Thinking Eyes Portfolio Sonia Jackett and Lisa Markström

THINKING EYES SHOW ME YOUR SITE SPECIFICITY! Sonia Jackett and Lisa Markstrรถm THEME COURSE LK0181 PERIOD 1 ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014 2-9-2013 to 10-11-2013

THINKING EYES SHOW ME YOUR SITE SPECIFICITY! THEME COURSE LK0181 PERIOD 1 ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014 2-9-2013 to 10-11-2013 Course leader Lisa Diedrich, professor of landscape architecture at SLU Alnarp Course teachers Lisa Diedrich, professor of landscape architecture at SLU Alnarp Mads Farso Rasmussen, PhD, landscape architect FARSO HAVE, senior lecturer at the University of Copenhagen Peter Dacke, arts lecturer at SLU Alnarp Juan Carlos Peirone, arts lecturer at SLU Alnarp Kani Abu-Bakr, PhD Fellow at SLU Ultuna

CONTENTS UNDERSTANDING SITES AND DESIGN APPROACHES TO SITE IN THE ÖRESUND REGION DESIGN CRITIQUE DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC APPROACHES TO ALNARP CAMPUS FINAL EXHIBITION

UNDERSTANDING SITES AND DESIGN APPROACHES TO SITE IN THE ÖRESUND REGION

understanding the dynamics of a space What is site specificity? Well, what is a site? A site is physical matter - objects, surfaces and materials - but a site also carries within it elements which speak to us in a metaphysical, more abstract, way; constituted by memories, history, a collective consciousness.... A site, a space, can be defined by boundaries, since that is how we usually specify space; but we, through our subjectivity and as we move through that space, set those boundaries.

We should not limit ourselves to look at physical and mental structures such as boundaries, since these in themselves tell a story about movement, forces and flows. By movment, forces and flows we mean such elements that develop over time such as geological phenomenon as well as cultural, political, social and/or economical value. If we approach the concept of boundaries as something that fluctuates and is permeable, one could reveal that different flows of influences are moving through the site – reshaping it, adding to or erasing something from it, maybe only slightly, maybe in a profound way.

This process is what we define as a process of layering. Layers as process can tell us geological and topographical information but also societal and philosophical, cultural stories – the layers of influences and forces. Our “thinking eyes” are also part of the layering and the dynamics of flow.

So, considering all this; What is a site? A site is dynamic – it is in a constant state of flux. It is the mentioned layers and forces which constitute a specific site, a specific space. Conversely, however, as layers and forces are constantly evolving (people, culture, traffic, politics, economics, festivals, rituals, weather, use, etc). they also make the site non-specific, in the sense that the site is in constant flux.

What is site specificity?

IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DYNAMICS OF A SPACE.

AN EXPLORATION OF SITE SPECIFICITY Part I Through using film, collage and a conceptual model we embraced the task of analysing a designer’s approach to site specificity. We researched Monika Gora, a landscape architect based in Malmö, and her project The Glass Bubble (2006), situated in Västra Hamnen, Malmö.

At First So Near (film stills) The 45 second film takes in the surrounding context and microclimate of the site. The harsh, dull and stormy weather conditions are juxtaposed to the tranquility and luxurious green inside The Bubble.

WHY NOT BUILD A JUNGLE?

Why Not Build a Jungle?

This mixed media collage represents the playfulness in Gora’s approach. Between the nineteenth century until the 1980s the harbour was succesively built up from landfill, the harbour area has become a physical metaphor of history - how land and sea has been recreated at the hands of man. Considering all this, why not put something out of the ordinary here?

A Place: Utopia?

The Glass Bubble is majestic, something one is drawn too. It is admired by those who pass by. The Glass Bubble, however, is also private property. One can imagine what it feels like to be inside - in the warmth - but an outsider can only see, or imagine what it is like inside this beautiful space.

DESIGN CRITIQUE

The Glass Bubble An Exploration of Site Specificity

The Glass Bubble is a project, which undoubtedly embodies its name. Located in the Western Harbour (Västra Hamnen) of the southern Swedish city Malmö, Monika Gora’s design for a courtyard is an organically shaped glass structure, accompanied by a small outdoor garden. It was commissioned by Södertorpsgården, an organisation that manages buildings for elderly people in Malmö.

Our methodology and analysis will be based on a framework proposed by Lisa Diedrich in her dissertation Translating Harbourscapes – Site-specific Design Approaches in Contemporary European Harbour Transformation (2013). We however, have adapted certain terminology to better reflect the elements of Monika Gora’s approach to site specificity. This framework will be used a guideline, alongside our own hermeneutic understanding of the site that has been gathered over the past three weeks whilst researching the Glass Bubble and Monika Gora’s approach to site.

Lastly, we will look to contemporary theory and use this as the context for our analysis.

KEY WORDS: exploration/ Glass Bubble/ site specificity/ Malmö/ Monika Gora

Figure 1.

The Glass Bubble

Site Reading

Structure, Form and Materiality ‘We walk outwards, with our minds open; we look inwards, thoughts wandering in time with the rhythm of a walking pace. The environment shapes our thoughts.’

(Foxley & Vogt 2010, 31)

What landscape architects Gunther Vogt and Alice Foxley mean by this, is that in the search for the unknown, the search rather than the finding is what brings us closer to the investigated object. This attitude can also be found in Monika Gora’s approach to site specificity, as it is governed by an intimate on-site experience: Q: What is your approach to site specificity? How do you research a site?

Gora: I go and look. I imagine being there…the user…and think ‘what do I want here?’

I don’t collect details from the site…I visit it and somehow come to know the site.

(Gora 2013) In the case of The Glass Bubble, this approach to site specificity is combined with studying the building plans and through drawing sections (Gora 2013).The initial development of the project was inspired by a previous, unbuilt, project; ‘The Sheltered Tree’ (Iceland, 1994) and a few quick sketches and models (Gora 2012). When looking into how Gora has read the site in the Western Harbour, it is clear that certain factors had a larger impact on the direction of the design. Monika Gora reads the structure of the site as a hindrance: ‘I was quite stuck in the idea that this building has been designed wrong. But you have to accept the situation.’

(Gora 2013) It is clear that the structure of The Glass Bubble is dictated by the surrounding space syntax; the building that envelops the Bubble is of an awkward U-shape. Gora’s response to the U-shaped development is to orientate the larger end of the glasshouse towards the water, offering expansive views across the Öresund.

Monika’s concept drawings show the idea of creating not one, but two gardens – a low lying outside garden and a luxurious tall, glass greenhouse. As such, she ‘accept[‘s] the situation’ (Gora 2013) of the built fabric in one way (the horizontal spatial syntax), but does not limit herself to it in another (for example, instead of creating a purely low lying garden, she builds a organic bulbous pavilion). The idea to place varying levels of intervention across the site, in order to shield views from windows on one side of the building into the other, is indicative of her statement that she studied the building’s

Figure 2. Section sketch of the proposed design

bluprints (Gora 2013). As mentioned, when undertaking the commission, Gora visited the area - after the 2001 exhibition. She absorbed certain aspects of the site: the solid, static and linear forms in the new development and read them as monotonous (Gora 2013). The new architecture built for the exhibition therefore shaped her ideas in the initial phase of the design process.

There is a general lack of reading of materials previously found on site. This is in the sense that no upgrades or unifications have been made with the surrounding building.

Although, the Scanian coastal landscape likely influenced her choice of plants for the outdoor garden, with its hardy grasses and pine trees able to stand the harsh climate.

Processes and Practices Natural processes are extremely important in this project, as the raison d’être of the site is to protect its users from the harsh conditions of the harbour environment. As The Glass Bubble is located only a couple of meters from the open ocean, the site is subjected to direct winds coming from the West, creating a salty, moist and windy climate (Länsstyrelsen 2013).

Furthermore the site, which Gora describes as ‘dark [and] narrow’ with shadows falling on the yard for the majority of the day, enforced Gora to ask the question: ‘Would it be possible to create a garden here?’ (Gora 2012: 18). In providing a shelter from the conditions created by climate and surrounding structures, Gora’s design reflects a clear response and reading of the particular site conditions.

In terms of practices and use, the garden is specifically for the residents of the senior housing complex in which the Bubble is situated. The garden is a protective place for the 55 plus age group of residents, has benches inside for rest and the front of the bubble is higher, more open and clear of plants in order to offer views across the Öresund and Scania Plaza. Moreover, the practice of the harbour promenade as a public space has been read. Thus the Bubble offers something to look at, inquire and explore within the urban fabric.

Gora: ‘… this is here…. “what do I want to do here?” You think “ok this is good for me, living here, people pass by”…’

(Gora 2013)

Memories and the Transcendental The drawings, comments and writings by Monika Gora do not indicate any notion of a collective consciousness of memories. History has played out many stories at Malmö harbour. The ship building industry helped to not only build the local economy but also foster a strong identity of a hard working city (Malmö Stad 2008). There is no evidence however, of any reading regarding this important cultural-historical aspect of the site.

Rather as the earlier quote indicates (‘I go and look. I imagine being there…the user… and think “what do I want here?”…’) the memories of the site are her own. Seen in conjunction with The Sheltered Tree, it would seem that whilst the project offers itself to the residents of the housing block (and passers by), the interpretation of site, and what it needed, was a personal one. For Gora, once the Glass Bubble was erected ‘suddenly everything fell into place. The Glass Bubble belonged here, like a piece of a magical jigsaw puzzle’ (Gora 2013).

The reading of the site as having a dark, dull ambience perhaps influenced Monika to create something in direct contrast to the immediate milieu. Moreover, after the expo Bo01 exhibition, there was most likely an atmosphere of innovation. Even though one could argue that Gora’s works often are daring, or at least not shy, this wider atmosphere might have influenced the direction of creating a bold design – or at least Södertorpsgården’s wish to ‘show off’ (Gora 2013).

Despite current problems with the use and management of the site, initially the discourses between residents and home, passers by and place, client and brief were all read clearly

by Monika Gora in order to produce The Glass Bubble; garden, artwork and emblem.

Reading the Site Clearly the weather and microclimate is of special significance and influence to Gora’s work here – the resultant shape and structure of the bubble is both a response to the conditions the site imposes and a way of protecting its users from those conditions also. History, memories and atmospheres seem less important in the manner of collective consciousness. Intimate, personal knowledge of the site and the artist’s own memories however, are more prominent. Materials of the site have not been read but the phenomenological aspects of the site; the Öresund, the dark passage between the buildings, the sky and open expanse of the promenade, have. This combination of readings leads to the narrative of the design as a ‘magical place’ – a sheltered spot to ‘protect the living things we choose to have around us and cherish…’ whilst at the same time being a ‘safe home from which we can start to explore the world’ (Gora 2012: 18).

Figure 3. The Sheltered Tree (1994)

Figure 4. Plan of Glass Bubble and outdoor garden

Exploration Monika Gora has edited the site in what we interpret as an identifiable approach in her practice – an approach of intuition and exploration. By this we mean that she is an explorer of the landscape, of both physical and mental panoramas.

In terms of intuition we mean that in her role as an artist Monika Gora has an artistic, subjective, approach to site specificity. The ‘red thread’ in her oeuvre - the distinctive organic forms, for example the shapes of the Jimmy’s or Durus and Mollis (2008), are indicative of this. In her role as an artist and the intuitive editing of a site, she transgresses the normal ideas about how a landscape architect should approach a site. Site specificity need not always be about facts and figures, it can rather, be about a playful curiosity that raises questions of how, why? This then brings us to her exploratory approach to design and site; above all, her work is driven by a desire to explore. She has said that when she visits a site she

‘simply [wishes] to explore and understand both the whole and the parts making up the whole... in my projects I want to create places that leave space for different interpretations and further investigation’

(Gora 2012: 169) Thus her editing of a site is driven by not only a wish to explore and create exploration for herself, but to offer a space that will become a platform for the exploration of others, in terms of the site as well as within themselves. The main drivers for the Bubble are thus those of exploration in terms of place and exploration in terms of appropriation. The double play of The Glass Bubble as a place of safety/incubator for elderly residents and as a green house, combined with the outside garden illustrates Monika’s approach – how much can you do with a space? (Falkenberg 2011).

The bulbous structure makes a clear statement in the way it contrasts with the sharply geometrical boundaries of the surrounding building, communicating a will to question or provoke its linear neighbour. This desire to avoid anything monotonous is a familiar theme in Gora’s work. The resulting structure of The Glass Bubble however, comes from a combination of exploration on Gora’s part and the technical innovation of engineers, Octatube (Gora 2012).

Notwithstanding the climatic and structural conditions of the site, there was no room for a typical garden – so the shape is an edit to the heterogeneity of the linearity of the buildings and the dominance of dull, windy, dark conditions. As the U-shape of the buildings was open to the prevalent wind direction the doors of the glass bubble were set back to prevent the structure from being too effected by any gales (Gora 2012: 23).

The complex geometry of the bubble – a double tube spine and single tube legs with panes held by spiders – was arrived at due to the wish for the construction to be as transparent as possible. To minimize the steel structure, the glass surface is used as a shell to reduce deflection of the steel (Octatube 2013). The desire to push boundaries, to rise to the challenge in creating such a difficult feat of engineering is again exemplary of the exploratory factor in this project (Falkenberg 2011).

The wish to have the glass structure as pure and transparent as possible is perhaps due

to two factors; the wish to create something crystalline and beautiful for the clients and residents and the wish to create something beautiful in its own right, for passers-by to appreciate. Inside of the glass structure, the rounded area at the head of the Glass Bubble, facing towards to harbour, is free of plants, offering views across the sea, suggesting horizons to explore.

Site Editing

TRANSLATION: NEAR AND FAR In terms of translation, the Glass Bubble is representative of both being rooted in place but also brings us back to the subject of exploration again; a desire to present a path forward and a new perspective on the area. This double play is exemplarily of her intuitive exploratory approach – that is to say her response is at once a very personal subjective one, but it is one that is arrived at by experiencing the site. As critic Tim Richardson comments “the objects she produces exist as landscapes in their own right – apart from, but somehow integrated with, their settings.” (Richardson 2008: 27) Nordic slate, ‘Otta Högseter’, is used as paving and as the edging for the exterior garden beds. This creates a sense of attachment to the Nordic context. It is used however, on both the exterior and interior of the bubble and as such connects the two contrasting worlds (Falkenberg 2011: 83).

The use of different planting strategies for the different areas again highlights this doubleplay – the pine trees planted according to the original design, (now removed in order to create more space for the adjacent cafe), are commonly used in the Western Harbour.

These common trees kept the project rooted in place as a Swedish design. On the other hand the Mediterranean vegetation inside the bubble was chosen in a desire to create “a magical place” (Gora 2013). The contrast of lush vegetation to the exteriors more traditional vegetation contributes to this and creates an image of something much more alive (Gora 2013). It suggests another way of looking at life and offers an alternative experience for the users.

Appropriation This leads us on to appropriation, the use of the site. For who else is the exotic garden to be used by but the residents for whom the Glass Bubble was created? Her exploration of site is so that others can continue to explore after she has departed. Regardless of the current problems that have come to affect the site – the defensive behavior by the management and owners of the garden – the intention was for it to be used. The direction of the Bubble, as if crawling out to the sea, offers expansive views of the sea and, on clear days, Copenhagen. It is a place to sit and to seek shelter in times of harsh weather, but offers just as much enjoyment in moderate weather. Of course, the typical harbour weather is windy and often dull and as noted, this was something that influenced the decision to have a protective structure rather than a typical traditional open plan garden making it

more useful to the senior residents.

The use of glass perhaps transports itself from the Icelandic project, The Sheltered Tree, but also from the requirements of the commission. As a garden that would be used by the 55 plus age group, specifically for the residents of the specialised housing, a glazed space would make for a better environment. Gora has commented that it is almost like an incubator in this sense (Gora 2013). The 16mm thick glass, with low iron content, makes the panels particularly clear and transparent (Falkenberg 2011: 78). The Bubble is both something protective in the way an incubator or glass house protects fragile natural entities but it is also something precious in its own right, something for the clients, residents to be proud of and something for voyeurs to admire.

Again we return to the idea of appropriation as something not only exclusively for the residents of the building, but as something to belong to all who visit the harbour. The vision of the Glass Bubble at night, lit up like a beacon, adheres to this. The Glass Bubble is private property, however, and this has (involuntary, from the designer’s perspective) developed problematic aspects that raise interesting questions about public and private space. The plaza and harbour receive many visitors but some of the residents and the management of the building have reacted negatively to people often curiously exploring the Glass Bubble. Nevertheless, there is a desire by Monika for all to use her work as she derives a sense of “pride in the positive response of the users and the people who encounter the work on a daily basis� (Gora 2012: 18).

Figure 5. Inside the Glass Bubble

Site Specificity

SITE SPECIFICITY AS...

What is site specificity? Well, what is a site? A site is dynamic – it is in a constant state of flux with many layers, influences and forces. Site specificity is understanding these dynamics and constructs (Burns and Kahn 2005: xv).

Miwon Kwon suggests site specificity as oscillation, which can be described as ‘the nostalgic desire for a retrieval of rooted, place-bound identities, and the anti-nostalgic embrace of a nomadic fluidity of subjectivity, identity and spatiality’ (Braae and Diedrich 2012: 24).

Nicholas Bourriaud offers another interpretation, that of radicantity. He writes that Ivy advances ‘in all directions on whatever surfaces present themselves by attaching multiple hooks on them…Ivy belongs to the botanical family of the radicants, which develop their roots as they advance unlike the radicals, who development is determined by their being anchored in particular soil.’

If looking through the perspective of these theories one could also try to analyse Gora’s work in these terms. Like a radicant, the Glass Bubble ‘translates itself into the terms of the space in which it moves’ (Bourriaud 2009: 51). Although Kwon and Bourriaud offer us two different concepts of site specificity, they both talk about a tension between two directions. For Kwon this is the rootedness and the fluidity, for Bourriaud the radicant is ‘caught between the need for a connection with its environment and the forces of uprooting between globalization and singularity…’ (Bourriaud 2009: 51).

One could argue that The Glass Bubble oscillates between rootedness of place and something more subjective, fluid and impending. It is site specific in its choice of Nordic slate and location but offers something anew in the exotic choice of planting and organic shape enhanced by extremely transparent glass.

What is different about the two theories however, is that Kwon poses the idea of something oscillating back and forth but the idea of radicantity is something evolutionary. In this respect The Glass Bubble is radicant. The bubble is a reworking of a previous idea; that of a greenhouse-come-incubator explored through the unbuilt project, The Sheltered Tree. This concept has resurfaced in The Glass Bubble, slightly morphed, adapted to a different site and evolved. Thus representing a radicant approach to site specificity.

We should perhaps however, not reduce Monika’s approach to either of these theories.

As we have mentioned, her intuitive exploratory approach hints to an artistic, tacit knowledge. The Glass Bubble is site specific in terms of response to site – the prevailing weather conditions, the shape of the immediate architecture but it is also something else, a crystalline metamorphous of an idea held by Monika Gora.

REFERENCES Published Sources Bourriaud, Nicholas (2009) The Radicant. [Berlin: Sternberg Press] Braae, E & Diedrich, L (2012): Site specificity in contemporary large-scale harbour transformation projects. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 7:1, 20-33.

Burns, C. and A. Kahn, (eds.) (2005), Why Site Matters. In Site matters: Design concepts, histories and strategies (ed.) Burns, C. and Kahn, A. [London and New York: Routledge], vii-xxix Diedrich, L. (2013). Translating Harbourscapes – Site-specific Design Approaches in Contemporary European Harbour Transformation. [Diss: Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen] Gora, M. (2012). In Diedrich, L. (eds) Light Volumes. Art and Landscape of Monika Gora. [Basel: Birkhäuser] Falkenberg, Haike, (2011). Interior Gardens, Designing and constructing green spaces in private and public buildings. [Basel: Birkhäuser] Foxley, Alice & Vogt, Gunther (2010). Distance & Engagement: Walking, Thinking and Making Landscape. [Baden: Lars Muller Publishers] Malmö Stad (2008). Plattform för Kunskapsstaden Malmö. [Malmö: Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor] Richardson, T. (2008). Avant gardeners. 50 Visionaries of The Contemporary Landscape. [London: Thames & Hudson] Online Sources Malmö Stad (2013) Västra Hamnen. http://www.malmo.se/Medborgare/Kultur--noje/Arkiv--historia/Historiska-byggnader-och-platser/ Hist-hus-artiklar/Vastra-hamnen.html [2013-10-01] GORA Art & Landscape (2013) www.gora.se [2013-10-01] Octatube (2013) Greenhouse Neptuna http://www.octatube.nl/en/projects/19/ [2013-10-01] Oral Sources Gora, M. (2013) Talk with Monika Gora about The Glass Bubble. Interviewed by Sonia Jackett and Lisa Markström [in person] Malmö, 2013-09-26.

IMAGES Figures 1 - 4 taken from Diedrich, L. (eds) Light Volumes. Art and Landscape of Monika Gora.

[Basel: Birkhäuser] Figure 5: p83 in: Falkenberg, Haike, (2011). Interior Gardens, Designing and constructing green spaces in private and public buildings. [Basel: Birkhäuser]

DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC APPROACHES TO ALNARP CAMPUS

ALNARPS ARCHIPELAGO

The idea of Alnarp as an isolated island was something that many people mentioned to us at the start of the project. This became very central to our development: we compared Alnarp to a few different islands, notably the “phantom island” and “treasure island”.

Our inventory showed us qualities of Alnarp which then led us to a discussion of different aspects of the site, each with their own problems. We then came up with an aim for each of these aspects and identified possible sollutions.

SPECIMEN

No.

3

COFFEE CUP What are the daily rituals of Alnarp?

Alnarp Restaurant 0

8/10/13 8

cm

SPECIMEN

No.

4

SUGAR BEETS What do the open fields around Alnarp have to offer?

Field, Alnarp 0

8/10/13 11 cm

Island typologies

Why and how to enhance an “islands” identity?

SONIA JACKETT & LISA MARKSTRÖM

NAME

ALNARP

RELATABILITY

This is Alnarp

NOTES

ALNARP:an island?/!

One of the problems is that Alnarp is often seen as an ‘island’ is disconnected from it’s urban neighbours.

Conversley however, the idea of Alnarp as an island is central to what identity the campus has.

Physically Alnarp is island-like, surrounded by fields and sea, with little connection to neighbouring towns Åkarp, Lomma, Burlov and Arlov.

86 N

86 N 85 N

85 N 84 N

84 N

83 N

THE PHANTOM ISLAND

A negative quality

83 N

82 N 82 N

81 N

PHANTOM ISLAND: the idea of an island A phantom island is a purported island that appeared on maps for a period of time (sometimes centuries) during recorded history, but was later removed after it was proven not to exist.

Alikened to Alnarp, in the sense...does it exist?

81 N

TREASURE ISLAND

A positive quality

TREASURE ISLAND: an island of riches

ÖLAND: an island connected

ÖLAND

Mentally + Physically

What Alnarp could be

STOCKHOLM ARCHIPELAGO: “No man is an island” John Donne

STOCKHOLM’S ARCHIPELAGO

Treasure Island is an adventure novel

by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, narrating a tale of “buccaneers and buried gold”. First published as a book on 23 May 1883. Like a this famous island, Alnarp has plenty of hidden treasures.

Öland is a Swedish island, physically connected to the mainland through a 6 km long bridge and an example of an island connected by a single, strong, material element. Alnarp’s connections are poor; one bus, the no.133 and few roads, paths and distant train stations. Mentally, Alnarp seems distant from neighbouring urban areas such as Malmö and Lund.

The Stockholm Archipelago is made up from approximately 30,000 islands and islets.

Fourteen islands make up the City of Stockholm - seperate entities functioning as a whole.

What can we learn from this type of connection?

SOLUTIONS

PROBLEMS

AIMS

THE ISLANDS IDENTITY: UKNOWN

MAKE KNOWN

Strengthen the core

QUALITIES OF THE SITE: HIDDEN

SHOW THEM Release to a wider sphere

EXCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE: DOES NOT HAPPEN

CONNECT/SHARE Enable spaces for exchange

LOCAL ARCHIPELAGO: ISOLATED

ACCESIBLE CONNECTIONS Create new connections

Our discussions always led us back to the idea of Alnarp as an Island. On the one hand, it was obvious to us that Alnarp needed to be better connected to its surroundings and make an impact in terms of local and regional scale; yet, the idea of Alnarp as an island is something also very central to its identity.

The question was how to maintain a balance between these two things. Thus we developed a concept based on the Archipelago.

ALNARP’S ARCHIPELAGO

We developed a strategy for Alnarp and this is represented in our strategic plan.

A new strong central core is enhanced by these outer intervention zones. The purpose of these areas is to connect the center of Alnarp with the surrounding landscape and the knowledge of the fields. We also want to pay respect to the existing forms, where the campus represents mass, and the fields are very much an open/flat landscape.

We also want to connect the students to the knowledge which is developed in the fields, as well as attract the surrounding communities to the campus. This idea of sharing knowledge through the archipelago means that Alnarp will function better on a campus, local and regional level.

ISLET/INTERVENTION ZONE TYPOLOGIES

The suggested archipelago islands are not all necessary designed interventions. They are more intervention zones and can represent an array of situations. For example the diagram below represents: 1.

Field Experiments within one of the field lots 2. Designed platform, accesibility path leading to a specific intervention 3.

Greenway allowing for spread of biodiversity through lot and beyond

Field experiments

Designed platform

Greenway

HISTORICAL PATTERNS

History at Alnarp is extremely important, from the boulevards lined with horsechesnuts through to the history of Alnarp as a model farm.

The Archipelago sites are based on a historical field map from 1864.

REGIONAL UNIVERSITY ARCHIPELAGO

LOCAL COMMUNITY ARCHIPELAGO

The many unique biotopes surrounding Alnarp will be accessible through small but effective interventions. The shore meadow landscape just southwest of Alnarp will be equipped with an observation station. Here visitors will be able to get closer to the seasonal dynamics of shore environments and migratory bird patterns - a site where students, visitors and knowledge meet.

Scania is well known for its rich soil, and the students at SLU are taught to value it. Yet, there are very few students who actually get to study and exlplore this landscape. Through creating access points where students can take part of and learn more from this asset, competence and knowledge from the different diciplines both within and outside of the university can be exchanged.

THE CAMPUS CORE

The idea of a compelling, well connected Alnarp comes from establishing a strong campus core. In the campus core we propose a new campus plaza which will function as new meeting point. This will bring more life and new activity into Alnarp, and it will be a place where researchers, visitors, students and the surrounding community can interact and exchange experiences and knowledge.

The maple greenspace

The campus Square

Restaurant/CafĂŠ/Student housing

Barn/New studio spaces/ Café/etc.

Pedestrian path

1:1 experimental gardens

Alnarpsvägen

Section a:a

New Train Stop

Science hub Community Hub Bus Stop

the campus core

Aspen Forest and lecture space

A deconstructed barn, situated within a dense Aspen Forest will act as a social point for annual lectures, attracting science researches, students, professors and the local community spreading Alnarp’s identity and the knowledge it is part of.

new student housing

student housing area

Campus plaza

Restaurant

With new cafe and restaurant, a new bar to create a social space throughout the day and night.

1:1 experimental gardens Student 1:1 experimental gardens

A:A A:A

alnarpsgården AlnarpsgÅrden

intervention area

green space

plaza

aspen forest

existing buildings

student housing

lecture space / auditorium

1:1 allotment plots / labs

We propose that one of the ways to do this is in this lecture space amongst an aspen forest where for example public lectures will be held. Other interventions include new student housing, 1:1 garden and exhibition labs. All this will help create a more dynamic, well-known and better connected Alnarp.

FINAL EXHIBITION

ARCHIPELAGO (28 minutes)

by Sonia Jackett and Lisa Markstrรถm The film is an interactive piece.

First of all we wanted to show the qualities that we found in Alnarp.

Secondly it is a comment on how we interact with landscape, both as an individuals and as designers. We encouraged the audience to walk into the film and explore what happened when one interacts with it.

We wanted to ask questions. What effect does it have on the screen/ landscape depending on how close you are, where you stand, how you position yourself?

All this effects what happens on the screen and to the landscape contained within.

In terms of design, as a designer you can position yourself in different ways.

Critically, this means that you can read different aspects of a site, or read the site in many different ways, this then alters how site specific your site design becomes...

Sonia Jackett and Lisa Markstrรถm 2013