UNILI_Matter_Master Thesis by OlgaIvakina

UNILI_MATTER

Olga Ivakina Master’s Thesis Universität Liechtenstein WS 1819

UNILI_MATTER

UPCYCLING HETEROTOPIA Olga Ivakina | FS160060 Master’s Thesis to obtain the degree “Master of Science in Architecture“ Supervisor: Prof. Peter Staub, Dipl. AA Msc LSE Assistant: Bianca Anna Böckle, MSc Arch Term of Work: 01.09.2018 - 31.01.2019 Date of submission: 31.01.2019 University of Liechtenstein Institute of Architecture and Planning Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein

I dedicate this book to all who supported me in this long journey.

ABSTRACT

Driven by the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x153;heterotopiaâ&#x20AC;?, developed by Michel Foucault in his text Of Other Spaces (Foucault, 1967) the following project aims to propose a new vision for the future campus of the University of Liechtenstein. The research question is the following: How can I as an architect upcycle the learning landscapes of the University of Liechtenstein in order to accommodate twice more people without building additional space? The assumption is driven by the careful examination of the existing situation and understanding that the building of the University of Liechtenstein does have enough space, which is not used effectively. It leads to the conclusion that new strategies of space usage have to be found as well as new organizational, educational, environmental and material strategies for the future campus.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Theoretical Context

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Understanding the University Towards the Digitalization of Higher Education Knowledge Spaces Upcycling

19 21 23

2.4.1 Definition & History 2.4.2 Now

25 27

University of Liechtenstein. Context

3.1 3.2

The Region as a Textile Production Centre University of Liechtenstein

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5

33 38 44 46 48

History of the Building Current Space Occupation People & Spaces. Intensity of Space Usage Frequency of Space Usage Borders, Circles & Intersticies

Morocco. In Search of Inspiration

Empirical Part

5.1 5.2 5.3

Design strategies Vision Concept Review. First Intervention

58 62

5.3.1 Design Strategies. Materiality 5.3.2 Design Strategies. Social and Spatial Relationships

64 66

UNILI_MATTER

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

The Element The Space The Surrounding Mobility Concept

72 75 91 94

Conclusion

List of Figures

Reference List

102

Appendicies

105

Catalog of Elements Installation Model

106 110 113

INTRODUCTION

The studio topic focuses on developing a holistic vision for the future campus of the University of Liechtenstein through the prism of heterotopia. In contrast to utopia, which refers to unreal place, heterotopia is a real place, which establishes a particular order distinct to the world outside. Heterotopias are places eligible for opening up possibilities for unusual juxtapositions through merging several realities into one. Consequently, it makes the concept of heterotopia an ideal background for imagining a new model of the university.

design strategy for this project; it influenced significantly how the knowledge spaces described above are rendered. As the focus of the design is on materials, the notion of time, which has to be reflected according to the project brief, is mediated through the stories of different materials shown on the series of Time-Drawings published below. Summarizing all the aspects that were specified above, the problematic of the project focuses on two main issues – lack of building resources and the necessity to diversify learning environments of the University of Liechtenstein to make them suitable for 21-century learning repertoires. Thereby, this project does not propose to go beyond the borders of the existing campus and aims to work only with the existing structures.

Creating a new vision of the university implies paying great attention to the choice of the educational model that will be performed in this university; for this reason, teaching and learning methods will be attentively researched and described in the following chapters. All these thoughts will be combined into the integrated system resulting in the architectural proposal, which is introduced in Chapter 6 of this book.

RESEARCH GAP As it was mentioned before, two main subjects are brought into focus in this project – the future of the learning spaces in higher education and upcycling. According to Jos Boys, there is a general lack of research and understanding of how physical spaces influence learning, primarily due to a self-evident degree of subjectivity in this question (Boys, 2011). This subject being combined with a rather positivistic and materialistic topic of upcycling, where the systematic approach in relation to architecture is still lacking (Langenberg, 2018), gives the project unusual perspective, that has not yet been explored.

One of the main tasks of the studio was to find strategies to accommodate a double amount of students: 1200 instead of the current 600 students. In the following project, the necessity to build a new building for that matter will be questioned, and the alternative solution will be proposed to fulfill this requirement. Designing the physical environment, where the future learning repertoires of the University of Liechtenstein will take place, is crucial for this project. Finding an appropriate architectural representation for the theoretical ideas is essential. Therefore the project focuses above all on the internal logic of the existing university building and on rendering various atmospheres for learning within this building. These atmospheres aim to create conditions for all types of knowledge work starting from the deep isolated work and individual work and continuing with the collective and group work.

RESEARCH QUESTION How can I as an architect upcycle the learning landscapes of the University of Liechtenstein in order to accommodate twice more people without building additional space?

The year’s topic “upcycling” gained its representation in the current project. Upcycling can be perceived as a direct response to the future crisis in the building sector, where the amount of natural recourses is becoming increasingly exhausted at the place of their natural origins, while plenty of materials are accumulated within buildings (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). Upcycling is seen as one of the solutions for this problem and as one of the viable zero-waste strategies that will be central in architectural practice in the near future. Consequently, upcycling has been chosen as a central

METHODOLOGY While understanding the whole complexity of the task to design a university, the author aims to define architectural position and frame of responsibilities within the following topic. Consequently, one of the crucial parts of the thesis is the formulation of the personal vision of how the education will look like in the near future and of how it is translated into the spatial representation.

STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER

The following work is based on the comprehensive literature reviews, careful investigation of the current situation, quantitative research and personal observations both from the position of the student and the architect. Drawings and representative models from the scale 1:1200 to 1:200, catalogs of the existing and atmospheric sketches that reflect the process of transformation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; time drawings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are used as the main tools to articulate the vision. This project does not aim to be the final stage in the future of the university but rather to give the insight on how the next stage of this future might look like within the changing realities.

The following paper is divided into seven chapters: Introduction Theoretical Context University of Liechtenstein. Context Morocco. In Search of Inspiration Empirical Part UNILI_Matter Conclusion

The project is developing from the inside to the outside, as small interventions are considered the best response to such a complex brunch of problems. Driven by the careful attitude to the existing building and its history, this work becomes a critical reflection on the role of the architect in defining the destiny of the building, reconsidering future challenges of the profession.

The paper starts with the overview of the broader theoretical framework, which is related to the issues discussed in the current work. The chapter Empirical Part represents a pre-stage of the project, where the first practical answers are given and the strategies are tested. The chapter UNILI_MATTER is fully dedicated to the final design proposal. 15

THEORETICAL CONTEXT

2.1_UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSITY

University is a phenomenon (Barnett, 2016), that became a symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1990) of the city like it was in different times a church, a railway station or a shopping mall. In addition, it is expected to be a driver for the transformation of society.

symbiotic relationships with their host cities creating a new entity – “knowledge city” (Hoeger, 2007). The University of Liechtenstein has a history of a gradual transformation from Hochschule Liechtenstein to the University, which main focus embraces the field of research, thereby making it a research-intensive university (Comunian & Gilmore, 2015). This process coincided with a progressive alienation of the university from its surrounding context and the local community, which can be seen in its architecture as well. However, It has to be considered that the University of Liechtenstein is a relatively young institution, especially while compared with the oldest universities in the world, such as Al Quaraouiyine, or even Oxford and Cambridge. It opens plenty of possibilities for the future transformation of this university.

Besides the already mentioned concept of Heterotopia (Foucault, 1967), university can be imagined through the concept of “feasible utopias” - sensitive to deep structures of universities, critical to their contemporary conditions and optimistic in terms of changes and radical transformations (Barnett, 2016). In his book Understanding the University, Ronald Barnett specifies that universities have two entities - university as an institution and university as an idea. University is constantly coming through the process of transformation, which is “Becoming a University” (living with and going through the idea of the university), as a university can always be more than it is (Barnett, 2016). It means that when we are talking about a university, we are talking about an entity that is not once defined and is constantly in flux.

It is hard to embrace the whole complexity of this topic in one architectural project. Thereby in my project envisaging the university is rather an imaginative task, without which any architectural representation is incomplete. In addition to that university campus is, first of all, an environment. In the very beginning of this project, we had to give our own general definition of the campus, which reflects our project, and my definition sounds as following:

According to Comunian and Gilmore, nowadays two types of university campuses can be classified: research-intensive universities and others; research-intensive university’s main focus is research whilst other universities are more involved in the local processes and development of skills (Comunian & Gilmore, 2015). In present times the relationships between the university campus and the city are widely reconsidered all over the world. Universities tend to re-engage themselves with the surrounding and create

University campus is an environment of knowledge and learning, that can be defined both physically and mentally.

2.2_TOWARDS THE DIGITALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

According to Kirkwood, two different approaches concerning the question of digitalization in high education identify two different categories of universities - conventional, campus-based universities and universities oriented on the use of information and communication technologies (Kirkwood, 2014). However, it is not so easy to draw a clear line between these two categories, as every institution understands the necessity to implement technologies into educational practices.

in implementing mixed strategies, where some activities can be performed online, and the others will still be based on campus. When it comes to the higher education, implementation of digital learning can become less problematic than for the primary or secondary education. The reason for that is because higher education is a personal choice and it merges with the ability of the students to take responsibility for their learning schedule. Thereby, digitalization comes together with the flexibility to study whenever and wherever one wants.

Digitalization of education is widely criticized in various circles of professionals first of all for the lack of personalized interactions (Bulfin, Bigum, & Johnson, 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the conversation is not anymore about the future but about the present. Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s online submissions and assessments, data storages, various platforms for collective work are just a small part of the ongoing process.

The concept of digitalization in higher education plays a crucial role for this project, as it provokes the question about how the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s space will be used in the future when the conventional classrooms, seminar and lecture rooms migrate entirely to the online platforms. This topic is especially relevant to the universities in remote areas, such as the University of Liechtenstein, where the mobility issues are extremely present. Places, where everyday commuting to a classroom is becoming both time consuming and space consuming.

It is clear that the process of learning cannot be fully replaced by the computer screen and will always be based on social interactions. As I put it in further chapters of this book, learning will always stay a collective, social experience. Thereby, the potential is seen 21

2.3_KNOWLEDGE SPACES

As Janet Murrey points out in The Guardian report, it is extremely hard to predict, how learning will look like in the future, as the recent ideas, such as implants on the surface of the brain, go far beyond the boundaries of a physical space (Murrey, 2010). However, in this work I assume that in the near future we will still need a physical space in order to perform learning repertoires, although this space will not carry the same meaning as it is now.

conditions that goes beyond the walls of any existing building. For a more comprehensive understanding of the idea of a knowledge space, I would like to cite the definition of knowledge work given by Berlage researches, this specific type of work, that should be performed in the knowledge space. Knowledge work - [t]his kind of immaterial production, [that]

In the outcome of the two years research held by Berlage Institute Rotterdam it is shown that knowledge spaces have undergone through series of transformations resulting in progressive emptying of space from “functional and spatial specificity”, leaving more and more of the educational space up for “movement, socialization and flexible uses” (Ponzo, 2015). It coincides with the outcomes of the building elements compendium made by Rem Koolhaas, where the similar process is shown in relation to the disappearance of a wall as an element from a building floor plan (Koolhaas & Boom, 2014). Therefore, a knowledge space nowadays is a typology, which resulted from merging four other architectural typologies – a library, an office, a university and a museum (Ponzo, 2015) – together, packed into space with flexible/blurred boundary

has increasingly being recognized as being characterized by rich and nuanced sets of practices – the creative process – that (knowledge) workers experience in a diverse set of conditions (Ponzo, 2015). The most substantial difficulty I see with these typologies and definitions is that all the brightest knowledge moments each of us as human beings experience can potentially come from sources that can be unrelated to any familiar designed educational institutions or environments we know. A great idea can come to us while sitting in a bus, walking outside or washing the dishes, and these spaces can hardly be programmed by architects. 23

2.4_UPCYCLING

2.4.1_Definition & History

DEFINITION Upcycling is a relatively new term that first appeared in 1998 as the name of the book by Gunter Pauli. The term has several definitions, such as creative reuse. In Re-Inventing Construction Ilka and Andreas Ruby give the following definition of upcycling:

in Split, Croatia, that was built in the 4th century AD. After being abandoned by Romans, the Palace stood empty for a few centuries until some of the local inhabitants, seeking refuge from invading Croats, occupied the structure. These people began to recycle the internal structure of the building and to rebuild it into dwellings, market halls and other facilities in the basement and inside the walls themselves.

Upcycling is the use of waste material in lieu of new raw materials in production processes. Upcycling aims to convert waste into

The opened areas of the Palace were repurposed for the outdoor public spaces of the new city within the city. The anchor structures remained and received a new usage, for instance, Diocletian’s Mausoleum was converted into the Cathedral and Jupiter’s Temple became a baptistery. After the transformation process, the Palace received completely new internal logic with intertwining streets and lots of small partitions, resembling the structure of a medieval city rather than the structure of a palace. Although the process of the Palace transformation can generally be called recycling, the building gained a new value and was fully repurposed in accordance with the new traditions for the needs of a new civilization.

something of a higher or enhanced quality, or of a more positive environmental quality (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). Moreover, as Ruby and Ruby point out, the difference between recycling and upcycling is that recycling describes a more simple process of material reuse, however, upcycling must include also the improvement of the use of materials (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). In Studio Staub we apply the term “upcycling” not only to materials themselves but also to values. By gaining a new value the entire built structure can be upcycled and brought to the next level, discarding the necessity of the demolition process.

Wa Pan and Spolia can be named among other historical techniques known for centuries and used during the process of upcycling. Wa Pan is a Chineese construction method, which includes building new structures out of recycled parts of the old structures. Spolia is a method similar to Wa Pan in China, which carries above all a symbolic meaning (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). One of the examples is the Roman Arch of Constantine, which contains parts from various monuments dating from different periods of the history of the Roman Empire.

HISTORY Lifespan of a building goes far beyond a lifespan of a human being. In history people were frequently more conscious about their built environment than we are now, as the process of demolition was not always the first considered solution. Recycling and upcycling processes can occur on different scales of urban environment from small structures to entire cities. One of the most fascinating examples in history is Diocletian Palace – the former residence of the Roman Emperor Diocletian

Fig 1. The Ground Plan of the Diocletian Palace in Split in the 4th Century AD. Fig 2. The Ground Plan of the Historical Nucleus of Split after the Recycling Process during the Medieval Times.

Fig 3. A Panorama of Construction Waste in Horten, Norway.

2.4_UPCYCLING 2.4.2_Now

In history, there has always been a clear distinction between the realm of the natural resource and the realm of the constructed building. Resources were taken from nature and then used elsewhere for construction. Thereby, a resource was considered as a part of the natural realm and a building as a part of the cultural realm (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). Now the situation has significantly changed. The research shows that there is, for instance, more copper in the buildings than it exists in nature (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). At the same time, life span of buildings is shrinking, as more and more buildings undergo the demolition process less than in ten years after being constructed.

As Ilka and Andreas Ruby has described in their research, there are three different approaches to the problem stated above. The first approach, which is postulated by German engineer Werner Sobek, concerns the so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;reversibility of constructionâ&#x20AC;?. It essentially means that buildings have to be designed and constructed in such a way that they can be disassembled into elements and reused (element by element) when their life span comes to an end. The second approach involves reusing the whole structures, such as, for instance, airplane fuselages, by taking them from one place and reapplying in another place without any modifications. The American office LOT-EK is one of those who are strictly following this approach.

According to the research conducted by the World Bank in 2012 there is a global amount of 1.3 billion tons of solid construction waste produced each year worldwide. It is expected that this amount will double in the year 2025 and will reach the amount of 2.2 billion tones (Redling, 2018). The construction industry is one of the most harmful spheres in terms of environmental impact, and thereby it is clear that solutions to this problem have to be found and responsibility for that lies among the others on architects.

In the third approach, followed by, for instance, Lacaton & Vassal, it is proposed not to demolish any built structures, as any building is never a final project and has an endless capacity for various transformations. In this system, it is crucial to transform and reprogram the existing build environment, as it is not only more reasonable economically but also more sustainable socially (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). 27

UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN CONTEXT

3.1_THE REGION AS A TEXTILE PRODUCTION CENTRE

In the 19th century the region, where the former Spoerry Fabrik is located, was one of the most industrialized regions in Europe; it was famous among other goods for the production of textile. In 1863 Franz Anton Kirchthaler and Heinrich Dürst built a cotton spinning mill in Triesen. The factory was a part of the other company – „Enderlin & Jenny“, which was based in Ziegelbrücke, Glarus. This building was the predecessor of the Spoerry spinning mill, as after that the Swiss manufacturer Jakob Spoerry decided to build a second factory in Vaduz Ebenholz (Weitensfelder, 2011).

other factories, for instance, in Glarus. Some of these factories, D. Jenny factory and Getzner Textil can be named as good examples, are still involved in the textile production cycle. These factories produce all kinds of goods from regular clothes to fine decorative textiles. What is essential from this research is that during the textile production process plenty of textile leftovers remain. It is, for instance, textile swatches, surplus textiles and so-called “end-ofrolls”. These leftovers end up on the landfills and cause significant environmental damage. Prolonging the lifecycle of this material can make a substantial contribution to the quality of the environment that is why in the project the potential to contribute to the topic of upcycling is seen. It is crucial to mention that textile is not a heavy material and it does not require significant energy waste during the transportation process.

Cotton spinning mills were common not only in Liechtenstein but in the nearby area of Austria and Switzerland as well. Among other spinning mills in Austria and Switzerland, which are scattered around in 50 km radius from the Spoerry Fabrik Vaduz, the following ones can be named: alte Textilfabrik Stoffel in Mels, Getzner Textil in Bludenz, Textilfabrik Lünersee in Mels, Spinnerei Altach, Spinnerei Langnau, D. Jenny factory in Haslen and dozens of 31

Die im Jahre 1883 erรถffnete Baumwollspinnerei Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. im Ebenholz in Vaduz, um 1900. Rechts von der Fabrik befindet sich das im Jahr 1887 fertig gestellte Arbeiterwohnhaus.

Fig 4. View to the Cotton Spinning Mill Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. in Vaduz Ebenholz from the surrounding fields around 1900.

Vogt Wolfgang: Der Aufbau der Krankenversicherung in Liechtenstein

Kapitel_1_Vogt.indd 14

26.07.11 13:44

3.2_UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

3.2.1_History of the Building

INDUSTRIAL CENTRE OF THE REGION

DECLINE

The story of the building of the University of Liechtenstein began in the year 1882 when the Swiss manufacturer Johann Jakob Spoerry saw an opportunity to build a cotton factory on the land of Ebenholz in Vaduz. Since that times the building has undergone through several stages of transformation. During the first construction stage that took place between 1882 and 1890 two sawtooth roof halls - the North and the South wing – were erected, as well as the warehouse for cotton on the north and the residential building for the workers on the south. Between 1890 and 1992 the building was extended with the new hydroelectric power station, clubhouse, workshops and storages, delivery zone and bow-roof shed hall on the east. Steam boiler system was used for heating; for this purpose the brick chimney on the back of the main hall was erected. At the peak times the factory building could accommodate up to 100 workers – men, women and children (Karl + Probst, 2011).

Due to the economic reasons, the industrial history of the building came to an end in 1992. Between the year 1992 and 2000 minor changes had occurred. The building had a few significant construction damages and did not have one major usage; together with its territory, it was partly withdrawn for the various city purposes. The existing clubhouse was demolished, the youth club was integrated into the ground floor (Karl + Probst, 2011). The mock-up building for testing the façade panels for Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein, which was then converted into a Ski museum, was built on the east side.

U P C Y C L I N G H E T E R O T O P I A UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN | HISTORICAL EVOLUTION M 1 1200

In 1993 the government of Liechtenstein together with Gemeinde Vaduz raised a question of the future destiny of the Spoerry factory building. In order to reveal its full potential, it was decided to allocate the building to Fachhochschule Liechtenstein, which at that times started to grow. Attractive location, architectural and light qualities of the main halls, filigree column grid, which gave a variety of possibilities for internal spatial configurations, were among the reasons to choose the former Cotton Spinning Mill for the future university building. The transformation of the leading industrial centre to the principal knowledge centre of the region has begun.

It is hard to underestimate the meaning of the Spoerry factory building to its surrounding context. Binding together various family stories, it became a catalysator of the shift from the agricultural character of the land to its industrial character (Karl + Probst, 2011) that is still present today. 1882 - 18 9 0 Const r uct ion of Cotton S p inning Mil l

18 9 0 - 19982 Sev er al Ex t e nsions

till 2 0 0 0 D is mant e l ing of sever al anne x buil ding s. Disc ont inat ion of Sp inning Mil l P r oduct io an const r uct ion of Mul t ipur pose Hal l

s inc e 2 0 0 0 D is mant e l ing of sever al anne x buil ding s. Mo de r nis at io n and Integ r ation of addit io nal P r og r am

s t at us q uo Const r uct ion of Sol ar Pr oject and Ne w Mo de l w o r k s ho p

1882 - 18 9 0 Const r uct ion of Cotton S p inning Mil l

18 9 0 - 19982 Sev er al Ex t e nsions

till 2 0 0 0 D is mant e l ing of sever al anne x buil ding s. Disc ont inat ion of Sp inning Mil l P r oduct io an const r uct ion of Mul t ipur pose Hal l

s inc e 2 0 0 0 D is mant e l ing of sever al anne x buil ding s. Mo de r nis at io n and Integ r ation of addit io nal P r og r am

s t at us q uo Const r uct ion of Sol ar Pr oject and Ne w Mo de l w o r k s ho p

pr otected | ex ist ing

upcy cl eabl e

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

addit io ns

Fig 5. Historical Evolution

COMPETITION Lifted up cafeteria & library building became a signature of the elite institution. It was crucial for the project to highlight the contrast between old and new. The spatial quality of the glass box in front of the old building aimed to be a contrast between calm and enclosed seminar rooms with the light from the top, giving a possibility to enjoy the surrounding landscape.

At the beginning of 1999 the competition was launched; 23 out of 210 proposals were chosen and as the next stage two finalists were announced – Atelier Architekten, Basel and Karl + Probst, München. The main aim of the competition was not only to revitalize the building and give it a new meaning but furthermore to find a new identity for the young University of Liechtenstein, clearly presenting it as “the main University of Principality” (“Renovation und Umnutzung der Spoerry-Fabrik,” 1999). The new layout had to be simple, clear and functional.

After the renovation in addition to the new spatial configuration, the building received the entwined structure of space ownership. The necessity of parallel usage was stated in the competition brief. The ground floor, including the Camäleon youth club, is operated by Gemeinde Vaduz with the possibility of parallel usage with the university. The first floor with additional gallery spaces is allocated for the university functions.

Due to special light conditions of the factory building, the building received a very specific layout configuration. In the project, the bigger seminar rooms are located in the central part with the light coming only from the top, for “concentrated, effective work” (Karl + Probst, 2011). The aim of the design was to fit the proposed layout into the existing raster of the building. Learning spaces were arranged in a conventional classroom layout according to the simple principle calculated from the number of students per room.

Fig 6. Airview to the Cotton Spinning Mill Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. between 1918-1937.

Fig 7. Shed Hall Historical Structure.

Fig 8. Construction Site in 2000. Demolishing and Rebuilding the Entire Structure.

Fig 9. Construction Site in 2000. Cafeteria & Library Building.

ADMINISTRATION SPACES TOTAL 122.8M2

E141 Oﬃce 11.26 m2

PUBLIC SPACES TOTAL 2201M2

U6 Oﬃce 11.87 m2

E103 Oﬃce 32.12 m2

E105 Oﬃce 15.70 m2

E107 Oﬃce 35.10 m2

E109 Oﬃce 16.75 m2

Sport hall 1064m2

Cameleon 533m2

Exhibition 407m2

Exhibition 730m2

CIRCULATION TOTAL 528M2

UTILITIES TOTAL 1422M2 Workshop 32m2

? 183.1 m2

Woodchip Furnances 37.7m2

Ventilation 77.8m2

Hydraulic 9m2

WC 14m2

Lager 6.4m2

Technic Room 7.4m2

Archive 89m2 Electro 31.5m2

Sprinkler 13m2

Kitchen 11m2 Storage Room 17.8m2 Heating 93m2

Storage 169m2

Workshop 73m2

Electro 50m2

Burning Room 22m2

Storage Room 15.6m2

Technic 16m2

Lumber Room 15.5m2

WC 35m2

Ventilation 118m2

Storage Room 18.3m2

Changing Room 33.4m2

WC 26m2

3.2_UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN 3.2.2_Current Space Occupation

E109 Oï¬&#x192;ce 16.75 m2

Cameleon 533m2

Workshop 32m2

Woodchip Furnances 37.7m2

Ventilation 77.8m2

Hydraulic 9m2

WC 14m2

Lager 6.4m2

Technic Room 7.4m2

Archive 89m2

Heating 93m2

Burning Room 22m2

Storage Room 15.6m2

Technic 16m2

Lumber Room 15.5m2

WC 35m2

Ventilation 118m2

Storage Room 18.3m2

Changing Room 33.4m2

WC 26m2

Fig 10 & 11. Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the Ground Floor.

ADMINISTRATION SPACES TOTAL 290.7M2

0190 Oﬃce Caretaker 28.36 m2

0103 Helpdesk 01 25.54 m2

0108 Oﬃce Economics 0109 Oﬃce Economics 25.54 m2 25.54 m2

0122 Reception 24.85 m2

0155 Communications 0154 Helpdesk 02 17.66 m2 19.75 m2

0123 Administration 25.72 m2

0110 Oﬃce Economics 20.54 m2

0157 Oﬃce Staﬀ Architecture department 60.72 m2

0127 Oﬃce Staﬀunits 16.55 m2

PUBLIC SPACES TOTAL 476M2

Exhibition 95m2

Canteen 188m2

Library 193m2

CIRCULATION TOTAL 1421M2

Foyer Architectural Department 289 m2

Foyer Entrance Hall 268 m2

Circulation South Wing 310 m2

Foyer Economical Department 70.5 m2

Circulation Canteen & Library 45 m2

Foyer Clubhouse II 51 m2

Circulation Middle Wing 24 m2

Circulation North Wing 226 m2

Circulation Clubhouse I and II 108 m2

UTILITIES TOTAL 524M2

LEARNING SPACES TOTAL 1985M2

Equipment Room 36.6 m2

Plotter 13m2

Electro 5.35m2

Electro 5m2

Storage Furniture 31 m2

Laundry Room 16 m2

Atelier 430m2

H01 78m2

Photolab 17m2

Printer room 15.3m2

Printer Room 13m2

Lumber Room 6.6m2

WC 31.5m2

Kitchen 18.7m2

Server room 25.5m2

Laser Cutter 31.6m2

Auditorium 308 m2

H02 124m2

H03 124m2

H04 124m2

WC 20m2

Storage 18.4m2

WC 36.6m2

Lumber Room 34.5m2

Waste Store 26m2

Ventilation 30.3m2

Storage 92.2 m2

S08 65m2

S01 63m2

S09 65m2

S02 63m2

Group room 1 Group room 2 25m2 25m2

S03 57m2

S05 56m2

S04 56m2

S??? 142m2

Group room 3 Group room 4 25m2 25m2

Oﬃce Economics 4 m2

0110 Oﬃce Economics 20.54 m2

Administration 2 m2

0127 Oﬃce Staﬀunits 16.55 m2

0157 Oﬃce Staﬀ Architecture department 60.72 m2

Foyer Economical Department 70.5 m2

Circulation Canteen & Library 45 m2

Foyer Clubhouse II 51 m2

Circulation Middle Wing 24 m2

Circulation Clubhouse I and II 108 m2

Photolab 17m2

Printer room 15.3m2

umber Room 6.6m2

WC 31.5m2

WC 20m2

Storage 18.4m2

WC 36.6m2

Lumber Room 34.5m2

Ventilation 30.3m2

Storage 92.2 m2

Server room 25.5m2

Waste Store 26m2

S08 65m2

S01 63m2

S09 65m2

S02 63m2

Group room 1 Group room 2 25m2 25m2

S03 57m2

S05 56m2

S04 56m2

S??? 142m2

Group room 3 Group room 4 25m2 25m2

Fig 12 & 13. Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the First Floor.

ADMINISTRATION SPACES TOTAL 337.6M2

09 Oﬃce 35.95 m2

08 Oﬃce 28.10 m2

0.201 Oﬃce 0.203 Head 0.204 Oﬃce 15.34 m2 25.54 m2 12.42 m2

0255 Gallery 0254 Gallery Communication 16.53 m2 Helpdesk 18.51 m2

0.205 Oﬃce 12.43 m2

0222 Gallery Administration 24.10 m2

0.206 Office 0.207 Office 0.208 Office 12.41 m2 12.42 m2 12.42 m2

0226 Gallery Oﬃce Staﬀunits 15.49 m2

0.209 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.210 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.211 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.216 Oﬃce 58.71 m2

PUBLIC SPACES TOTAL 95M2

Event room 95m2

CIRCULATION TOTAL 423M2

Circulation North Wing 84 m2

Balcony Middle Wing 59 m2

Balcony South Wing 32 m2

Circulation Middle Wing 7 m2 Circulation South Wing 86 m2

Balcony Clubhouse II 100 m2 Circulation Clubhouse I and II 55 m2

UTILITIES TOTAL 175M2

WC 8.3m2

WC 42.5m2

Storage 6.7m2

WC 17m2

Kitchenett 10.2m2

Printer room 12m2

Archive 20.4m2

Operation Room WC 18.7m2 8m2

Archive 14.5m2

Kitchen 16.7m2

LEARNING SPACES TOTAL 586M2

Galerie 404m2 Group room 1 45m2 Group room 96m2 Group room 2 41m2

e 0.207 Oﬃce 0.208 Oﬃce 12.42 m2 12.42 m2

ry Oﬃce Staﬀunits

0.209 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.210 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.211 Oﬃce 12.42 m2

0.216 Oﬃce 58.71 m2

5 m2

18.7m2

Archive 14.5m2

Kitchen 16.7m2

Fig 14 & 15. Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the Second Floor.

3.2_UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

3.2.3_People & Spaces_Intensity of Space Usage Calculations for the First Floor North Wing Maximum Capacity: 779 people Area: 2052 m2 Density: 2,63 m2 per person 10 4

30 2

Capacity without Foyer: 579 people (Foyer is only a circulation space) Density: 3,54 m2 per person

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

300

2-3

3-4

Capacity without Foyer and Auditorium : 279 people Area without Foyer and Auditorium: 1373 m2 Density: 4,92 m2 per person GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

200

102

1 2A*

max*

South Wing Maximum Capacity: 435 people Area: 1826 m2 Density: 4,3 m2 per person

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

Calculations with the Gallery Space North Wing Gallery Space Gallery Capacity: 109 people Gallery Area: 700 m2 Density: 6,42 m2 per person 12

90max*

2 6

North Wing Alltogether Capacity: 888 people Area: 2752 m2 Density: 3,1 m2 per person Atelier (with Gallery) Capacity: 209 people Area: 934 m2 Density: 4,4 m2 per person South Wing Gallery Space Capacity: 50 people Area: 475 m2 Density: 9,5 m2 per person South Wing Alltogether Capacity: 485 people Area: 2301 m2 Density: 4,74 m2 per person

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

Calculations for the Ground Floor

Gemeinde Maximum Capacity: 1840 people Area: 3933 m2 Maximum Density: 2,1 m2 per person

Youth Club Capacity of Event Spaces: 380 people Area of Event Spaces: 791 m2 Density: 2,1 m2 per person GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

525

Shooting Range Capacity: 25 people GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

330 400

max*

190

max*

725

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

max*

30-50

Calculations for the Third Floor Clubhouse Capacity: 18 people Area: 83 m2 Density: 4,6 m2 per person 3 GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

max maximum capacity of space (calculated as 1m 2 per person) A addi ti onal (opti onal) si tti ng area

Fig 16-19. Schemes showing the Capacity and Density of Each Floor.

U U PP CC YY CC LL II N NG G H H EE TT EE RR O O TT O O PP II A A UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF OF LIECHTENSTEIN LIECHTENSTEIN || TIME TIME NOTION NOTION OF OF AVAILABLE AVAILABLE SPACES SPACES TO TO BOOK BOOK AT AT TH T

U P C Y C L I N G H E T E R O T O P I A UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN | TIME NOTION OF AVAILABLE SPACES TO BOOK AT T

3.2_UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN 3.2.4_Frequency of Space Usage

MONDAY

T UESDAY

W ED NESDAY

8-12

12-16

16-18

18-2 2

T H U R S DAY

HE UNIVERSITY THE UNIVERSITY

THE UNIVERSITY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

Fig 20. Diagrams showing Frequency of Space Usage over a Day and over a Week. The Darker the Color the more busy is a Room.

E nt ra n c e H a ll

Outside Patio

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

At e li e r

S e minar Ro o m S7

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100

hard borders sof t b o rd er s

3.2_UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN 3.2.5_Borders, Circles & Interstices

HETEROTOPIAS AND BOUNDARIES Boundaries can be natural, spatial, socio-cultural, political, economical, personal etc. In Nature a boundary between two environments is where diversity of life and species thrives the most. In the political debates the concept of the Boundaries (in this case Borders) provokes discussions between the liberals and the concervatives. While the liberals assume that making the borders too thick does not allow the information to pass through, the concervatives respond that thin borders will ultimately lead to the identity loss.

UniL i Entrance Hal l _The Bo rde r

Heterotopia was defined by Foucault as “Other Space” (Foucault, 1967). The word „other„ means that heterotopias constitute themselves through building the boundaries. Building the Boundary does not necessary refer to the separation but opens the possibility of Encounter with the Otherness for the Subject. Without the “Other” there would be no “Self”. What could it mean, when it comes to spaces? According to Muzzonigro the Space could be imagined through the spatial manifestation of Thresholds: the Border, the Circle, the Interstices (Muzzonigro, 2013, p. 13).

UniL i Ate l ie r _The Circle

Wooden Workshops Bregenzer w ald

• The Border - is not a line, but a “Thick Space” at the margin between two different spaces, that creates a possibility for Encounter between two different environments. • The Circle - a practice; a space, where particular Ritual is performed. It is also a “Space of Play”, which unfolds the possibility of Encounter among Differences. • The Interstices - a space or a network of spaces, “fragments of different spatial orders”, which are produced through a process of Recognition and Inclusion (Muzzonigro, 2013, p. 13).

Kunstmuzeum Bregenz

Feldkirch Infrastructure

K MU Zentrum

Univ ersity of Liechtenstein

Kunstmuseum Vaduz

UniL i _The I nte r stice s

Fig 21. Entrance Hall - The Border between two Learning Environments. Fig 22. Outside Patio - The Border between the Inside and the Outside. Fig 23. Atelier - the Circle. Fig 24. Seminar Room S7 - the Circle.

Fig 25-27. Schemes showing University of Liechtenstein’s Borders, Circles and Interstices.

MOROCCO IN SEARCH OF INSPIRATION

3.3_MOROCCO. IN SEARCH OF INSPIRATION

3.3.1_Al Quaraouiyine - the Oldest Centre of Learning

AL QUARAOUIYINE - THE OLDEST CENTRE OF LEARNING

THE MARKET

The seminar week brought us to Morocco and specifically to Fez – cultural and spiritual center, a place, where the oldest university in the world - Al Quaraouiyine – is located.

I find myself running through one of the small and busy streets of Fez, which leads to the old Al Quaraouiyine University. I am surrounded by the overwhelming cacophony of sounds, materials, colors, things, people, conversations, interactions; everything is exposed to the street. I follow the flow, as it is hard to find a place to stop, in fact, it is dangerous to stop. Market street, covered with the wooden latticed panels, which barely let the sun to penetrate through, turns to a small enclosed square full of sun. A few people are sitting on the ground, working with their hammers on the metal pots of different sizes. The sound becomes almost unbearable. On the right side I see the big decorated portal – the public entrance to the university. It is hard to see, what is behind this door but I am happy to jump in there.

As Al Quaraouiyine University has its origin in the mosque; it is deeply rooted in the Islamic tradition and religious studies. It creates an exclusive rather than an inclusive learning environment. The borders of the university are defined clearly and the proximity to the city creates isolation more than it encourages connection. As it can be seen on the map, the strangers are not allowed to access the mosque and the major learning spaces. Although, during the lecture of the president of the university professor Amal Jellal we got an impression about how and where learning takes place. The learning process occurs in a big rectangular room, which is divided into smaller zones by groups of learners in order to establish their own order; they also divide and occupy the nearby walls. Courses that can be interesting to the public take place in a big space near the minaret. Various corners play a crucial role in spiritual activities. It is a very rich learning environment both inside and outside the building with a high quality and diversity of learning spaces.

THE STAIRCASE

Behind the door there is a small hall decorated with tiles; it is a space of transition between the inside and the outside. I feel that I was permitted to enter a certain circle of rituals, as the door behind me closes and sounds from the street become quieter. There are two other doors on the right but there is only one element that attracts my full attention – a steep staircase, which ends somewhere in the sky with another decorated wooden door. The whole focus of this staged one point perspective is captured by this door. The staircase obviously represents a moment of transition, when the accustomed order of things changes to something else. This in-between space is charged with mystery and expectations, and the visitor is welcomed to continue his or her way.

Our task during the trip was to define three different places, where co-existence is predominant in Morocco, to spend at least one hour there and to describe our experience. The layout of the city of Fez forms a very complex environment, where the relationships between spaces are sometimes more important than the spaces themselves. Following the method of Cullen in depicting urban spaces and environments and describing them as a series of drawings, I started searching for sets of spaces, unusual overlaps, which are crucial for the storytelling. Instead of finding three unrelated spaces for this task I chose a sequence of spaces related to knowledge and learning, a sequence of revelations, where a pure drama of juxtaposition is taking place (Cullen, 1995).

THE COURTYARD

We are moving on as a group to a sunny courtyard, which reveals itself behind the wooden door. A courtyard is a traditional element of Moroccan architecture; it is a very private, enclosed space with the light from the top and access to water, which gives a feeling

Fig 28. Entrance to Al Quaraouiyine University.

of protection, shelter and calmness. This particular courtyard has an unusual shape, only three sides of it have colonnaded porches; the forth side is formed by the wall with arched windows - a visual connection with the reading hall of the library. Our group of twenty people is sitting on the wooden chairs and I have a feeling that we fully own the space. It is a space for conversation and sharing the knowledge, that is why the furniture is placed in a small groups. More sitting places for more private talks can be found under the porch in the intimate shade. Following the tradition of Arabic culture all the elements are richly decorated with geometric ornaments, although the furniture stays simple.

MANIFESTO This manifesto is a result of a critical reflection about what makes the spaces described above so delightful. Rich and diversified learning landscapes of the city of Fez go beyond the actual learning spaces of the university; they are deeply interconnected with the local traditions, mythologies, crafts, nature and culture. These heterogeneous landscapes, which at the first glimpse appear to be so conglomerate and complex, at the closer look are shaped by the set of similar repetitive elements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; spatial archetypes, such as a courtyard, a narrow street, a market street, a terrace etc. These archetypes are easily recognizable and in various combinations create a rich and viable environment.

THE DOOR

We are climbing up the small staircase in the corner hidden in the shade from the porch. It was invisible for me before but now I understand that it leads to one of the most important rooms in the building. I find myself in a small dark rectangular room with a low ceiling; the meager light is welling through the portal under the porch and slightly touches one of the walls, which is now in a full focus. The whole space is dedicated to only one element â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the iron door. The motif of the door as a gateway to another world is crucial for Arab culture, but this door is particularly charged with meaning. It is a door with four locks and the head librarian, our guide, tells us that in former times each key belonged to a separate person in order to protect what was stored behind this door. The door is heavy and it opens slowly.

The narratives, which are constituted through the traditional mythology, give the space its spirituality. These narratives are articulated through architectural tools, such as light, materiality, scale, temperature and air quality. For instance, the narrative of the old library space as a hidden mysterious entity is told by the careful staging of the light from the top. Space is always vibrant and never monotonous; each space contains more than one layer of perception and has a depth of meaning. For instance, a courtyard, which is a private or a semi-private space by itself, often continues as a series of niches where the privacy as a space quality is intensified. As Cullen points out, human mind reacts to the contrast between spaces rather than to monotonous experience (Cullen, 1995), which makes contrast one of the most powerful tools in designing spaces. You can fully enjoy being in a calm courtyard only after walking through one of the busy streets of the city of Fez.

THE OLD LIBRARY

We are standing in the semi-dark decorated room with a high wooden ceiling; the room is cool and it creates a pleasant contrast with the heated air outside. The light penetrates through the three arched windows on the top supporting the mysterious atmosphere of the place. This room is a former library, where the most precious books were stored; it can be accessed from the mosque as well as around it from the outside pathway. Now it is empty and the only model of the university building is exposed here. The location of the library room clearly demonstrates that it is not accessible for any stranger. All this encourages the feeling that the whole university complex is a place, where the sacred knowledge that is protected from the outside world is accumulated and preserved.

The architecture can never be entirely experienced in a linear way within a particular time slot; at the end, it is always a plastic experience (Cullen, 1995), where the relationships between spaces are sometimes more important than spaces themselves.

Fig 29. Quaraouiyine University. Sequence of Spaces with Different Atmospheres related to Learning.

EMPIRICAL PART

L ear n i n g L an d sc ap e s

I nt en si v e L ear n i n g E nv i ro n m ent

5.1_DESIGN STRATEGIES

In the chapter “Understanding the University” the definition of the university was given, and it is, first of all, an environment. Generally speaking, under “learning environment” everything around us can be understood. Nonetheless, there are certain places, where this “learning” quality is concentrated and intensified – Intensive Learning Environment. The University of Liechtenstein is perceived as one of these environments, and the answer to the research question lies in programming and designing it as a physical space. This space becomes the tool that helps to articulate the vision that lies behind this project.

the university building so that no physical space will be needed for those learning repertoires. Instead, there will be a greater need for spaces for group work, co-working and other collective activities together with the areas for individual work and different types of concentration. One of the crucial parts of the project was to develop a concept for those learning spaces. The already existing general concept of “learning landscape” inspired me, and it was decided to treat those spaces literally as landscapes. A learning landscape is a set of various atmospheres with different space enclosures, noise regimes, materials applied – spatial archetypes that could be associated with mountains, valleys and rivers – that have blurred or undefined boundary conditions and a possibility of free and non-linear movement between spaces. This concept helps to avoid designing new “boxes” and new conventional classrooms. The former factory building of the University of Liechtenstein offers perfect preconditions to apply this concept. As the current layout does not follow the new system, one of the first steps was to empty the building from the existing entities and structures and to bring It back to its original condition – a big hall.

One of the strategic decisions that was made on the early stage and is crucial for the design is the decision not to build a new building and therefore not to waste energy on the new construction. The potential to accommodate people within the existing structure is seen in renting the whole building, including the areas that belong to the Gemeinde and the Camäleon youth club. Some of these spaces are now used only during a very short period of time, for instance, the administration block of the youth club is occupied only on Wednesday, and stay empty during the rest of the week. It becomes possible to relocate several functions, such as foyer and administration, to the ground floor and to leave the first floor only for learning spaces.

In this chapter, the topic of upcycling has to be mentioned again, as it profoundly influenced how these spaced described above will be executed. One of the design restrictions was the idea to work only with the materials available on site and to follow the zero-waste strategy. For this matter, the Catalog of all the existing elements was completed and all the materials, which were used in the project, can be traced back to this Catalog (Ivakina, 2019).

The other solution for the problem stated in the research question is seen in changing the regimes of usage of the existing spaces. The research about the intensity of space usage does show the capacity of the existing zones in terms of quantity of people, however, what it does not show is how many people are really using the space during the day. The process of careful observations that was taking place during the whole semester clearly showed that most of the spaces are underused, people are simply not there all the time.

In the project it was decided not to go beyond the border of the existing campus, treating the surrounding as “space where everything can happen”. The project narrows the field of actions only to this particular building and the design presented below aims to answer the question - what happens, when we come to this building, as an Intensive Learning Environment?

The process of digitalization is going further in higher education; it essentially means that many activities connected to learning will migrate to the online platforms in the near future. In this project, it is assumed that there will be no lectures and no seminars within

Fig 30. Diagram showing Learning Landscapes and Intensive Learning Environment.

5.2_VISION

MANIFESTO Since prehistoric times, we, as humans, have looked to or below the earth in order to find materials for our buildings. Mining has been going constantly during the last 45,000 years but this process is going to an end as the amount of resources we have is limited; our existing built environment becomes the new source for construction (Ruby & Ruby, 2010). Therefore, this project is focused on the materials, that can be found on site and on spaces, that can be created out of these materials. It is like cooking out of what is in your fridge without having an opportunity to go to a supermarket. Do we really need more space to accommodate twice more people? Do we really need one table per person, a table that is not used all the time? Possibly it can be reduced to a storage unit, where you can store your stuff and choose any other space to work and learn within the whole building, access to which is free all the time? So that you can change your routine every day. You already have your own individual “office” at home with access to all the recourses - internet, food, water, heat and so on. You can use digital learning platforms to listen to the lectures and to pass tests, so you do not have to be in a classroom for that. However, learning will always stay a collective, social experience, that goes far beyond the borders of a classroom. We meet, we talk, we work together in groups on different projects, we develop new ideas and we use the university’s infrastructure. So you come to the university as to a collective space, where you are ready to meet people, to work together; you are exposed to the public and opened to the interactions.

5.3_CONCEPT REVIEW_FIRST INTERVENTION

FOREWORD We are standing in the building, which has 84 columns with 2.2 tons each, more than 200 wooden beams with the summary length of more than 4000 meters and thousands and thousands of other partitions (see the Catalog). This building can accommodate not only the current amount of 600 students but double of this size as well. Following this hypothesis, I made an attempt to test the strategies, fulfilling which could make it possible. As it was understood from the research of the frequency of space usage, the group rooms are often underused. The entrance to these spaces is restricted between the booked class hours making it impossible for students to access them. The East Wing of the building was chosen as a space for the first application of the following strategies.

Fig 31. Building Materiality.

5.3_CONCEPT REVIEW_FIRST INTERVENTION

5.3.1_Design Strategies_Materiality

Fig 32. Diagram. Building as a Resource.

BUILDING AS A RESOURCE The first strategy of the project reflects the subject of materiality. The process of transformation of the existing building is driven by mining the materials, which are already available on site; thereby the university campus becomes the endless source of materials for itself.

WO R K I N G APPLYI NG KNOW LED GE

G E T T IN G E XP E RIE N CE

E XH I B I T I N G

T R AV ELLI N G

LIVING

PER FOR MI N G

TR ANS FO RMING S PACE

S HARING

B U I LDIN G A N ET WOR K STOR I N G

EATI N G TOGETH ER

PRESENTI NG TO PUBLI C

RESEARCHING

S HARING VALUES

LEARNING THRO UG H D O ING

FL ANEURING WRITING DR AWING

E NCO U NTE R I N G

M EET I N G

READING

TRY I N G

D IS CUSS ING IN A S MALL G RO UP

DREAMING

PRESENTING

E XP LO R I N G T H E E N V I RO N ME NT

MAK ING R EFL ECTING O BSERV ING

FAI L I N G

ARG UING

CO NTEMP L ATING

I N T E R AC T I N G W I T H T H E LO CA L COMMUN IT Y

WATC H I N G MOV I ES

TESTI N G

CHATTING

CELEBR ATING

I NVOLVI NG I NTO PUBLI C DI SC USSI ON

CHALLENG ING

FOR MI N G AGEN DA

CO M M U T I N G

R AIS ING Q UES TIO NS

CO L L E CT I N G K N OW L E DG E

D I S CU SS I N G

CO N N E CT IN G

MAKI NG I NTERVENTI ONS

S H AR I N G K N OW L E D G E

personal boundaries b o un d ar i e s of a sm al l g ro up | st ud i o b o un d ar i e s of t h e c am p us

5.3_CONCEPT REVIEW_FIRST INTERVENTION

5.3.2_Design Strategies_Social and Spatial Relationships

Boundary as a Restricted Line

Boundary as a Gradual Domain

RESHAPING SOCIAL AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS The second strategy for the intervention concerns reshaping social and spatial relationships on campus. The diagram shows the map of activities connected to learning starting from the personal boundaries to the boundaries of a group of students and then campus and beyond. As it was pointed out before, the existing layout does not encourage many of these activities to happen. In order to make them happen, it is proposed to transform the existing restricted boundary conditions to the gradual domain, where the learning spaces are defined by activities rather than departments (Boys, 2011), allowing unexpected encounters and interactions to occur.

Fig 33. Diagram of Learning Activities defined by different types of Social Boundaries. Fig 34. Diagram of proposed Transformation of the Boundary Conditions.

Fig 35. Existing Map of Activities.

Zoom 1

Group Learning Passive Learning

Storing Books

Administrating

Individual working

Reading Resting

Storing Archiving

Group Learning Passive Learning

Watching the Clock

Group Learning Passive Learning Group Learning Passive Learning Group Learning Passive Learning

E x i b i t i n g

Group Learning Passive Learning

Informal Gathering

Group Learning Passive Learning

A d m i n i s t r a t i n g

E x i b i t i n g

Passive Learning Group Learning Sitting Presenting

Administrating

Exhibiting

Meeting

Administrating

Sitting Chatting Informal Working

Entering

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Eating Drinking Building Connections Meeting Celebrating

Storing

Paying

E x i b i t i n g

Group Learning Active Learning Individual Sitting Working Presenting Storing Transforming Space

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Meeting Celebrating

Informal Meeting Sitting Eating Chatting Celebrating

Meeting Eating Drinking Informal Talking

Sitting Eating Chatting

Informal Learning Sitting Chatting

Sitting

Informal Working Sitting Discussing

Administrating

Informal Meeting Sitting Eating Chatting Celebrating

Cooking

Group Learning Passive Learning

Receiving Letters

Meeting Eating Drinking Informal Talking

E x i b i t i n g

Active Learning Discussing Presenting Making Exhibiting Transforming Space Watching Movies

Administrating

Informal Working Sitting Discussing Sitting Eating Chatting Exhibiting

Cooking

Individual Working

Making

Sitting Eating Chatting

Group Learning Passive Learning

Active Learning Discussing Presenting Making Exhibiting Transforming Space Watching Movies

Administrating

Sitting Outside Contemplating Enjoying NAture

Printing

Cooking

Making

Celebrating Oﬃcial Gathering

Storing Magazines

Zoom 1

Administrating

Informal Learning Sitting Chatting

Sitting

Sitting Eating Chatting Sitting Outside Eating Chatting Contemplating Enjoying Nature

Storing

Group Learning Passive Learning

Printing

Making

Sitting Chatting Informal Working

Paying

Group Learning Active Learning Individual Sitting Working Presenting g Storing Transforming Space Activation: Opening Space Challenging Arguing

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Eating Drinking Building Connections Meeting Celebrating

Administrating Buying

The map shows the existing learning landscapes of the university defined by activities and types of learning.

Individual Working

Making

Activation: Active Learning Learning through Doing Watching Movies Informal Learning

Storing

Discussing

Watching the Clock

Forum Meeting with the Local Community Entering Exhibiting

EXISTING LEARNING SPACES

Exhibiting

Storing Group Learning Passive Learning

Activation: Argueing Discussing

Paying

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Meeting Celebrating

Storing Magazines

Writing

Individual working Passive Learning Group Learning Sitting Presenting

Exhibiting

Reading

i t i n Flaneuring

Flaneuring

Informal Gathering

Administrating

Individual Working Storing Books Reading Writing

E x i b

Working in a small group

Active Creative space Learning through doing

Individual working

Discussing

Paying

Storing Books

Writing

Reading books

Buying

Working in a small group

Semi-Calm Space

Storing Books

Working in a small group

Reading

Discussing in a small group

Reading

Watching the Clock

Receiving Letters

Storing

t i n g

Informal Gathering

Interacting with Local Community

Exhibiting

Semi-Calm Space

Sitting Chatting

Presenting

Group Learning Passive Learning Transforming Space Doing Sports

Administrating

E x i b i

Writing

Passive Learning Group Learning Sitting Presenting

Group Learning Passive Learning

Group Learning Passive Learning Transforming Space Doing Sports

Watching the Clock

Passive Learning Group Learning Sitting Presenting

Storing Books

Printing

Calm Space

Individual working

Informal Learning Sitting Storing Chatting

Storing Archiving

Resting

Contemplating

Printing

Group Learning Group Learning

---

Storing Group Learning Passive Learning

Celebrating Oﬃcial Gathering

Sitting Eating Chatting

Fig 36. Proposed First Intervention.

Zoom 1

Resting

Contemplating Group Learning Passive Learning

Storing Books

Printing

Calm Space

Individual working

Reading Resting

Storing Archiving

Watching the Clock

Writing Group Learning Passive Learning

Semi-Calm Space

t i n g

Presenting

Storing Books

Writing

Active Creative space Learning through doing

Activation: Argueing Discussing

Administrating

Exhibiting Storing

ing ing ting Informal Meeting Sitting Eating Chatting Celebrating

Activation: Active Learning Learning through Doing Watching Movies Informal Learning

Storing

Discussing

Watching the Clock

Receiving Letters

Forum Meeting with the Local Community Entering Exhibiting

Paying

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Meeting Celebrating

ing zines

Writing

Individual working Passive Learning Group Learning Sitting Presenting

Individual working

Flaneuring

Informal Gathering

Reading

i t i n Flaneuring

Reading books

Group Learning Passive Learning Transforming Space Doing Sports

E x i b

Working in a small group

Storing Books

Working in a small group

Semi-Calm Space

Reading

Informal Gathering

Reading

Discussing in a small group

Sitting Chatting

---

E x i b i

Meeting Eating Drinking Informal Talking

Sitting Chatting Informal Working

E x i b i t i n g

Storing Magazines

Zoom 1 Informal Working Sitting Discussing

Administrating

Sitting Eating Chatting

Informal Learning Sitting Chatting

Sitting

Sitting Eating Chatting Sitting Outside Eating Chatting Contemplating Enjoying Nature

Paying

Group Learning Active Learning Individual Sitting Working Presenting g Storing Transforming Space Activation: Opening Space Challenging Arguing

Exibiting Presenting Discussing On-Campus Eating Drinking Building Connections Meeting Celebrating

Administrating Buying

PROPOSED FIRST INTERVENTION

Exhibiting

Cooking

On the second map proposed interventions are shown. Instead of group rooms for passive learning, the area is divided into zones with different types of atmospheres, for instance, by transforming the fixed wall in the entrance hall this space is activated and becomes space for public discussions and meetings with a local community. The following stripe forms active creative space for discussing and learning through doing, the next semi-calm space and then calm space with the minimum level of noise for reading, resting and contemplating. In the proposed layout a learner can flaneur through the whole landscape. The borders are defined by “thick” elements, such as bookshelves or storage units rather than walls. These elements can be made out of recycled wood; the existing dry walls can be reused for new pieces of furniture.

Storing Individual Working

Group Learning Passive Learning

Making

Group Learning Passive Learning

Active Learning Discussing Presenting Making Exhibiting Transforming Space Watching Movies

Administrating Sitting Outside Contemplating Enjoying NAture

Printing

Sitting Eating Chatting

Printing Cooking

Making

Celebrating Oﬃcial Gathering

UNILI_MATTER

Element 13_Column. M - Steel N - 84 D - h = 8.5m S - Protected

6.1_THE ELEMENT

archaic and the current, the unique and the standard, of

Everything we see, touch, feel and even love can be broken up into small fragments. In physics the process of discovering what is the smallest element the world around us consists of has been going on for centuries and the answer to this question has not yet been found. The idea of breaking something up into small partitions is, in the end, one of the ways of how we understand things. A very fascinating way of exploring.

mechanical smoothness and bricolage

(Koolhaas, 2014).

Each element tells a story of the building in its own way. The careful collection and archaization of the elements that can be found on site became a strong basis for this design project. The result of this work was compiled into the separate volume – UNILI_Matter. Catalog (Ivakina, 2019). The purpose of this collection initially had a materialistic character, as I was searching for the elements that I can reuse or upcycle for the new spaces. However, one can interpret the final collection as one wants.

The story of this project starts from the very fundamentals of the building – Elements. An Element is a unit, an archetype buildings “consist of” - something that we can identify, touch, measure, even rip off (literally and imaginably) and classify. In his compendium Elements of Architecture by bringing the architecture back to its basics, Rem Koolhaas reminded the world about which part of the material world is responsible for the genuine storytelling in architecture.

The order, in which the elements are composed, changes our perception of space. The same elements can be assembled in various combinations and our impression of space will be different each time. Take, for instance, a column. Only by moving it a bit a spatial impact can be gained. Suddenly, the space is not homogeneous anymore and is charged with a certain tension.

The fact that elements change independently of each other, according to different cycles and economies, and for different reasons, turns each building into a complex collage of the

Fig 37. Element 13_Column. Fragment from the Catalog.

6.2_THE SPACE

What is the optimal space that we need for productive knowledge work? Is it a fully enclosed space with the light from the top and zero level of noise or is it a big busy open space, where one can come up with new ideas while talking to other people? The truth is that some people can concentrate better while sitting in a noisy, vivid environment and the others desperately need absolute silence and even low sound can disturb them.

diversified, this attempt was developed into the concept to connect each material with a specific atmosphere it creates. It is hard to underestimate how the choice of material influences our perception of space. In this project, while choosing a material for every particular space, I was trying to follow the honesty of each material and to reflect the unique qualities it possesses. In order to make these choices, I relied on material qualities such as transparency, heaviness, acoustic and tactile qualities, our (and my personal) subjective associations with each material.

Keeping in mind the manifesto, I imagine this new knowledge space as a collective space. This statement rises a question about the typology, and the answer lies in the research chapter of the book - “Knowledge Spaces”. This newly designed space carries more than one meaning and performs more than one function – it is at the same time a library, an office, a museum and a university. In the project, the idea of merging these four typologies found its continuation in the unique type of learning environment with blurred/flexible boundary conditions.

Following this logic, I identified four main materials: brick, earth, textile and wood; each of them gained a spatial representation in this project. Textile is used for spaces for group work, wood – for individual work, brick creates specific enclosures used for deep work, and the last one, the earth, is used for spaces of rest and contemplation. On the time drawings presented below it is shown how these qualities can help to contribute to a certain atmosphere of a learning space.

One of the critical reviews concerning the first proposed intervention the project gained during the midterms was that this open space still stays homogeneous and provides no noise protection. After that, the idea was developed further, and the typology has passed through several stages of transformation. The final result can be described as a spread around atelier space within which the spaces for individual work for different types of concentration are clustered. One has to always pass by spaces for collective work to reach the space for individual work. The reason for this is the attempt to create a more opened and friendly environment and to encourage people to get involved in new interactions.

In the next paragraphs I will give a short description of each type of space and material that is used for creating it. First of all, the project started from the necessity to accommodate the library, as the existing space in the glass box is not anymore sufficient. Instead of having one area allocated to the library function, it is proposed to have a spread out library combined with the spaces for individual work, reading and researching. Wood was chosen as the primary material for those spaces - Wooden Shelters. The bookshelves are integrated into the parts of the existing walls that were left from the previous layout, thereby creating a series of enclosures parallel to the East and West facades. These enclosures are furnished with niches, where additional sitting places are designed. The galleries with isolated working spaces serve as supplementary library areas, thereby creating a gradient of privacy.

The Catalog of materials available on site (Ivakina, 2019), presented in the compressed version in Appendix part of this work, became one of the main drivers for the design and at the same time the main restriction. The strategy of building out of what we have raised the following question: how can we achieve more with the same material? Combined with the idea to make the learning environment of the University of Liechtenstein more rich and

However, as it was proven after completing the Catalog, there is not enough wood available; therefore it was decided to plant the 75

forest on the upper slope of the campus. Meanwhile, it is proposed to use the drywall boards from the demolished interior walls as a temporary building material for the spaces related to wood.

It gives one the feeling of protection; its thermal capacity to collect heat influences its tactile qualities, making it a perfect material for the calm space. It is proposed to use the same earth for the furniture inside the space, for instance, to construct the benches. The earth used in the project can be taken from the upper slope of the campus; it makes it perhaps the most local material in this project.

The central part of the building performs as a big atelier space suitable for group works starting from 3 people. This continuous space with the light from the top is called a Textile River. The studs and other metal partitions of the drywalls were reused as new space definers. Textile leftovers from production in Glarus and Vorarlberg are used to create this space. Removable textile veils, which are hooked between the columns and other space definers, improve the acoustics of the open plan layout, allowing the light to penetrate through and creating smaller spaces of a human scale.

The Sankey diagram on the following page illustrates how the learning landscapes of the University of Liechtenstein can be diversified by using only the existing material. The density of the resulted space depends on how crowded it is. If we take the density of the South Wing for calculations (see chapter 3.2.3), which is 4,3m2 per person, than it becomes possible to accommodate up to 950 people at the same time (the estimate calculation is made only for the first floor). Therefore, the calculation for 1300 people can theoretically give the density of 3,14 m2 per person, which is obviously not the case, as all the people will not be present in the space at the same time. However, it shows in comparison that the new layout has a higher capacity and greater diversity of the learning landscapes.

Brick was chosen as a material for Brick Monoliths - spaces suitable for Deep Work. These are five cylinder-shaped spaces of the different radius with the light coming only from the top. Here one can stay in absolute silence, fully concentrated with a minimum disturbance from the outside world. Brick has a feature to create a cumbersome type of enclosure; it gives a visitor the feeling of absolute isolation, meanwhile forcing him/her to stay concentrated in a certain internal and external rigidity. Brick for these spaces was taken from two outside walls of the North Wing. The opening of the main façade wall helps to create a new entrance zone with the visual access to the valley. The other opening belongs to the Transformer Space, the former Auditorium, which is now relocated to the Ballenlager. This gesture generates a visual connection of the back street with the interior space. It has to mentioned here that these two design decisions involve bringing the external material – glass and window frames - which was initially not the precondition of the project. If to follow the precondition fully, the other proposal where to extract brick from could be upcycling of the pipe.

It is important to mention that students themselves can build all the spaces described above. The process of demolition and construction is shown more precisely on the section drawings below.

The last material – the earth – is used for another type of individual spaces – Earth Huts, spaces for rest and contemplation. It is noticed that the current university’s layout does not provide such informal spaces. The earth is the oldest material ever used in construction.

On the following Pages: Fig 38. Wood. Space for Individual Work, Reading, Researching. Fig 39. Textile. Space for Group Work. Fig 40. Earth. Space for Rest and Contemplation. Fig 41. Brick.Space for Deep Work.

WOOD Space for Individual Work, Reading, Researching

TEXTILE Space for Group Work

EARTH Space for Rest and Contemplation

BRICK Space for Deep Work

Fig 42. Section AA through Learning Landscapes.

Fig 43. Section BB through Learning Landscapes.

Fig 44. First Floor. Learning Landscapes.

7 8

2 4 3

LIST OF SPACES 1 Brick Monoliths_Spaces for Deep Work 2_Textile River_Spaces for Group Work 3_In-Between_Spaces for Light Work 4_Wooden Shelters_Spaces for Individual Work, Reading, Researching 5_Earth Huts_Spaces for Rest and Contemplation 6_Space for Reading and Discussing 7_Space-Transformer 8_Space for Making 9_Archive for Materials D

8 Years

Textile Leftovers (External Material) Forest Earth

8 Years

Textile Leftovers (External Material)

Untouched Landscape Forest

Earth Wood for Learning Landscapes Brick (Existing Walls)

Stays in Existing Untouched Landscape

Gypsym (Dry Walls) Wood (Existing Building) Metal (Existing Building)

Gypsum Downcycled into Material for Model Making Wood for Learning Landscapes

Brick (Existing Walls)

Stays in Existing

Gypsym (Dry Walls) Wood (Existing Building) Metal (Existing Building)

Gypsum Downcycled into Material for Model Making

Forest

Untouched Landscape Forest New Learning Landscapes: Enclosures Furniture Stays in the Existing Untouched Landscape

New Learning Landscapes: 1 YearEnclosures Furniture Stays in the Existing Fig 45. Concept Diagram. Traces of Material.

1 Year Auditorium

Space-Transformer

Auditorium

Atelier Lecture Hall

Auditorium

Seminar Rooms for 50 people Auditorium

Group Rooms for 3 to ... people Opened Amphitheatres Space-Transformer Spaces for Light Work Informal Learning Spaces Workshops Reading Corner Individual Learning Spaces Group Rooms for 3 to ... Niches people Calm Spaces (Earth Huts) Isolated Learning Spaces Space for Deep Work Opened Amphitheatres Spaces for Light Work Informal Learning Spaces Workshops Reading Corner Individual Learning Spaces Niches Calm Spaces (Earth Huts) Isolated Learning Spaces Space for Deep Work

Atelier Seminar Rooms for 30 people Lecture Hall Seminar Seminar Rooms Rooms for for 12 50people people Informal Learning Spaces Workshops Individual Learning Spaces (Library) Seminar Rooms for 30 people Seminar Rooms for 12 people Informal Learning Spaces Workshops Individual Learning Spaces (Library)

Fig 46. Concept Diagram. Diversity.

Fig 47. Map of Upcycling. All the Materials used can be found in the Catalog.

Earth Terrase for planting the Forest Extracting Earth for Earth Installation

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 375 m2 Element 3 p.14

Upcycled Wall Panel Element 95 p.115

Pub

lis

rV er

sion

Earth Installation

Reused Column Element 13 p.24

Reused Internal Glass Wall Element 36 p.47

Upcycled Amphitheatre Element 23 p.34

Upcycled Chipboard Walls Element 4 p.15

Reused Column Element 13 p.24

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 312 m2 Element 3 p.14

Brick Pavillion Upcycled Brick V = 3.2m3

Reused Internal Glass Wall Element 36 p.47 Brick Pavillion Upcycled Brick V = 4.6m3

Brick Pavillion Upcycled Brick V = 4.3m3

Extracted Brick V = 18.8m3

Upcycled Horizontal Studs from Dry Walls Element 3 p.14

Upcycled Glass from the Library Glass Wall converted into Ceiling Element Element 59 p.72 Upcycled Textile From Textile Leftovers with Photovoltaics Upcycled Vertical Wooden Elements converted into Pergolas Element 95 p.105

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 514m2 Element 3 p.14

Reused Round Staircase Element 27 p.38

Extracted Brick V = 68m3 Extended Gallery Reused Slabs 161m2 Element 33 p.44

Upcycled Lining 406m2 Element 85 p.103

Reused Round Staircase Element 27 p.38 Installation from Upcycled Textile Textile Leftovers from production in Glarus and Vorarlberg

Brick Pavillion Upcycled Brick V = 15.6m3 Reused Round Staircase Element 27 p.38 Reused Doors Element 32 p.43

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 263 m2 Element 3 p.14

Reused Glass Wall Element 35 p.46 Reused Round Staircase Element 27 p.38

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 548m2 Element 3 p.14

Reused Glass Wall Element 35 p.46

Brick Pavillion Upcycled Brick V = 8.4m3 Reused Perills Element 41 p.52

Reused Doors Element 32 p.43

Upcycled Vertical Studs from Dry Walls Element 3 p.14

Book Shelves from Upcycled Dry Walls Gypsum Board 335m2 Element 3 p.14

Reused Book Shelves from the Library

6.3_THE SURROUNDING

The logic of the masterplan is following the logic of the internal organization of the University of Liechtenstein’s building, as the project was evolving from the inside to the outside. As it was pointed out before, the necessity to gain more materials influenced the idea of the masterplan. For this reason, it is proposed to plant a forest on the upper slope of the campus.

houses - the view to the valley. The wooden workshop pavilion is relocated from its current position to the middle of the forest and is serving as a new sawing mill. The strategy to keep as much as possible and to use only the available materials is applied to the lower part of the slope as well. For this reason and in order to provide access to the main entrance the project introduces the cascade of the stone steps. The stone blocks out of Actinolite shale, which are used for the steps, can be found on the mountain’s upper slope. It is proposed to cover the gaps between the steps with another local material - the alluvial gravel - so that the grass can grow through it and people can walk unhindered when it rains. The other part of the land is left untouched and can be used as grazing land.

As it was discovered after the comprehensive research, three types of trees, which already grow elsewhere in Liechtenstein could be planted for those purposes – scots pine, oak and maple (Amt für Wald, Natur und Landschaft Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 2010). Using more than one type prevents the dominance of one species and revives the biodiversity of the land. Tree saplings are planted on the flattened terraces in rows along the relief lines with the three-meter distance in all directions. This distance is optimal for planting the sparse forest for timber production; however, it can also be reduced up to two meters to grow high-quality hardwood trees (Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung, 2011).

The current strategy of gaining the energy from the horizontal surfaces exposed to the sun, such as roofs and canopies, finds its continuation in the project. The masterplan includes covering the passway between the main building and the clubhouses as well as the charging area for the electric cars with soft photovoltaics. The produced electricity can be used in the first case for machines in the workshops and in the second case for the university’s shuttles.

The earth for the interior can also be taken from one of the terraces during the planting process. Certain areas are left unplanted on the masterplan, as they provide the fairways for the neighbouring 91

Fig 48. Masterplan. existing trees

pla nt ed fore st

Pub

lis

rV er

sion 0.

sawing mill

waiting spot

electric car chargers

35 Easy-Mile self-driving shuttles | 12 people per shuttle

drop-off spot

textile roof cover | soft photovoltaics

velopoint for 50 E-Bikes

6.4_MOBILITY CONCEPT

The concept continues the idea of Studio Schwarz of the same year to make the whole territory of Liechtenstein free-of-cars zone. However, it is presumed that private electric cars are still permitted.

spot. The waiting zone for five shuttles is planned near the main entrance, as well as the zone for the electric chargers. For the available parking lots the hotspot parking system is implemented; it is possible to book a spot in the app, which is also valid for the hotspot desks in the university building itself.

The project proposes not to increase the number of existing parking lots and consequently the number of cars, as it is assumed that not all the people will be at the university at the same time. Instead, 35 Easy-Mile self-driving shuttles for 12 people each are implemented. Thereby it is possible to transport a maximum of 420 people at the same time.

It is also proposed to extend the covered bike parking under the cafeteria building up to 40 bike places, as more and more people at the university use I-Bikes for commuting.

Easy-Mile shuttle can achieve the maximum speed of 45 km/h, which corresponds with the maximum speed limit allowed in Liechtenstein â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50km/h. A shuttle can be requested online in the app; it automatically builds the most optimized route and can pick people up from any location within Liechtenstein or on the border. In order to encourage the commuters from abroad to use this system, it is proposed to establish a network of intercepting parking spots on the border, where people can drop their fuel vehicles. A shuttle can park itself automatically afterwards on the available

Fig 49. Easy-Mile Self-Driving Shuttle.

CONCLUSION

The project that was presented and described in this book focused on designing the future model for the University of Liechtenstein in the condition of doubling the amount of students without building a new building. The aim of this work was to reflect on the complicated issues the higher education is facing today, to form a holistic, integrated vision and to translate it into the architectural project. In order to do that, the educational strategies, new regimes of space usage and spatial qualities were found and described.

instance, is it always necessary to propose building a new building, or the same results can be achieved by reprogramming the regimes of usage of the existing structures. This project can be taken as an example of how after the careful investigation this decision can be made. As it was mentioned before, it is hard to give a consistent answer to the whole branch of the complicated questions that has been stated in this work. The future research needs to put a greater focus, for instance, on finding a systematic approach to the topic of upcycling, as this project does not cover all the issues connected to this topic. It concerns the question about how much material can really be upcycled, as great material loss and damage can be expected during the process of demolition. In addition to that, during the final presentation, the question raised about the teaching methods that can be implemented within the proposed space. In this case, it is important to state the limitations of the architectural approach that have to be taken into account.

Theoretical approach strengthened by the comprehensive research has been developing in conjunction with the design. Careful working with the existing building, systematizing the materials available on site and focus on the necessity to diversify the existing learning landscapes of the University of Liechtenstein as a first priority gave the project a strong foundation. Through the conscious and sensitive implementation of various micro-environments heterogeneous learning landscape was created; the landscape that stimulates learning, opens up the possibilities for changing the everyday routine of each student and provides the opportunities for new interactions. All described above was done only by using the existing materials thereby proving that upcycling is a viable design strategy. Through the topic of upcycling, the project argues that the proposed design is sustainable.

To summarize everything that has been said before, the project aims to show how the chosen theoretical and spatial approach helped to shape the design of the future campus of the University of Liechtenstein. The campus is seen as a holistic entity and at the same time a heterogeneous environment for teaching, learning, communicating, sharing, interacting; a place where knowledge can be accumulated and reflected back to the outside world.

One of the most crucial statements that lies behind this project is the ambition to reconsider the responsibilities of the profession, for 97

LIST OF FIGURES

p.24

p.26

Fig 1.

The Ground Plan of the Diocletian Palace in Split in the 4th Century AD. Retrieved from http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/58200/58216/58216_diocletian.htm

Fig 2.

The Ground Plan of the Historical Nucleus of Split after the Recycling Process during the Medieval Times. Retrieved from https://www.flickr. com/photos/21711359@N08/3968375941

Fig 3.

A Panorama of Construction Waste in Horten, Norway. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_waste#/media/File:D30_5495_ stitch2.jpg

p.32-33 Fig 4.

Fig 5. p.36-37 Fig 6.

View to the Cotton Spinning Mill Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. in Vaduz Ebenholz from the surrounding fields around 1900. Retrieved from http://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/rest/image/000326952_110/00000013.tif/full/max/0/000326952_110_12. pdf?divID=LOG_0003&watermarkText=Liechtensteinische%20Landesbibliothek. Historical Evolution. Adapted from Compendium, by Studio Staub & Böckle WS18/19, 2018, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz.

Airview to the Cotton Spinning Mill Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. between 1918-1937. Reprinted from ETHBIB.Bildarchiv, by W. Mittelholzer, 1918-1937, Retrieved from https://www.e-pics.ethz.ch/index/ethbib.bildarchiv/ETHBIB.Bildarchiv_LBS_MH03-1592_581280.html

Fig 7.

Shed Hall Historical Structure. Reprinted from Spoerry-Fabrik, Vaduz FL (p. 14), by Karl + Probst, 2011, München.

Fig 8.

Construction Site in 2000. Demolishing and Rebuilding the Entire Structure. Reprinted from “Wie ein altes Wahrzeichen von Vaduz neu entsteht”, 2000, Vaduz Direkt, 21, p. 9.

Fig 9.

Construction Site in 2000. Cafeteria & Library Building. Retrieved from https://www.pinterest.de/pin/558939003726395759/.

p.38-39 Fig 10&11. p.40-41 Fig 12&13. p.42-43 Fig 14&15.

Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the Ground Floor. Adapted from Compendium, by Studio Staub & Böckle WS18/19, 2018, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz. Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the First Floor. Adapted from Compendium, by Studio Staub & Böckle WS18/19, 2018, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz.. Diagrams and Axonometry showing Space Distribution and Space Usage for the Second Floor. Adapted from Compendium, by Studio Staub & Böckle WS18/19, 2018, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz.

p.44-45 Fig 16-19. p.46-47 Fig 20. p.48-49 Fig 21.

Schemes showing the Capacity and Density of Each Floor. By Author.

Diagrams showing Frequency of Space Usage over a Day and over a Week. The Darker the Color the more busy is a Room. Adapted from Compendium, by Studio Staub & BĂśckle WS18/19, 2018, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz. Entrance Hall - The Border between two Learning Environments. By Author.

Fig 22.

Outside Patio - The Border between the Inside and the Outside. By Author.

Fig 23.

Atelier - the Circle. By Author.

Fig 24.

Seminar Room S7 - the Circle. By Author.

Fig 25-27.

Schemes showing University of Liechtensteinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Borders, Circles and Interstices. By Author.

p.52 Fig 28.

Entrance to Al Quaraouiyine University. Photo By Author.

p.54 Fig 29.

Quaraouiyine University. Sequence of Spaces with Different Atmospheres related to Learning. Hand Sketches By Author.

p.58 Fig 30.

Diagram showing Learning Landscapes and Intensive Learning Environment. By Author.

p.64-65 Fig 31.

Building Materiality. Photo Collage By Author.

Fig 32. p.66-67 Fig 33. Fig 34.

Diagram. Building as a Resource. By Author. Diagram of Learning Activities defined by different types of Social Boundaries. By Author. Diagram of proposed Transformation of the Boundary Conditions. By Author.

100

p.68-69 Fig 35. Fig 36. p.72 Fig 37. p.78-81 Fig 38.

Existing Map of Activities. By Author. Proposed First Intervention. By Author. Element 13_Column. Fragment from the Catalog. Adapted from UNILI_Matter. Catalog (p. 24), by O. Ivakina, 2019, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz. Wood. Space for Individual Work, Reading, Researching. Hand-drawn by Author.

Fig 39.

Textile. Space for Group Work. Hand-drawn by Author.

Fig 40.

Earth. Space for Rest and Contemplation. Hand-drawn by Author.

Fig 41.

Brick.Space for Deep Work. Hand-drawn by Author.

p.82-83 Fig 42.

Section AA through Learning Landscapes. By Author.

p.84-85 Fig 43.

Section BB through Learning Landscapes. By Author.

p.86-87 Fig 44.

First Floor. Learning Landscape. By Author.

p.88-89 Fig 45.

Concept Diagram. Traces of Material. By Author.

Fig 46.

Concept Diagram. Diversity. By Author.

Fig 47.

Map of Upcycling. All the Materials used can be found in the Catalog. By Author.

p.92-93 Fig 48.

Masterplan. By Author.

p.94 Fig 49.

Easy-Mile Self-Driving Shuttle. Retrieved from http://www.easymile.com

101

REFERENCE LIST

Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung. Abteilung Forstwesen (Vc). (2011). Handbuch der Vorarlberger Waldgesellschaften. Retrieved from http://www.vjagd.at/ vorstellung-des-handbuch-der-vorarlberger-waldgesellschaften/ Amt für Wald, Natur und Landschaft Fürstentum Liechtenstein. (2010). Liechtensteinisches Landeswaldinventar. Ergebnisse der dritten Erhebung 2010. Vaduz. Retrieved from https://www.llv.li/files/au/pdf-llv-au-landeswaldinventar_2012_awnl.pdf Barnett, R. (2016). Understanding the University. Institution, Idea, Possibilities. New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Intellectual Field: a World Apart. In In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity. Boys, J. (2011). Towards Creative Learning Spaces: Re-thinking the Architecture of Post-Compulsory Education. New York: Routledge. Bulfin, S., Bigum, C., & Johnson, N. F. (2015). Critical Perspectives on Technology and Education. Palgrave Macmillan US. Comunian, R., & Gilmore, A. (2015). Beyond the Creative Campus: Reflections on the Evolving Relationship between Higher Education and the Creative Economy. London: King’s College London. Cullen, G. (1995). The Concise Townscape. Architectural Press. Foucault, M. (1967). Of Other Spaces. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Hoeger, K. (2007). Campus and the City - A Joint Venture? In Campus and the City. Urban Design for the Knowledge Society. Zurich: gta Verlag. Ivakina, O. (2019). UNILI_Matter. Catalog. Unpublished Catalog, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz. Karl + Probst. (2011). Spoerry-Fabrik, Vaduz, FL (2nd ed.). München. Kirkwood, A. (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’ rather than technological determinism. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(3). Koolhaas, R. (2014). Elements of Architetcure. Italy: Marsilio. Koolhaas, R., & Boom, I. (2014). Elemets of Architecture. Wall. Italy: Marsilio.

102

Langenberg, S. (2018, November). About shortage and blemish. Reuse and recycling in postwar architecture. Presented at the Reuse & Upcycle as a Design Principle in Architecture, Vaduz. Murrey, J. (2010, September 6). Any Time, any Place, any Way. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world-of-learning/future-learning Muzzonigro, A. (2013). Dwell the Threshold: Encountering Otherness. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 27(2), 9-15. Ponzo, G. (2015). Envisioning the Future Architecture of Knowledge Creation. Presented at the The Value of Design Research. 11th European Academy of Design Conference, Paris. Redling, A. (2018, March 5). Construction debris volume to surge in coming years. Construction & Demolition Recycling. Retrieved from https://www.cdrecycler.com/article/global-volume-construction-demolition-waste/ Renovation und Umnutzung der Spoerry-Fabrik. (1999). Vaduz Direkt, (17), 10–11. Ruby, I., & Ruby, A. (Eds.). (2010). Re-Inventing Construction. Berlin: Ruby Press. Studio Staub & Böckle WS18/19. (2018). Compendium. Unpublished Compendium, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz. Weitensfelder, H. (2011). Jenny, Spoerry & Cie. Historisches Lexicon des Füstentums Liechtenstein online (eHLFL). Retrieved from https://historisches-lexikon.li/ Jenny,_Spoerry_&_Cie. Wie ein altes Wahrzeichen von Vaduz neu entsteht. (2000). Vaduz Direkt, (21).

103

104

APPENDICIES

105

Element 1_External Wall Main Building.

Element 2_Internal Loadbearing Wall.

Element 3_Drywall with Studs.

Element 4_Chipboard Wall.

Element 5_Window Nº1.

Element 6_Window Nº2.

Element 7_Window Nº3.

M - Brick D - v ≈ 1680m3 S - Protected

M - Brick L - Middle Wing N-2 D - l = 29.46m h = 6.4m w = 0.67m S - Protected

M - Gypsymboard, Metal D - as ≈ 3250m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Chipboard N-8 D - l = 2.5m h = 4.4m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass N - 31 D - h = 2.9m w = 1.8m S - Protected

M - Wood, Glass N - 30 D - h = 2m w = 1.45m S - Protected

M - Wood, Glass N-7 D - h = 1.5m w = 0.9m S - Protected

Element 8_Window Nº4.

Element 9_Back Window.

Element 10_Side Window North.

Element 13_Column.

Element 14_Main Double Beams.

M - Wood, Glass N - 18 D - h = 2.8m w = 1.6m S - Protected

M - Wood, Glass L - North Wing N-3 D - h = 2.24m w = 1.6m S - Protected

Element 11_Side Window South Nº1.

Element 12_Side Window South Nº2.

M - Wood, Glass N-2 D - h = 1.375m w = 0.9m S - Protected

M - Wood, Glass N-7 D - h = 2.7m w = 1.44m S - Protected

M - Steel N - 84 D - h = 8.5m S - Protected

M - Wood N - 84 D - h = 0.3m ls = 1010m S - Protected

Element 15_Tension Rod.

Element 16_Main Building Roof Shingles.

Element 17_Rooftop Window Nº1.

Element 18_Rooftop Window Nº2.

Element 19_Acoustic Panels.

Element 20_Beam Main Hall.

Element 21_Framework Main Hall.

M - Steel N - 160 D - l = 3.96m S - Protected

M - Ceramic L - Roof N - a = 2700m2 S - Protected

M - Glass, Metal L - Roof N - 13 D - l = 45.6m w = 1.6m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass, Metal L - Roof N - 17 D - l = 31m w = 1.6m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood D - a = 198.1m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood L - Middle Wing N - 86 D - l = 4.6m h = 0.25m w = 0.12m S - Protected

M - Wood L - Middle Wing N -9 D - l = 5.8m S - Protected

Element 22_Longitudinal Beam Main Hall.

Element 23_Amphitheatre.

Element 24_Main Staircase.

Element 25_Studio Staircase Nº1.

Element 26_Studio Staircase Nº2.

Element 27_Round Staircase.

Element 28_Elevator Nº1.

M - Wood L - Middle Wing N-1 D - l = 29.7m h = 0.315m w = 0.16m S - Protected

M - Metal L - South Wing N-1 D - l = 8.2m w = 12.8m S - Upcyclable

M - Concrete L - Middle Wing N-1 S - Upcyclable

M - Metal, Chipboard L - North Wing N-2 S - Upcyclable

M - Concrete, Chipboard L - North Wing N-2 S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-4 S - Upcyclable

M - Metal L - Middle Wing N-1 S - Upcyclable

Element 29_Entrance Block Nº1.

Element 30_Entrance Block Nº2.

Element 31_Door External Main Building.

Element 32_Door Internal Main Building.

Element 33_Gallery Slab.

Element 34_Internal Glass Wall Nº1.

Element 35_Internal Glass Wall Nº2.

M - Metal L - North Wing N-1 D - h = 3.15m w = 6.8m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-2 D - l = 2.825m h = 2.8m w = 2.3m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass, Metal N-4 D - h = 2.15m w = 2.6m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N - 76 D - h = 2.137m w = 1.13m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal, Chipboard D - a = 950m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Glass L - North Wing N-2 D - w = 2.27m h = 2.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass L - North Wing D - w = 2.9m h = 2.5m S - Upcyclable

Element 36_Internal Glass Wall Nº3.

Element 37_Internal Glass Wall Nº4.

Element 38_Internal Glass Wall Nº5.

Element 39_Floor Beam.

Element 40_Floor Beam Longitudional.

Element 41_Perill Nº1.

Element 42_Water Collection Pipe.

M - Glass, Metal L - South Wing N-3 D - l = 2.67m h = 4.42m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass, Metal L - North Wing N-2 D - l = 2.67m h = 2.51m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass, Metal L - North Wing N-2 D - l = 2.67m h = 1.9m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood L - North Wing N-8 D - l = 5.2m h = 0.1m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood L - North Wing N-8 D - l = 19.2m h = 0.12m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass D - h = 0.9m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N - 60 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - South Wing N-4 D - h = 2.15 w = 1.44 S - Protected

106

APPENDIX

Catalog of Elements

Element 43_Basement Plate.

Element 44_Loadbearing Column.

Element 45_Floor Longitudinal I-Beam.

Element 46_Floor Transversal Contour I-Beam.

Element 47_Floor Transversal I-Beam.

Element 48_Roof Longitudinal I-Beam.

Element 49_Roof Transversal Contour I-Beam.

M - Concrete N-8 D - l = 0.7m w = 0.7m h=2.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N-8 D - w = 0.3m h = 6.4m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N-2 D - L ≈ 58m h = 0.23m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N-2 D - l ≈ 9.7m h ≈ 0.23m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N - 43 D - l ≈ 9.7m h ≈ 0.2m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N-2 D - L ≈ 58m h = 0.2m S - Upcyclable

M - Steel N-2 D - L ≈ 9.7m h = 0.2m S - Upcyclable

Element 50_Roof Transversal I-Beam.

Element 51_Cafeteria Roof Metal Sheets.

Element 52_Elevator Nº2.

Element 53_Window Opening.

Element 54_Impost.

Element 55_Corner Impost.

Element 56_Cross.

M - Steel N - 43 D - l ≈ 9.7m h ≈ 0.18m S - Upcyclable

M - Corrugated Metal D - a = 563m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Concrete, Metal N-1 S - Upcyclable

M - Glass N - 41 D - w = 2.45m h = 4m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N - 58 D - h = 4m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-4 D - h = 4m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N - 16 S - Upcyclable

Element 57_Sun Protection Element.

Element 58_External Staircase.

Element 59_Internal Glass Wall Library.

Element 60_Bridge Roof.

Element 61_Bridge Wall.

Element 62_External Wall Ballenlager.

Element 63_Tree Column.

M - Metal D - a = 510m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-2 S - Upcyclable

M - Glass N-1 D - l = 4.6m h = 4m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-1 D - w = 2m l = 11m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-2 D - h = 3m l = 11.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Brick D - v = 90m3 S - Protected

M - Wood N - 12 D - h = 10m S - Protected

Element 64_Roof Beam Nº1.

Element 65_Roof Beam Nº2.

Element 66_Roof Window Ballenlager.

Element 67_Window Nº5.

Element 68_Gate.

Element 69_Floor Slab.

Element 70_External Walls Clubhouses.

M - Wood N-4 D - l = 9.4m S - Protected

M - Wood N - 108 D - ls = 464m w = 0.156m h = 0.169m S - Protected

M - Glass N-4 D - l = 4.25m h1 = 1.4m h2 = 0.65m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass N-6 D - w = 1.6m h = 3.2m S - Protected

M - Metal N-2 D - w = 3.4m h = 6m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Brick N-1 D - l = 22m w = 22m S - Protected

M - Brick D - v = 65m3 S - Upcyclable

Element 71_Window Nº6.

Element 72_Window Nº7.

Element 73_Window Nº8.

Element 74_Window Nº9.

Element 75_Window Nº10.

Element 76_Window Nº11.

Element 77_Roof Shingles Clubhouses.

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 2 N - 15 D - w = 1.4m h = 1.3m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 2 N-6 D - w = 1.2m h = 1.8m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 1 N-2 D - w = 1.2m h = 1.8m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 1 N-1 D - w = 1.2m h = 1.675m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 1 N-2 D - w = 1.2m h = 1.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 2 N-1 D - l = 6m h = 2.915m S - Upcyclable

M - Ceramic D - a = 115m2 S - Upcyclable

Element 78_Rooftop Window Nº3.

Element 79_Staircase Nº1.

Element 80_Door Nº1.

Element 81_Door Nº2.

Element 82_External Entrance Element.

Element 83_ Door External Nº1.

Element 84_Perill Nº2.

M - Wood, Glass L - Clubhouse 1 N-3 D - l = 2.3m w = 0.7m S - Upcyclable

M - Concrete L - Clubhouse 2 N-3 S - Upcyclable

M - Metal L - Clubhouse 1 N - 23 D - w = 1m h = 2.2m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal L - Clubhouse 2 N-1 D - h = 2.24m w = 1.6m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass, Metal L - Clubhouse 2 N-1 D - l = 2.2m w = 2.2m h = 2.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal L - Clubhouse 1 N-1 D - l1 = 3.25m h1 = 2.69m l2 = 2m h2 = 2.69m S - Upcyclable

M - Glass L - Clubhouse 1 S - Upcyclable

107

108

Element 85_Lining.

Element 86_Facade Panels.

Element 87_Floor Beams.

Element 88_Window Nº12.

Element 89_Window Nº13.

Element 90_Window Nº14.

Element 91_Window Nº15.

M - Wood L - Shooting Range D - a = 410m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood D - a = 412m2 S - Protected

M - Wood N-1 D - a = 117m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass N-1 D - w = 5m h = 4m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass N-8 D - l = 2.52m h = 1.52m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass, Metal N-1 D - l = 2.4m h = 2.8m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Glass N-2 D - l = 4.5m S - Upcyclable

Element 92_Roofing Sheets Ski Museum.

Element 93_Roof Beam Ski Museum.

Element 94_Staircase Nº2.

Element 95_Internal Wooden Wall.

Element 96_Pipe Nº1.

Element 97_Pipe Nº2.

Element 98_Visor.

M - Corrugated Metal D - a = 158m2 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood N - 27 D - l = 11m S - Upcyclable

M - Wood N-2 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood N-1 D - l = 11m w = 0.25m h = 8m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N-1 S - Upcyclable

M - Wood, Metal N-1 D - l = 2.2m w = 1.17m S - Upcyclable

Element 99_Main Pipe.

Element 100_I-Column.

Element 101_Hall Roof Beam.

Element 102_ Door External Nº2.

Element 102_ Door External Nº3.

M - Brick N-1 D - h = 22m r = 0.88m S - Protected

M - Steel N - 14 D - h = 7.5m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal N - 15 D - l = 21.7m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal, Glass N-3 D - w = 2.3m h = 2.4m S - Upcyclable

M - Metal, Glass N-1 D - w = 3m h = 2.6m S - Upcyclable

109

110

APPENDIX

Installation

438

This installation was made to test the idea of building out of the drywall boards. Following the zero-waste strategy, it is proposed to upcycle all the demolished drywalls from the interior and to reuse them as a new building material. New installations were designed, first of all, to accommodate the library temporarily. This material has a specific appearance and qualities - it is very heavy and very fragile at the same time. Nevertheless, the plasterboards can be easily cut by hand in the vertical or horizontal position either with a utility knife or with a saw. This stool was built out of 12mm boards by two people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sukha Zviadauri and me â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it was easier and more fun to cut the boards together. As can be seen on the section drawings in chapter 6, the first idea was to put the pieces layer by layer, considering that gypsum performs no loadbearing qualities. However, as it was discovered after building this stool, less material is needed and two boards put on the edge can carry the weight of one person. Fig 50. Stool made of the Drywall Board. Fig 51. Axonometry showing the Building Process.

111

112

APPENDIX Model

113

114

AFFIDAVIT

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the present paper has been prepared independently by myself and without unpermitted aid. Anything that has been taken verbatim or paraphrased from other writings has been identified as such. This paper has hitherto been neither submitted to an examining body in the same or similar form, nor published.

Vaduz, 31.01.2019 Olga Ivakina

115