Johns Hopkins University doesn't waste any time in progressing with its new student center on the Baltimore Homewood campus. An Internal non public invited design competition was announced at the beginning of this year, a winner selected and announced on November 2nd, and a design review happened on November 5. That is truly a break neck pace for a project that was reported to cost as much as $250 million.
 |
| Model of the proposed Hopkins Student Center at 33rd Street (Screenshot BIG presentation) |
As reported on this blog, the winner of the design competition is the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), a Danish architecture firm lead by a young architect who truly thinks big. His firm grew in only 15 years to 300 architects with projects worldwide, including the Google headquarter in the US. Some describe Bjarke Ingels as one of the most influential architects of our time.
Alas, the four appointed UDAP panelists were not overly impressed. The 150,000 sf Student Center was virtually presented by architect Leon Rost, a partner of the BIG office in New York, and landscape architect Matthew Urbanski, partner at Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, NYC. Rost described the design as a "radial scheme" which was derived from "literally cobbling the program together" and "assemble it in the most architecturally rational and contextually sensitive way without taking too much space". The major challenge was described as a complex program and opening the campus up to Charles Street over a 48' grade difference. Rost stated that the design presents a "dynamic appearance towards Charles Street" and "is "providing accessibility by drawing people in" which then pass through and passing by "extremely engaging, airy, dynamic, cozy spaces". Interior stairs and elevators provide the route across the height difference.
 |
| Location plan and landscaping (Screenshot BIG presentation) |
When asked by panelist Osborne Anthony about sustainability, BIG architect Rost explained that the team is "leaving no stone unturned to achieve sustainability, starting with site placement." As examples for green design approaches he mentioned "south facing clear-stories which block out the summer sun and let in winter sun, the building's mass timber building construction with laminated timber slabs as well as photovoltaic cells on the many flat roofs, natural ventilation is being explored.
Explaining the various outdoor plazas all around the building, the designers clarified that the "New Plaza" would be the most welcoming with the adjacent food-court and related outdoor seating. The "entry plaza" is intended more for going through. "The Grove" is intended as "a green space with picnic tables in the landscape" whereas the "The New Commons" is seen as "a new campus space". Design team member and landscape architect Urbanski described the relationship of the building complex and its site to Charles Street as a "balance between containment and visual penetration".
After the basic issues of massing, orientation and circulation had been explained and clarified, UDAAP members were not shy to express their misgivings, no matter how famous this architect. The initial poetic descriptions of the radial building shape as a "rose petal" (Osborne Anthony), "a 360 degree experience" and a "pinwheel" (Pavlina Ilieva), reviewers quickly descended into much more prosaic terms such as "spaceship", "glass bubble" and "aggregated boxes" (Ilieva). Reviewer Anthony said about the rose petal: "I am not seeing the merits of that" and a little bit later, "I am not seeing that it needs that radial concept". He described the circulation as "not very intuitive" and reminded the designers that circulation "is the most important aspect of a campus". He found that "the footprint seems to bee too large for the site" and added that "the fundamental flaw, or maybe not flaw, but challenge, is the entry plaza at 33rd street". He wondered what those would do who may not want to get into the building. He summarized: "What I am not seeing translated is hierarchy in terms of circulation and volumes"
 |
| (Screenshot BIG presentation) |
Panelist Sharon Bradley commented that "the massing works well with the existing topography" but added: "Where I am concerned is the horizontal massing and the relation to the other buildings around it." She noted that "in campus planning, that's one of the most important aspects." She said that the building site is "a key parcel on the site" but bemoaned that the building fills the [entire] site, "walking around it is not as well articulated" and "forcing people through the building" would be not the right way to provide a gateway to the campus." She also critiqued that the "monument [on 33rd Street] has been reduced to a sidebar".
Reviewer Cheryl O'Neill echoed some of the comments of her colleagues: This design is "entirely program driven" she said, with. "no recognition of all of the surroundings". She didn't like that the building doesn't align with Charles Street. "I would challenge the rotation of the building which disengages it from Charles Street and the surrounding buildings and gives you too many residual spaces. It sticks an elbow out to Charles street." She found that "there is only a one way conversation, it needs to be a two way conversation". "Maybe there could be more differentiation of those spaces" and suggested the designers review their design again "more from a site perspective and not from a building perspective".
 |
| Rendering provided by Hopkins (BIG) |
Ilieva told the architect, "you used the word "welcoming" a lot", and then asked "can you describe how each side of the 360-experience accomplishes that other than having glass? She also criticized the need to pass through the building for campus access. Ilieva, also on the faculty of Morgan State University, lectured: 'There are two approaches ...formal...and informal" and noted that the proposed design is the informal approach. She continued "this [design] is clearly an inside-out program-driven approach. If you take this approach, then all the resulting conditions need to be carefully resolved". She lauded that "the village idea is really strong" but "the problem is the entire diagram becomes ...this spaceship that landed there. This is where the scheme falls flat" she judged and critiqued the "forced sense of sameness when you go around the building". Adding, "there is an opportunity that is less a foreign object" and suggested to "recover some of the big ideas with which you started", suggesting that "the way to get there is a sense of hierarchy." "There is more to porosity than 'there is a glass door there' and suggested "other opportunities to creating welcoming spaces". "Make the campus welcoming other than [just saying] there is a brand-new building."
 |
| North South section of the four-story Building (Screenshot BIG presentation) |
At UDAAP reviews, architects get little chance to defend their design beyond explaining in the beginning of their presentation how the design came about. They are expected to reflect the comments in the next more detailed review round of the project. According to Laurie Feinberg who manages the UDAAP sessions, zoning in this location makes a UDAAP presentation odor large new construction projects mandatory.
 |
| Lower floor plans (UDAAP screenshot) |
It remains to be seen what BIG will make of the fairly drastic critique. The criticism was fundamental and challenged the DNA of the design. Taking the comments to heart would require a full redesign. Lee Coyle Sr., Director of Planning & Architecture at Hopkins facilities, who briefly introduced the project, did not lift the secrecy around the competition that preceded the selection of BIG and did not elaborate on whether the competition was more design or more qualifications based. A design-based selection would mean that Hopkins is vested into the design concept as presented.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA
No comments:
Post a Comment