal no. 895
Honourable mention: proposal no. 895 Graphically effective proposal solves the task with just three key moves. It places the main building exactly at the junction of the park and the square, on the exact line where the terrain changes. Underneath the object it creates a stage for events and above it a symbolic evening sky. The slightly elevated central structure ‘replaces’ the missing façade of the square. The object is pierced by a horizontal axis in the direction of the entry street, which resembles the shadow of the former vertical as a ‘fallen’ tower. The seating behind it is reminiscent of the demolished church benches. The object’s use is questionable as it does not create a covered volume that could host different activities and it is poorly protected from noise and a potential collision of cars. Functioning of the stage would be questionable especially during bad weather (rain) and the elongated axis would considerably complicate the square’s current (traffic etc.) arrangement. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted a recognition award. 13
14
15
16
< proposal no. 658
Honourable mention: proposal no. 658 The proposal is distinguished by an original design and an elegant spatial structure, which the authors sensibly place in the given context of the square. The ‘levitating, wavy sheet’ that occupies and controls the square’s central area presents an
interesting contrast to the surrounding historical – static structures (the stone castle etc.) with its organic geometry and light material appearance of the wood. Underneath, the pavilion opens up attractive atmospheres with interesting games of light and shadow, generated by wooden lamella structures. The spaces can serve multiple purposes, but due to low angles the edges are unusable. The building’s foundations skilfully avoid the walls of the demolished church, thus allowing a presentation of ruins in situ. The structure is statically well considered, also proposed are the bill of materials, the method of implementation and its fixation details. Opening of the object towards the road (and its extending over it) did not work and the link roadcastle the authors guide through the pavilion is not primary as the square’s most vital direction in square-park. The bold, modern solution would certainly arouse the most attention among tourists and act as the town’s architectural ‘attractor or icon’. However, given the rich memory and context of the place this solution would be too universally arbitrary, its usefulness limited because of formalisms and its maintenance problematic in the long run. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted a recognition award. 17
18
19
20
< proposal no. 465
Honourable mention: proposal no. 465 The particular quality of this solution is that among received proposals this one relies the most on the former church’s tracks and evokes them in different ways: it proposes a modern pavilion above its foundations, which would be archaeologically presented with a glass floor panel. The bell tower changes into the vertical mast, which performs the function of a sundial, the main nave into the market and multipurpose space, the sacristy into the repository. The building is denoted by a (too) strong concrete parapet where the wooden structural frames are set. The weak point of this project is its neutral positioning as the object is placed exactly where the demolished church used to stand even though the square’s layout has changed significantly since then. Also weak is the unclear, low design of the roof, which ‘deprives’ the volume of a stronger presence on the square that could replace the demolished building; this cannot be mended even by the high mast. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted a recognition award. 21
22
23
24
< proposal no. 974
Honourable mention: proposal no. 974 For the pavilion the authors propose a strong, linear object, composed only of frames, which they graphically effectively present. The structure is precisely placed on the site, correctly oriented and has a good foundation in history. The design is elaborate and detailed, well thought out is also the use of materials. With its completely abstract occurrence and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sacralâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; nature of the interior the object could become a modern, symbolic, freely reinterpreted bearer of the memory of the former sacred area of the square. But its contemporary use is questionable as it is too symbolically oriented and not flexible enough to serve many potential uses. The ground floor is not worked out and it has a marginal presence on the square. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted a recognition award. 25
26
27
28
< proposal no. 475
Honourable mention: proposal no. 475 For the square the authors propose an interesting modular structure in the shape of a rectangle with covered ‘booths’ and an interior ‘atrium’. Special attention is given to its possible programmes and so it is divided into individual parts, which are set around the central atrium, intended for gatherings. The structure is wooden, the course of construction is thought out, the bill of materials prepared. It is low with a flat roof; its presence on the square would be quite anonymous. The floorings are not specifically shaped and the placement by the path is not sufficiently thought out. The attitude towards the former church is not especially articulated. In general, the nature of the composition is universal and it is not embedded into the specific location enough; it could stand anywhere. The evaluation committee is unanimous that the proposal be granted a recognition award. 29
30
31
32
< view to the site from north-east
CONCLUSION
Honourable mention for proposal no. 895: Eugene Reshetov, Russia Maria Kachalova, Russia Pavel Kirpichnikov, Russia Tatiana Sinelnikova, Russia Asya Baranova, Russia Honourable mention for proposal no. 658: Bogdan Chipara, Romania
Subsequent identification of the authors and the distribution of awards
1. prize (600â&#x201A;Ź in two participations at the assembly EASA) for proposal no. 928: Jack Richards, Great Britain Will Burgess, Great Britain
Honourable mention for proposal no. 465: Ard Hoksbergen, Netherlands Honourable mention for proposal no. 974: Elena Chiavi, Switzerland Maximilian Goes, Germany Honourable mention for proposal no. 475: Mario Rodriguez Vina, Spain Antonio Cantero, Spain Consuelo Fernandez, Spain 33
34 22
< The project is supported by
CREDITS
Evaluation committee Vlado Kostevc, advisor at the municipal administration office, president of the local tourist association Tomaž Golob, conservation advisor, IPCHS Novo Mesto Aleksander Saša Ostan, architect, professor at University of Maribor, Faculty for civil engineering Maruša Zorec, architect, professor at University of Ljubljana, Faculty of architecture Aleš Kobe, student of architecture Aljoša Merljak, student of architecture Tadej Pavlič, student of architecture Organizers Aleš Kobe, student of architecture Aljoša Merljak, student of architecture Tadej Pavlič, student of architecture Matic Brdnik, student of architecture Andraž Lečnik, student of architecture Marta Vrankar, student of architecture Pia Mikolič, student of sociology Matic Kašnik, student of architecture Tabita Jerant, student of architecture
Contact e: info@easa013.si w: www.easa013.si 35