Bygg 3, AHO, høst 2009

Bygg 3, Architecture as infrastructure, culture, nature.

Process. The first sketches, meetings and a search towards a way of moving
My first sketches in the search for a new infrastructure tried to capture the essence of the infrastructure term. A selection of words became especially influential for the understanding of this word and for my further work. Among these words were repetition, layers, levels, hierarchy, contact, system and in-between space. The line became an important tool in the representation of them; repeating lines, lines in different layers, lines on top of each other etc. Several of my sketches also had an element of collection and dispersion. One or more points served as a collector of something in motion.

Early in the process an interest in meetings between people became evident in my own discussions. I was fascinated by the different ways we meet, from direct meetings and face to face contact to more diverse meetings where distance, sound and expectations among other things play part. Looking back at previous architectural projects, I think I have always had a fascination for these things and for the ways we move through architecture. This discussion became the culture part of my work.
My vast number of sketches from the first phase forced me to make a selection in order to take the next step in the creative process. The first physical model was a direct translation of a sketch I chose. The sketch had many of the previous mentioned aspects in it as well as an element of movement and a clear division of different levels. Out of this sketch came the first model that (sometimes unconsciously) was an influential force for the rest of the semester. The model helped develop an architectural language consisting of three terms; the borders (that separate parts from each other), the zones (the spaces in between the borders) and the bridges (that combine everything).

In the further process I looked more closely at the elements trying to describe what they were and how they related to the whole. What became evident was that the borders had different characters. Some were spongy and open in their structure while others were heavy, closed and introvert. The zones also had varying characters. Some were isolated, others lay close to each other visually or physically. In between were the bridges that operated as connections between the different elements.
In this phase I also exposed my models to nature in the form of sound. Sound could have the ability to act as a bridge on its own, I thought, in a more abstract way than the physical bridges in my architecture. Sound could lead you places you are not able to go physically and thus establish a meeting between two separated places.
Together these points generated a number of models, diagrams and discussions.

The terms of my architectural language were gradually more loosely employed and towards the end my models searched more for a cooperative environment, a building where the elements worked together to form a new understanding, rather than a strict system generated by the terms I had invented. In essence, the borders became the architecture of the mass and the rooms, the zones became the architecture of the pause and the bridges became the architecture of the movement.
The space in between the closed and the open grew in importance. The main question in my discussions was to which degree this space was in motion, if in motion at all. I was fascinated by the thought of this space as inaccessible and at the same time by the idea of the ground floor as open.
Ultimately, I made a decision to place the building on an invented landscape with a river running through it.

The infrastructure
The project consists of 4 clear layers. First of all there is the landscape or the site on which the building stands. The terrain is slightly tilting on both sides down towards a river. The building itself stretches from one side to the other with a river running through it in the middle. It has a closed side directed to the north were the rooms are introvert, and an open side to the south were the spaces are exposed to nature and the rest of the building. From the closed side to the open run the bridges. The walk through the building intends to produce different experiences of the spaces and of the whole environment in general.

Our experience of an architectural space is strongly influenced by how we arrive in it. For instance, a room with south-facing windows will be more strongly experienced after one passes through a series of north-facing spaces, and a closed and introvert space will be more strongly experienced after passing through an open and exposed space.
On every floor of the building the visitor is forced through the closed layer before entering the open layer. In this way the closed layer is made inclusive, as opposed to rejective like it might seem on a first thought. In the same manner, the open spaces offer a great set of visual experiences and contact to the environment but is also isolated because of the way the movement forces you back through the closed spaces, up the stairs/ramps and through another sequence of closed spaces in order to reach other spaces in the open part. In the open part of the building you are offered a great view of what’s to come at a later stage. You can clearly see the spaces, hear them and feel them, but they are not easily accessible. In order to reach them, you have to break the pattern of movement and start over again.
The bridge is an important element in this experience of the building as a coherent relationship. They dig into the closed and the open spaces where they intersect and challenge these space’s independence and clarity. The bridge is both a separate layer and a layer that works in relation to the rest. The layers work together, as a collective form, and no layer can be removed from the rest without affecting the whole.

In the closed spaces you can get glimpses of other parts of the building at specific places, things to come at a later stage of your experience of the whole. While moving around in a closed space, a short impression of an open space, the river or the bridges in between, would have a very strong affect on you. It would work as a ‘teaser’ of what’s to come. This impression will gradually fade as the closed spaces take control again, then it will fully reveal itself when the shift from closed space to open space appears.
The slab is used as the main constructive element in the building. It is used in two different ways to develop the different characters of closed and open. In the closed part the big surfaces face out to form enclosed spaces and in the open part the small surfaces face out to give a great view of the environment. Translucent and clear glass is used as secondary material in the closed spaces to bring in light and to give impressions and small glimpses of the whole from a variety of different places throughout the building.

Infrastructure is the underlying framework of a system or organization. The layers of my project represent the foundation for the environment, and the movement throughout the building strengthens the experience of the layers as cooperative. The building offers a mutual interaction of two clear layers, the closed and the open. In meeting with the third layer, the bridges and the movement, a new kind of closeness and a new kind of openness appears.

The closed part separate you and controls the view, a view that is later revealed through other stages of the building. Nature as the space in the middle both separate you (the river is inaccessible, a border) and gathers (the bridges makes the river accessible through the building). In this way, the building gives something back to the environment - a different experience of the river and nature.
Like in the first sketch model, the different zones in the open part have different characters. Some spaces are sheltered and hidden to various degrees while others are fully exposed to nature and the public. Nature is free to attack the open spaces as it wishes, they are outside spaces, affected by each other, partly sheltered, partly covered. The lighting conditions will also vary within the open spaces as the slabs and floors produce changing shadows according to the suns direction.
In the closed part, some spaces will have openings for light while others will rely on artificial lighting. Spaces in this part will have the ability to be dark.

The facades in the closed part don’t reveal much of the content on the inside. Light shines through the open part and is reflected through the slabs and into the closed spaces at specific areas. The vertical connection lies on the outside on the closed part. As a result, to experience the whole building you are forced through the same sequence on every floor: from the vertical movement along the façade on the closed part, through a sequence of closed rooms, on a bridge over the river, to an open space, and then back again.

Use and context.
I have intentionally chosen not to single out a specific function for the building. It comes with a set of qualities; something closed, introvert and private and something open and public. In my opinion this could qualify it for a number of functions, and it makes it receptive.
It could be a space to exhibit. The closed part would offer controlled lighting conditions and rooms of different sizes, while the open spaces could function as pauses, spaces for additional public programs etc.
It could be places to live. The closed part would be where you’d take shelter and cover from the outside, while the open spaces could be gardens or places to meet other inhabitants.
It could be a building for commercial use, i.e. a shopping mall. The closed part could house shops or offices, while the open part could function as pauses, public squares, canteens or restaurants.

In the idea of the closed and the open there is a thought that these environments would cause different ways of meeting. The closed part has a sense of privacy in it. For instance, in some spaces you are able to be completely alone. You can be alone in a room and at the same time see glimpses, hear sounds and feel the atmosphere of the whole environment.
The open part on the other hand is more public and there is a stronger expectation to meet other people. These spaces take on impressions from a variety of places around.
The bridges visualize the shift from closed to open on every floor. They have a little physical surface but a very strong presence in the whole as they connect all the layers.

The landscape around the building on both sides of the river has been modified with terraces to allow people to use the ground differently. The terraces form places to sit and establish zones separated by small differences in height. The entire ground floor is intended to be free or not programmed. It should be able to be independent of the program in the rest of the building but at the same time have a strong visual connection to what’s going on further up. Some spaces on the ground could perhaps be occupied by a rowing club, there could be ideal places to take a swim from, and it could be a park or maybe a kinder garden.
In this meeting between different programs within the same environment a tension appears.