Julianna Skuz Portfolio by PDF Uploads

ACADEMIC PORTFOLIO

JULIANNA SKUZ STUDENT NO. 180391512 NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY STUDIO 06 ACADEMIC YEAR 2020/2021

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATED REFLECTIVE DIARY

FRAMING

TESTING AND SYNTHESIS

THEMATIC CASE STUDY REPORT

134

BIBLIOGRAPHY

136

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

REFLECTIVE DIARY

INTRODUCTION

Overall, developing my final year design project has been a great challenge and I feel that I have learnt a lot while working on it. It forced me to step out of my comfort zone and design a large scale building in close proximity of a heritage site. The experimental preservation aspect of the Building upon Building studio brief was what I found the most challenging; a plethora of ways in which I could have tackled it and the freedom to set my line of inquiry caused me to produce numerous, often contradictory, iterations. Nevertheless, they all form a non-negotiable part of my learning process. That process was certainly fuelled not only by the design work. Non-design modules guided me towards a more realistic project outcome which, undoubtedly, is an asset. They allowed me to focus not only on the design but also on other aspects of my project, such as technology, helping me become more conscious about complexity of architecture. Furthermore, my project was heavily influenced by current climate crisis emergency. Being aware of significant contribution which building industry has towards global carbon emissions, I strived to make my scheme as sustainable as possible, not only by increasing biodiversity, encouraging peaceful co-existence of people and the nature but also by employing lightweight timber structural system. During the framing stage I had to manage working on ARC3001 and ARC3060 modules simultaneously which, at times, felt overwhelming. It was a great challenge not to neglect any of them, especially that there were not many direct links between experimental preservation of the Penguin Pond and the history of social housing. Thus,

I feel that at times I did not pay enough attention to my design work. As a result, at the end of the framing phase my line of inquiry was yet to be clearly defined, which caused me to fall behind the brief. However, I still managed to develop a solid theoretical background thanks to participation in group research and create an ethical framework. The testing phase was the time when I could bring the theoretical knowledge into practice and fully focus on my design. Therefore, I started to reiterate my line of inquiry. ARC3015 module had been an excellent opportunity to further explore various architectural theories and different modes of working. It certainly enabled me to support my line of inquiry with relevant academic sources and situate it within the context of current architectural thought. At the end of the testing stage my approach, programme and brief were clear. However, I indulged into the theoretical aspects of my project so much that despite having a clearly defined line of inquiry my massing proposal was still initial and did not convey my ideas convincingly. Thus, with the beginning of the synthesis phase, I started to work on a new detailed massing proposal that would materialize my agenda successfully. Since I made a decision to redevelop the whole London Zoo so that it complies with my ethical framework I started to feel overwhelmed by all the possibilities it gave me. Nevertheless, I managed to find some constraints such as already existing trees and viewing axes. Having produced a plethora of iterations, I chose the best one and began to work on its tectonics. I feel that ARC3013 might have hindered my creativity as I

was afraid to fully explore my options, sticking to the constraints of structural system too much. However, I am convinced that a scheme composed mainly of simple volumes conveys my ideas convincingly as it provides the Pond with a new contexts and blends well into the urban fabric of the zoo and the park. Therefore, regardless of its apparent simplicity, it successfully fulfils the brief I set for myself. While I strongly believe that ARC3015 and ARC3013 modules have strongly influenced my design work and the interrelation between them and ARC3001 is clear, I struggle to find any direct links between ARC3001 and ARC3014 modules. However, I must admit that even if they do not exist, I have certainly benefitted from the latter. It has acquainted me with key principles of professional practice and I am positive that such knowledge will come in handy later on during my architectural journey. To sum up, embarking on a full year design project was an extremely liberating and educational experience. At times I regret that I did not utilize it fully by producing a bolder scheme. Nevertheless, I feel that my proposal has successfully conveyed my line of inquiry. Thanks to non-design modules it is functional at the level of environmental design, tectonics and compliance with building regulations. If I were to take ARC3001 module again, I would start materializing my ideas earlier into a detailed massing proposal, which would allow me to spend more time on the atmosphere and inhabitation of proposed spaces. Generally, I feel that I tried to make my design process too structured and it would have definitely benefitted from a more organic approach.

CULTURAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rem Koolhaas, Preservation Is Overtaking Us: GSAPP Transcripts (New York: Columbia University, 2014).

Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan (New York: Monacelli Press, 1994).

This book has provided me with a good understanding of the idea of experimental preservation and, therefore, helped me develop my line of inquiry.

After reading the transcript of Koolhaas’ lecture, I decide to further explore his writings in order to better understand his ideas about architecture and heritage.

Peder Anker, From Bauhaus to Ecohouse. A History of Ecological Design (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010).

Marta Leśniakowska, Rafał Ochęduszko, and Marta Urbańska, Architektki [Women-architects] (Kraków: EMG, 2016).

I decided to read this book in order to understand what are the links between early modernist architecture and current approach to sustainable design.

I found this book extremely inspiring as it tells stories of Polish modernist women-architects. Having read ‚Towards A New Architecture’, It gave me an amazing opportunity to look at ideas of modernism from a female perspective, with which it was easier to identify with.

Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture (New York: Dover Publications, 1986).

Hanna Faryna-Paszkiewicz, Grażyna Hryncewicz-Lamber, and Marta Leśniakowska, Pionierki [Women-pioneers] (Kraków: EMG, 2020).

By reading the most famous book by Le Corbusier I could better situate the Penguin Pond in the context of modernist architecture.

‚Pionerki’ is a continuation of the book about women-architects as present stories of women-urbanists.

During ARC3001 ‚Tools For Designing - Assemblage’ workshop I took a series of photos. The task was to capture topics from a list: ‚crushed, dropped, balanced, high, low, heavy, hold, fast, loud, misplaced, body, considered, red, blue, torn, desired, unwanted, direct, empty, full, detour, face, hunch, quiet’. At first I tried to capture all of them, however, after few attempts I decided to follow my own brief and focus on those topics in connection with the topic of my design projects, namely, I decided to focus on nature, contrasting it with the artificial.

The Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, The Penumbral Age: Art in the Time of Planetary Change, July 2020

The Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, Warsaw Under Construction 12: Something in Common, October 2020

The main topic of this exhibition was the current climate emergency and its depictions in art. Spending time surrounded by the artifacts supposed to make people aware of the urgency of climate issue certainly encouraged me to make sustainability a key aspect of my future design projects.

This exhibition showcased ways in which the city can become more sustainable, friendly and inclusive. The title ‚Something in Common’ refers not only to the common good of human inhabitants but also animals and nature. The exhibit which inspired me the most was a short film ‚Oczyszczenie’ by Wojciech Dada, Katarzyna Górna, Rafał Jakubowicz. It depicts a conversation between a group of animals which are planning to exterminate people in order to curb their destructive influence on the environment. At the time when I watched the film I was only developing my line of inquiry and started to consider negative aspects of animal objectification present in the zoo. Therefore, watching such a scene further encouraged me to develop my project in a way that it is inclusive and ethical, for people as well as for the birds.

Zachęta National Gallery of Art, Sculpture in Search of a Place, February 2021

Zachęta National Gallery of Art, Rhizopolis, February 2021

It was an amazing experience to see live the most famous contemporary Polish sculptures. Artists’ treatment of space, the playfulness and plasticity of exhibits certainly encouraged me to engage more with tectonics of my building.

Rhizopolis tackles the problem of sustainability and climate crisis - it is a depiction of a post-apocalyptic landscape made with roots of cut trees. Furthermore, it raises the issue of the spectacle - visitors roaming around the exhibition do not know that they are being observed until they walk into the subsequent room where they discover, that cameras are hidden between the roots. Both these aspects form an important part of my line of inquiry, therefore it was inspiring to see how they are tackled by the artist Joanna Rajkowska.

During the academic year I have taken a few commissions for different types of illustrations. They have certainly allowed me to develop my hand-drawing skills and also to exercise creativity.

These short summer trips not only provided me with a great opportunity to get acquainted with different styles of architecture - XIX-century Prussian architecture in Toruń and Cretan Renaissance in Heraklio.

Moroever, they were a great opportunity exercise my analogue photography and, later on, film development skills, which has significantly influenced my way of working. It told me patience and accuracy and as well as forced to me think more carefully about composition due to limited number of frames available on one film.

During term-time I was staying in my family town in Poland. However, whenever I had an opportunity to travel I used it to visit places of architectural interest. I visited Gdańsk twice, first time to visit the subject of my dissertation - Falowiec, the second leongest modernist housing block in Europe. Even if it appears to be strikingly different from the sleek and elegant Penguin Pond, there is one characteristic that both structures have in common, namely, their architects had an idealistic goal of improving living conditions by producing a utopian scheme - whether it was an ‚abstract Antarctica’ or a linear megastructure.

Living in the suburbs of Warsaw, I would often travel there and explore its post-war modernist monuments. Railway stations designed by Arseniusz Romanowicz are one of best examples. The apparent lightness of their reinforced-conrete planes fascinates me and certainly can be linked back to Bauhaus-inspired pre-war modernist architecture. Another inspiring example of modernist was the Karowa street townhouse, with a peculiar volumetric facade

During my next visit, I focused more on historical architecture and nature. Seeing live mesmerizing exposed structure of gothic St. Mary’s Church has been an amazing experience. Nevertheless, what I remember the most from that trip was the winter lanscape of the seafront, which I imagine was the closest I could get to experiencing the arctic landscape.

FRAMING The framing phase was the most research-intensive part of the project. Organised around group site analysis as well as individual explorations, its aim was to develop a clear line of inquiry. Even though the wide scope of information gathered certainly helped me to understand the context of my site and its main constraints, I feel that not being able to visit the site in person has heavily impeded my understanding of its atmosphere to a level which is not possible to compensate by an online visit. Therefore, I had to rely solely on less organic and more academic approach. The variety of topics covered allowed me for a lot of freedom when choosing my individual line of inquiry as long as it was in line with the experimental preservation approach. Thus, I decided to reinterpret the ideas of Berthold Lubetkin by updating them accordingly to the advancements in behavioural science and ethics. At the same time, I decided to continue his search for a perfect habitat. Since the very beginning of the project I was sure I wanted to explore the ethics of the zoo in depth as well as its sustainability and inclusivity, which was my responsibility regarding group work and later allowed me to organize my brief around those issues.

However, despite a clear goal in my mind, I overestimated my abilities, which were heavily impeded by the context of pandemic as well as necessity to work on the dissertation and the design project at the same time. Even though I had solid theoretical foundations, I did not manage to produce a convincing massing proposal that would convey the ideas before the framing review. Thus, programme and massing shown in this chapter were produced during later stages of the project.

SITE ANALYSIS

The ‘Building upon Building’ studio brief was to design a Research Centre for Ecological Change and Wildlife adjacent to the London Zoo’s Penguin Pond. This iconic structure, known for its striking reinforced-concrete double-helix ramps and minimalist design was designed by Berthold Lubetkin in 1934. Since it constitutes one of the earliest examples of British modernism, it became a Grade I-listed structure less than half a century after its completion, in 1970.1

REGENT’S PARK

London Zoo itself features a plethora of other listed structures and is situated within the Regent’s Park. The park itself represents a prime example of the picturesque style. LONDON ZOO

LONDON

Andrew Shapland and David Van Reybrouck, ‘Competing Natural and Historical Heritage: The Penguin Pool at London Zoo’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14.1 (2007), 10–29 (pp. 10–12). 2 Peder Anker, From Bauhaus to Ecohouse. A History of Ecological Design (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010), pp. 18–19; Shapland and Van Reybrouck, p. 19.

PENGUIN POND

THE POND UPPER LEVEL PLAN

Berthold Lubetkin believed in emancipatory potential of science. Being under the influence of Bauhaus, he held a view that society can be improved through architecture and that a perfect habitat is the one design by a man.1 Therefore, when commissioned with the Tecton group to design an enclosure for London Zoo’s penguins, he sought to improve their living conditions by providing them with an ‘abstract Antarctica’, which would be in line with his geometric and mechanistic interpretation of biology as well as contemporary findings of behavioural science. Simplicity and honesty of concrete planes appeared to him far superior to counterfeit, naturalistic enclosures which dominated zoos at the beginning of the 20th century.2

NORTH-WEST SECTION NORTH-EAST SECTION

SOUTH-WEST SECTION

N LOWER LEVEL PLAN

THE PENGUIN POND

1 2

Anker, p. 1., Shapland and Van Reybrouck, pp. 10–11. Shapland and Van Reybrouck, pp. 14–15

NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY

The trees - the element of nature - not only compliment and frame clean geometry of thepond but also provide penguins with solar protection and supply them with building material for nests.1

Josep Maria Garcia-Fuentes, ‘Habitat’, Vesper, 3 (2021).

‚ABSTRACT ANTARCTICA’

NEGATIVE EFFECTS

The white concrete represents the materiality of antarctic glaciers, while curved ramps ought to mimic the slopes that penguins walk on in nature. The azure colour of the pool resembles the colour of the ocean.

Regardless of Berthold Lubetkin’s good intentions, an artificial enclosure made of concrete turned out not to be better than natural habitat. Nesting places were located to close to each other and the pond was too shallow. Moreover, artificial materials had a negative impact on penguins well-being because hard concrete surfaces caused arthritis as well as prevented animals from burrowing.1

Shapland, p. 10-11

The contrast between technology an nature can also be observed in the juxtaposition of dumpy penguins and modernist architecture, highlighting simplicity and elegance of the latter. The Penguin Pond with its rationalist agenda was supposed to serve as a showcase for the habitat of the future, provoking the audience to notice the analogy between penguins in their sleek enclosure and humans in modernist cities. Contrasted and complemented with the elements of nature, it appeared even more attractive.1

1 Anker, p. 18; Shapland and Van Reybrouck, pp. 14–15; Hadas A. Steiner, ‘For the Birds’, Grey Room, 13 (2003), 5–31 (p. 16).

THE SPECTACLE

The Penguin Pond was supposed to provide a perfect habitat for the penguins and, at the same time, to exhibit structural potential of concrete. Moreover, double-helix ramps can be interpreted as an early attempt at modernist traffic management.1 As a result, dumpy penguins were forced to climb up and down the sleek structure, highlighting the flawlessness of the ramp. The animals became a spectacle existing mainly for the amusement of zoo-goers, observed through the opening resembling of a cinema screen.2 According to Lubetkin: „Approach, which for want of a better word, we may call the ‘geometric,’ consists of designing architectural settings for the animals in such a way as to present them dramatically to the public, in an atmosphere comparable to that of a circus.”3 Looking at the Penguin Pond from a 21st century perspective, such an approach appears objectifying and unethical, however, at the time it was built it represent advancement in behavioural science, especially compared to temple-like cages popular at the turn of centuries.

1 Steiner, p. 16. 2 Ibid. 3 Berthold Lubetkin in: Anker, p. 19.

THE ZOO

The idea of a zoo is almost as old as civilization. At first, royal menageries provided a steady supply of exotic animals for hunting and fighting purposes as well as they reinforced their owners’ social status. Exhibited ‘exotic’ animals would often come from conquered lands. Enclosedit their cages, subject to public gaze, they appeared as trophies embodying colonialist logic of subordination. During the Enlightenment, the scientific purpose started to gain significance and the London Zoo was the first one (1826) established with it as a main objective. Captive animals were seen as research objects and thus were supposed to facilitate advancement of zoology and animal physiology. Later on, zoos started to move away from the idea of a private menagerie and become open to public. Moreover, their educational purpose started to emerge. Cages tended to have a temple-like appearance in order to attract the visitors and encourage them to admire the beauty and power of nature. Nevertheless, the behavioural science was not advanced at that time which resulted in many enclosures being unsuitable for their inhabitants. At the turn of the centuries enclosures started to mimic natural habitats but with the principles of ‘the Picturesque’ on the agenda. The commercial purpose of the zoos became more significant. The modernist movement changed the appearance of the zoos radically. The educational and scientific purposes became their key objective. Cages started to resemble laboratories, they tended to be glass-enclosed, built with concrete and steel, with features such as air-conditioning. Oftentimes, they were meant to depict ‘perfect’ habitats for each specie.

Nowadays, as zoos are becoming more and more commercialized, enclosures are meant to provide unforgettable, interactive experience for the visitors – therefore ‘habitat immersion’ is the current main trend in their design. Apart from that, zoos are often viewed as ‘modern arks’ which should protect the endangered species. Thus, the scientific purpose of zoos is now accompanied by conservationist objectives, with a goal to mitigate the effects of the climate change by preserving endangered species biodiversity on the agenda. Regardless of those noble intentions, the rationale for the existence of zoos remains under discussion. Funded mainly by visitors, in return zoos provide them with an ‚exotic’ spectacle. Even though attempts are made to create best possible habitat for exhibited animals, such a businnes model likely leads to objectifying of animals. Moreover, when ‘exotic’ animals are taken out of their natural habitat, moved into a different climate zone, close to humans, they become more prone to illnesses. It is especially problematic when it comes to large fauna, the most attractive of exhibits. Such animals often exhibit behavioural abnormalities when kept in captivity, inter alia due to small size of their enclosures and forced dependence of humans.1

1 Patricia G Patrick and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe, Zoo Talk (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013), pp. 5–7., 13-15; Ralph R. Acampora, ‘Extinction by Exhibition: Looking atand in the Zoo’, Human Ecology Review, 5.1 (1998), 1–4., Timothy Morton, ‘Introduction: Critical Thinking’, in The Ecological Thought (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Universi Press, 2010), pp. 2–19., Steiner, p. 8;

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONDON ZOO

1828

2. The Victorian Years

4. The New Zoo

1837

3. A New Century

1. The First 10 Years

1999

1940

1900

5. The 21st Century

Price and Newby

MONUMENTS 1, 2

1828 1829

10.

1836

1914

1932

1934

1936

1961

1964 1965

3 10 9 East Tunnel

4 THE PICTURESQUE

Clock Tower/Llama and Camel House

Raven’s Cage

Casson

Grade I Grade II

Tecton

Mitchell and Joass

Decimus Burton

Giraffe House

Mappin Terrace

11.

6 3 Gorilla House

2 1

West Footbridge

THE MODERN

5 11

Penguin Pond

7 North Gate Kiosk

Snowdon Aviary

North Gate Kiosk

THE PARK

Originally wild land belonging to the clergy, the area which now constitutes the Regent’s Park was claimed by the Crown in 1668 and began to be used as hunting grounds. However, after some time the land lay bare and became disparked, used for farming and hay-making. In 1794 the Royal Surveyor found the park suitable for re-development. In 1811, John Nash proposed a radical scheme connecting the park with wider London, providing ‘open space, free air and the scenery of nature’.

Nash envisaged far more than the redevelopment of the old park. Regent’s Park would be the crowning glory of a vast and ambitious urban development scheme which included the formation of Trafalgar Square, Waterloo Place, Portland Place and Regent Street – the latter a via triumphalis, leading from Charing Cross northwards, and culminating in a new summwer palace for the Prince Regent located in the heart of the park. The new road would have the additional merit of connecting the development of the northern suburbs to the heart of the city.

The outer circle, surrounding the park, connects the park with Regent’s Street. Functioning as a roundabout, it gathers stream of heavy traffic which separates the park from the public and therefore discourages formation of a large crowd.

There are also other aspects of Nash’s design which were supposed to reinforce park’s exclusiveness (at first the access to park was restricted to paying key holders). The park was designed to be viewed from a carriage, riding along the Outer Circle. It was connected with it as well with surrounding terraces through a series of framed views, causing great disparity between the experience of a pedestrian and a wealthy resident and demonstrating the class divide.

THE PARK

OUTER CIRCLE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGENT’S PARK

1780

1811

1900

2000

THE PICTURESQUE

In the field of landscape architecture it emerged as an attempt to frame, control and orchestrate nature; striving to achieve qualities such as sublime, beauty and picturesqueness. Thus, it encouraged a much more natural and vernacular approach to design than classicism, mixing the latter with romanticism. The Picturesque gardens are often composed like paintings – with ‘beautiful’ foreground (smooth flowing), ‘Picturesque’ middle (variation, irregularity) and a ‘sublime’ background (wild, frightening).

1. The Holme 2. Marylebone Green 3. Hanover Bridges 4. York Bridge 5. Queen Mary’s Rose Garden 6. Wetland Area 7. Hanover Island

The Picturesque became fashionable as a design concept at the turn of the 18th century. The current was inspired by paintings of Claude Lorrain and Gaspard Poussin. As opposed to the symmetry of classicism, typical qualities of the Picturesque included roughness, sudden variation – ‘that peculiar kind of beauty, which is agreeable in a picture’.

3 7

Claude Lorrain Landscape with Apollo and the Muses 1652

5 1

Arguably, in Lubetkin’s zoo architecture the contrast of the artificial and the natural (beautiful and sublime) could be seen as an expression of the Picturesque.

2 4

EXPERIMENTAL PRESERVATION

Building Upon Building studio deals with the idea of experimental preservation. As opposed to conservationist approach, which aims to preserve heritage in an untouched state, it understands preservation as a process and therefore allows for alterations (as long as they are justified). As a consequence, only the most valuable aspects of the building are preserved. The rest can be transformed so that a heritage object serves modern needs and remains a fully functional building, not just a static monument.

THE BRIEF

Through my proposal I aim to preserve Lubetkin’s strive to create the best habitat possible for humans and animals. The spectacle aspect, which does not conform well with the current ecological thought and is ethically questionable, will be altered by liberating the animals subject to human gaze from their enclosures. Thereby, I will transform the London Zoo into a wildlife conservation area, focused primarily on the preservation of migratory birds. These species are already inhabiting the Regent’s Park, which is situated along their route through London. Thus, there occurs no need of captivating them. However, the birds will be encouraged to stay within the reserve by presence of indigenous plants and overall rewilding of the zoo.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

REWILDING THE REGENT’S PARK

MONUMENT-VIEWING AXIS

MASSING

mon

ume

Bird Sanctuary

nts

3 5

25 m

1. viewing tower 2. takeaway 3. veterinary surgery 4. bird recovery unit/bird labelling station 5. exhibition hall 6. library 7. lecture room 8. reading room 9. reserchers residence

PROGRAMME VISITORS

1 2

6 7

BIRDS

1 Observatory tower/radar/pelegrine falcon’s nesting site 2 Outdoor seating area for the cafe 3 Takeaway cafe 4 Central courtyard 5 Penguin Pond 6 Labs/offices/veterinary surgery/nesting boxes 7 Inner courtyard 8 Service spaces/offices/conference room/nesting boxes 9 Exhibition hall/lecture room/library/reading room 10 Observatory platform 11 Researcher’s residence 1 12 Researcher’s residence 2 13 Bird sanctuary

RESEARCHERS

TESTING AND SYNTHESIS Testing and synthesis stages of the project have both been a great challenge as well as a wonderful learning opportunity. Being more practical and less research-based than framing, they pushed me out of my comfort zone and provided with a plethora of learning moments, allowing me to test my design skills when working on a much more complex scheme than in previous years. The biggest challenge that I had to face was the co-dependence of the project and the non-design modules. Oftentimes I was struggling to co-ordinate my work in the most effective way and, as a result, I was falling behind the brief, which continued to be an issue till the very last days of term. Nevertheless, I have made a significant progress in terms of time management since the end of the framing phase, as the size of the gap separating my project from then-current requirements was gradually decreasing. Thus, I feel that this year, more than ever, I have learned how important it is not to leave important tasks till the last moment. I am certain that my design work would have benefitted from more organised and less rushed approach. However, whenever I was not in a hurry I found it difficult to work as I was almost paralyzed by the pressure to deliver the best possible design outcome. I am aware that I need to find the right balance between those two modes of working and the last two phases of the project were the perfect opportunity to do so. To sum up, I feel that I have managed to develop a successful scheme, which effectively fulfils requirements of the brief. However, I did not have enough time left to focus on its representation and I managed to produce only key drawings.

MASSING

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION

THE TOWER

PRECEDENTS

1., 5. Blue Architects, Ruprecht Architekten, Sports Centre in Sargans 2. Hawkins\Brown, School Swimming Pool near London 3. Sauerbruch Hutton, Church and Parish Centre in Cologne 4. Poissy Galore / AWP + HHF, Insect Museum near Paris 6. bauzeit architekten, Library and Toy Library in Spiez 7. Tectoniques Architectes, Sports Hall in Rillieux-La-Pape

STRUCTURE

Providing a contrast for the Penguin Pond and, thus, highlighting the elegance of its structure, exposed timber frame was chosen as structural system for the Research Centre for Ecological Change and Wildlife.

1 1 MAIN BUILDINGS

1 1

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 veterinary surgery 2 bird recovery unit/bird labelling station 3 exhibition hall 4 lecture room 5 library 6 reading room

3 2 5

MAIN BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 office 2 IT lab 3 observatory 4 conference room

MAIN BUILDINGS SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 office 2 archive 3 DNA lab

1 2 MAIN BUILDINGS THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1 kitchenette 2 main lab

3 RESEARCHER’S RESIDENCE GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 kitchen 2 living area 3 bathroom 4 study 5 bedroom

1 1

INTERMEDIATE FLOORS

TOP FLOOR THE TOWER GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 tower entrance 2 outdoor seating area 3 takeaway 5 viewing terrace

50m

SOUTHERN ELEVATION 0

25m

SECTION A 0

SECTION B

THINKING THROUGH MAKING

NESTING BOX FOR SWIFTS, USED IN THE FACADE OF MAIN BUILDINGS

THEMATIC CASE STUDY

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acampora, Ralph R., ‘Extinction by Exhibition: Looking at and in the Zoo’, Human Ecology Review, 5.1 (1998), 1–4

———, Preservation Is Overtaking Us: GSAPP Transcripts (New York: Columbia University, 2014)

Anker, Peder, From Bauhaus to Ecohouse. A History of Ecological Design (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010)

Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture (New York: Dover Publications, 1986)

Ashford, David, ‘Gorillas in the House of Light’, The Cambridge Quarterly, 40.3 (2011), 201–23 ‘Birds’, Friends of Regent’s Park & Primrose Hill, 2020 <https://www.friendsofregentspark.org/ swans/> [accessed 15 February 2021] ‘Birds of Regent’s Park’, The Royal Parks <https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/the-regents-park/things-to-see-and-do/wildlife/birds-of-regents-park> [accessed 15 February 2021] Faryna-Paszkiewicz, Hanna, Grażyna Hryncewicz-Lamber, and Marta Leśniakowska, Pionierki (Kraków: EMG, 2020) Garcia-Fuentes, Josep Maria, ‘Habitat’, Vesper, 3 (2021) Gunnel, Kelly, Brian Murphy, and Carol Williams, Designing for Biodiversity: A Technical Guide for New and Existing Buildings (London: RIBA Publishing, 2013) Holtorf, Cornelius, ‘The Zoo as a Realm of Memory’, Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 22.1 (2013), 98–114 Koolhaas, Rem, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan (New York: Monacelli Press, 1994)

134

Leśniakowska, Marta, Rafał Ochęduszko, and Marta Urbańska, Architektki (Kraków: EMG, 2016) Morton, Timothy, ‘Introduction: Critical Thinking’, in The Ecological Thought (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 2–19 ———, ‘Thinking Big’, in The Ecological Thought (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 20–58 Otero-Pailos, Jorge, Experimental Preservation (Baden: Lars Müller Publisher, 2016) Patrick, Patricia G, and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe, Zoo Talk (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013)

-Friendly Building Design (The Plains: American Bird Conservancy, 2015) <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi698ze4c7uAhXGmIsKHd55AtkQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabcbirds. org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FBird-friendly-Building-Guide_2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0l8o88JlDI0MZaqFSrTQJp> [accessed 3 February 2021] ‘Spring Birds in The Regent’s Park’, The Royal Parks, 2020 <https://www.royalparks.org.uk/ whats-on/blog/spring-birds-in-the-regents-park> [accessed 15 February 2021] Steiner, Hadas A., ‘For the Birds’, Grey Room, 13 (2003), 5–31 White, Paul, ‘Regent’s Park/Primrose Hill’, London Bird Club Wiki, 2006 <https://londonbirders. fandom.com/wiki/Regent%27s_Park/Primrose_ Hill> [accessed 15 February 2021]

‘Regent’s Park Birds’ <http://regentsparkbirds. blogspot.com/> [accessed 15 February 2021] Schmid, Hans, and Wilfried Doppler, ‘Birds and Glass Facades — a Conflict and Its Solution’, DETAIL Green, 2 (2017), 56–61 Shapland, Andrew, and David Van Reybrouck, ‘Competing Natural and Historical Heritage: The Penguin Pool at London Zoo’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14.1 (2007), 10–29 Sheppard, Christine, and Glenn Philips, Bird-

135

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures not listed were produced by the author. Fig. 5. https://www.arch.columbia.edu/books/ reader/6-preservation-is-overtaking-us [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 6. https://pederanker.com/bauhaus/ [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 7. https://www.goodreads.com/book/ show/70134.Towards_a_New_Architecture [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 8. https://www.remodelista.com/products/ delirious-new-york-a-retroactive-manifesto-for-manhattan/ [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 9. https://www.mocak.pl/sklep/produkt/architektki-wyd-emg [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig, 10. http://wydawnictwoemg.pl/ksiazki/nowosci/architektura-jest-najwazniejsza-rozmowy [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 15-16. Daniel Chrobak, Coś wspólnego, 2020 https://magazynszum.pl/czy-mamy-jeszcze-cos-wspolnego-12-warszawa-w-budowie/ [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 17. Wojciech Dada, Katarzyna Górna, Rafał Jakubowicz, Oczyszczenie, 2020 https://www. facebook.com/watch/?v=736995157255754 [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 22-23. Anna Zagrodzka, 2021 <http://www. rajkowska.com/en/rhizopolis/> [accessed 16 February 2021] Fig. 44. Felix Friedmann, The Penguin Pool, London Zoo, by Tecton, 2015 https://www.iconeye. com/architecture/features/the-architecture-of-london-zoo [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 45. Frederick William Bond, 1934, https:// www.vam.ac.uk/articles/engineering-the-penguin-pool-at-london-zoo [accessed 1 June 2021]

136

Fig. 47. John Allan, Keith Parry, Morley von Sternberg, Penguin Pool, London Zoo < https://avantiarchitects. co.uk/project/penguin-pool-london-zoo/> [accessed 16 February 2021] Fig. 48. gillfoto, 1978, https://www.world-architects.com/en/architecture-news/headlines/the-uncertain-future-of-lubetkin-s-penguin-pool [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 49. Valerie Bennett, 1989, http://architectuul. com/architects/view_image/berthold-lubetkin/26416 [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 50. Havinden, John, 1928, https://www. architecture.com/image-library/ribapix/image-information/poster/penguin-pool-london-zoo-regents-park-london-model-of-the-pool-with-penguins/posterid/RIBA2844-23.html [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 54. Josep-Maria Garcia-Fuentes, 2019. in Garcia-Fuentes, Josep Maria, ‘Habitat’, Vesper, 3 (2021) Fig. 55. © RIBA Library Photographs Collection <https://archeyes.com/penguin-pool-london-bertholdlubetkin/> [accessed 16 February 2021] Fig. 56. Traffic Control, 1935 in Steiner, Hadas A., ‘For the Birds’, Grey Room, 13 (2003), p. 8 Fig. 57. Mirrorpix, The first Emperor Penguin at London Zoo, 1950, https://www.mylondon.news/ news/nostalgia/gallery/step-back-time-incredible-photo-19228159 [accessed 1 June 2021] Fig. 73. Katie Chan, The Clock Tower, 2017, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Clock_Tower_(London_Zoo)#/media/File:HE1066050_The_Clock_Tower_(1).jpg Fig. 74. https://www.instagram.com/p/3VxV4IGc0I/?epik=dj0yJnU9bDZwa1lzYjZValo3NXRyZGpJb0t6ZTVGcTZVcDg4UkEmcD0wJm49RTRCQXlfWDRXWXZPV0FRTGlyRWVvUSZ0PUFBQUFBR-

0N6QVY0 Fig. 75. Mappin Terrace, London Zoo, 1960, http:// www.thecardindex.com/postcards/regent-s-park-london-zoo-mappin-terraces-wanderson-w-g-fox-photos/12654 nel,_London_Zoo.jpg Fig. 76. Katie Chan, East Tunnel Beneath Roadway of Outer Circle, 2013, https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EH1266279_East_Tun nel,_London_Zoo.jpg Fig. 77. Maguari, 2009, https://www.zoochat.com/ community/media/ravens-cage-at-london-zoo-jan-2009.27131/ Fig. 78. John Somerset Murray, 1937, https:// www.architecture.com/image-library/RIBApix/ image-information/poster/refreshment-bar-and-kiosk-north-gate-london-zoo-regents-park-london-the-view-looking-towards-the-exi/ posterid/RIBA49434.html Fig. 79. https://cplondonarchitecture.wordpress. com/2012/07/24/gorilla-house/ Fig. 80. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/01/08/ penguin-pool-london-zoo-berthold-lubetkin-debate-uk-architecture-news/ FIg. 81. Gillfoto, https://www.dezeen. com/2019/01/08/penguin-pool-london-zoo-berthold-lubetkin-debate-uk-architecture-news/ Fig. 82. https://inxg.tumblr.com/image/113547426383 Fig. 83. Tony Hisgett, Snowdon Aviary at London Zoo, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/ foster-partners-to-overhaul-london-zoos-snowdon-aviary Fig. 84. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/0/04/HE1119765_West_Footbridge%2C_ London_Zoo.jpg Fig. 97. Claude Lorrain, Landscape with Apollo and the Muses, 1652 https://www.nationalgalle-

ries.org/art-and-artists/4760/landscape-apollo-and-muses Fig. 98. Gaspard Dughet, Classical Landscape, 1615 - 1675 https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/4844/classical-landscape Fig. 140 Roman Keller, DETAIL (2014) ‘Sports Centre in Sargans’, pp. 58–62., Fig. 141. Hawkins\Brown, JS (2019) ‘School Swimming Pool near London’, DETAIL, pp. 48–53., Fig. 142 Annette Kisling, Margot Gottschling, EM (2014) ‘Church and Parish Centre in Cologne’, DETAIL, pp. 1010–1016. Fig. 143. Julien Lanoo, JL (2018) ‘Insect Museum near Paris’, DETAIL, pp. 34–41., Fig. 144. Roman Keller, DETAIL (2014) ‘Sports Centre in Sargans’, pp. 58–62., Fig. 145. Yves André, DETAIL (2016) ‘Library and Toy Library in Spiez’, pp. 494–499., Fig. 146. 11h45, Tectoniques, SK (2016) ‘Sports Hall in Rillieux-La-Pape’, DETAILstructure, pp. 39–45.

137