Kampus Albertov - BIOCENTRUM, GLOBCENTRUM

The importance of the traditional form of a campus has increased in relation to the importance of education, science and research for society. Modern trends which enhance this direction include the search for interdisciplinary interaction, information share and team work. As concerns Albertov, the architect is charged with far more than merely adding two buildings, he should use this project to enliven the entire area to become a place where people meet and share ideas. The second important aspect involves the role of tradition and identity. Expressing the cohesion of the university community through the language of architecture should be preserved and reinforced. The campus has a specific atmosphere, features high quality architecture, including the city-planning aspects, and is surrounded by a natural “amphitheater” in a picturesque configuration. Thanks to the relatively short period of construction, the Albertov Campus represents a very compact and harmonious whole. Understanding the role of the construction project as a completion of a strong and captivating place is essential for any design that strives to respect the harmony of the area. We believe that completing the high-quality complex with similar-style architecture is more valuable than adding a solitary building, however interesting it might be. Perceiving the campus as a whole is more important from the environmental perspective, but also because it emphasizes a very important aspect of a cohesive university community and its relations to traditions. Both buildings, the Biocenter and the Globcenter, have been designed to fit the location’s context as variations of the principles of the Albertov architecture. The buildings’ location respects the street network, while also responding to more subtle elements typical of the area, such as jutting volumes with arcades, side streets, cylindrical corners, and recessions from the street line.

The jury particularly appreciated the regard for general city-planning aspects that employs traditional composition principles in an innovative manner. The division of both research centers into several segments linked by spacious atriums while preserving a compact appearance contributed to their adequate morphological communication with their surroundings. The atriums, which intersect the building, assume the role of a “street,” while allowing for interesting views within the interior as well as of the wider campus complex. The overall complexity and sophistication of the project as well as its fulfilment of the requirements specified in the construction program were also viewed as positive as they attest to the competitor’s knowledge of functional and operational demands put on both buildings. The winning design has the highest potential to fulfill the investor’s expectations of both research centers and includes many qualities that compensate for the problematic height of the buildings. The jury members recommend that the investor reduce the plan, which will have positive effects on the final project, including the necessary adjustment of the height of both facilities. Further recommendations concern the need to focus on the universal layout when completing the design. Also, the proportion of the atrium to the usable floor area of both buildings should be addressed.

The Albertov Campus is characterized by homogeneity and order. Two new items shall be added to the family of architecturally sound and quality buildings. They should resemble the existing ones in the following features: respect existing cornices (a single height of the campus), regular pattern of windows, massive enclosing shell and inner atriums (natural ventilation, sufficient amount of air and balanced interior climate). The ground floor interlinked with streets, enlivening the campus and public spaces, central zones designed for people to meet and the green roofs all represent contemporary features. The university complex, arranged in an orthogonal grid of streets, was established in the late 19th century on the flat bottom of a hollow. The orthogonal precision of this university enclave sets it off against the medieval topography of the streets closer to the Vltava River. Although the buildings differ in stylistic details of three decades, in appearance they form a compact and homogeneous complex. All elements in the orthogonal grid exude harmony. They are characterized by the same cornice height, regular pattern of high windows and typological layout around the central atriums. The buildings boast a precise and geometrical appearance. Thanks to the high-quality architectural and civil engineering work they continue to function well even one hundred years after their construction. Typically, they share a combination of a two-wing and three-wing ground plan, which allows for natural lighting and ventilation of most corridors. The buildings are inspirational mainly thanks to their energetically passive construction. They are not prone to overheating thanks to the robust outer shell and optimum proportions of the high double windows. All rooms have natural ventilation through windows, with lecture halls designed to have ventilation shafts. The inner atriums facilitate natural lighting and ventilation for the corridors, which also allow for transverse ventilation of the buildings.

The jury mainly appreciated the universal ground plan, which allows for flexible transformations of interior areas. The most positive aspect of both centers’ interiors lies in the main corridor with adjoining atriums. The jury members found this feature important as it facilitates the desired potential for a meeting place. The delicate exterior, which corresponds with the surrounding buildings, is accentuated through the materials chosen. The design also respects the required height limits, which was achieved for the Biocenter by placing it beneath the ground. This, however, was found to be a drawback and subject to subsequent changes. Further recommendations concerned the Biocenter building’s insufficient distance from the border of the adjoining lot, which needs to be addressed. The jury also pointed out that more attention should be paid to the final effect of the central paths and corridors as well as their ties to sanitary facilities. If the design is reduced, as recommended by the jury, this project has a great potential for further development. The suitability of identical concept of the research buildings’ exteriors is also questionable.

For us, a 21st century modern research and educational center creates an open environment inviting the university’s researchers, teachers and students to meet and work together. We have designed two distinctive buildings that will fit in the generous Albertov Campus design, while completing and enriching the historical development with a contemporary layer. The rational nature of the buildings acts as a framework for the inner living organism of the research centers responding to the changes in science and society. We understand the joint effort of the three important faculties of Charles University to build new research facilities as a pledge to the modern research and educational institution which strives to develop and initiate interdisciplinary cooperation in science as well as to follow up the architectural quality of the Albertov Campus. Research centers often have to handle the changing demands of developing disciplines. We have therefore designed a building that offers universal halls which can easily be divided into smaller ones within the module network of 7.2 x 7.2 m along its circumference. The relatively small pillar spans do not place high demands on horizontal structures and allow for easy wiring. We strove to make the path for media to the offices and laboratories as short as possible along the building’s façade. A band of laboratories and offices is supplemented on the inside by service facilities, which contain common equipment and through which the vertical installations lead. The Biocenter’s atrium is bordered by golden towers rising from a multi-level floor plate. The top floors are interconnected by wide lounge-style galleries. Three towers are used as access paths, while the other towers contain classrooms and other specific rooms. The towers extend beyond the roof, enhancing the view of the area from a distance. The common area of the Globcenter is delimited by a transparent volume of lecture halls, classrooms and a sports and relaxation center. The generous size of the halls and their mutual intersecting creates a changeable inner landscape of the building. The ground floor opens out into the park with greenery and a body of water. The façade of both buildings is to be made of artificial stone, which refers to the palatial style of the surrounding buildings. The regular façade order is softened through individual elements. For the Biocenter, we propose an almost white natural shade of stone with sandstone surface. The pillars on the façade taper upwards, which reduces the robustness of the building. Entrances are enhanced by elevated doorways, which reveal the size of the interior space.

The jury appreciated mainly the non-traditional approach to the concept, the complex and innovative method of the project’s design as well as the exceptionally fine and cultivated architectural expression. These qualities were behind the decision to award this design the highest special award. What the jury found problematic, though, was the solution of the background facilities of the main research areas, particularly of the laboratories and the animal pens. Also the low flexibility of the buildings’ interior layout is viewed as a shortcoming as it does not meet the potential future requirements of the building’s users to raise the Biocenter’s building by one floor.

We set the following goals for the project: to create two new centers for research, science and learning, as well as a social, cultural and interdisciplinary integration; to supply areas of social interaction to the campus, which will give rise to new, surprising ideas, views and formations; to create an environment that would support creativity, amusement and contemplation, an environment that would spread positive energy throughout the entire campus; to stimulate synergies between individual disciplines, scientists, professors and students, between the existing campus and the new buildings; to imbue the complex with a new atmosphere of creative joy and discoveries. To achieve these goals, we needed a logical and at the same time spiritual, or energetic, formula or key. In our case, this is a grid, or an outline, if you wish. This multi-layer idea permeates the city, streets, buildings and façades. It creates order, it is adhered to and breached, honored and cursed at the same time. A grid also in the sense of a libretto, which clearly defines a set of rules, emphasizes deviations and nuances, an outline with a firm basis which allows for changes and modifications of approaches. To anchor the Biocenter in the context of the building development in the area, we divided its structure into two main parts, interconnected by a linking element. The layout respects the shape of the lot and responds to the surrounding buildings, where the classical buildings enclosing a courtyard were in our concept transformed into two wings linked through the “neck” of the atriums. We created an indented structure which reflects its surroundings, while being both ideologically and metaphorically based on cell structures. The orthogonal grid of the southern façade is complemented by a horizontally segmented northern wing. The southern wing, which is more relaxed, turned towards and open to the street, contains lecture halls and classrooms, while the northern wing, with offices, laboratories and animal pens, is closed in expression. The extensive program of the Globcenter is concentrated into a traditional form – a block with a large atrium. This principle can be found not only in the existing buildings on the campus but also in its immediate surroundings, such as the Convent of Saint Elizabeth and the Servite Monastery. To ensure dignity and suitable incorporation of the building within the campus area, we chose a simple, sober expression. The dark façade, with utilitarian segmentation, is broken up by entrances and niches that communicate vertically and are completed with a light wing with a recessed entryway and central hall, linked to the atrium.

The authors demonstrated detailed knowledge of the demands imposed by the construction plan, which they fulfilled to the maximum possible extent. The jury also appreciated the amount of work invested in the project in the second round. The difference in the quality of the design submitted in the first and second rounds was most noticeable among all submitted designs. The strict adherence to the construction plan was, however, achieved at the expense of the quality of the layout and according to the jury, the lack of flexibility of the existing laboratory facilities led to an architecturally conventional and non-innovative solution.

The competition design completes the original concept of the Albertov University Campus: both new buildings have confidently assumed their places in the historically determined structure. The buildings of Charles University’s two new research centers are metaphorically and actually charged with content and role: solid and very compact volumes follow up the existing development of the campus in their nature, succession of volumes and height level, fitting in it very well. The lightening of the atriums’ volumes, the entrance arcades as well as the primary façade tectonics reflect the architecture and typology of the historical buildings on the campus. The indentation and shapes of the top floors bring the new buildings closer to the surrounding roof landscape. The open and welcoming nature of the ground floor introduces an element of a new quality into the public areas of the campus, making it more communicative, lively and attractive. The new buildings’ expression is purposefully simple, while being multi-layered. It includes aspects of the straightforward rationality of everyday life, abstract and symbolic elements referring to educational values as well as aspects related to dignity, significance and prestige of the oldest Central-European University. In addition to the ties to the surrounding development, the design also builds on the space and operational requirements for the different departments of both centers, contained in the competition brief, as well as the need to significantly improve the quality and attractiveness of the public areas and an effort to cultivate the above specified shortcomings. The design works with the vision of a mutual resonance of the new and historical buildings; it strives to define a radiant, fresh and modern expression that would be sufficiently contrasting as well as adequately dominating through its contemporary design in the environment almost exclusively consisting of historical and very traditional buildings. We respect the street grid and the height of the roof level, and to a considerable extent also the height of the main cornices. The new buildings are not defined in opposition to the existing ones; the simple, orthogonal volumes do not induce drama or conflict, but complete the order. Both buildings feature the atrium element in cube-shaped volume, which refers to the typology of the surrounding university buildings with inner courtyards. This principle is also functional as it allows for a high extent of natural lighting, while at the same time being universal from the perspective of operations. It lends itself to more freedom and variability in the arrangement of the offices and other facilities, which can be laid out into a ring around the atrium, and thus can be entered from two sides.

Compared to the other projects, the architects succeeded in respecting the height of the surrounding development. On the other hand, the jury members came to the conclusion that the design presented in the second round exhibits a significant drop in architectural quality. In addition to the illogical layout details and façade segmentation, which does not reflect the interior layout, the jury did not find the indifferent architectural expression of both buildings convincing. The energy concept was also considered problematic.

Two independent buildings within one university complex featuring a unique formal and structural unity. The first goal is the design of a unified creative entry to the area in the form of two mutually related buildings that will be viewed as a single entity despite the distance between them. We also respect the nature of the existing Albertov Campus as a basic structural unit, which is and remains superior to each individual building. The area ground plan and the formal context of the existing campus is defined as an expression of unity, being formally and semantically superior to any potential temptation to design both buildings as foreign to the area. Both buildings are linked by an L-shaped park which connects the main entrances to the buildings while at the same time being the most important public space. Let us bear in mind that this park will function as the “reception” entrance area for the public. The new buildings share the strategy of defining the proposed solution of the ground-floor areas and spaces, referring at the same time to the relation between the public and the private, between the university complex and the interior they define. We strove to ensure that these areas become unique, authentic spaces. The buildings’ layout shape has been designed to respect the street alignment of the façades of the existing buildings. In other words, the new buildings, rich in their exterior formal expression, accept the city style of the existing university complex. The volumes of the new Globcenter and Biocenter are variable – escalating, seeking the continuity to the cornice height and important referential lines of surrounding buildings. This, along with the ground plan, represents the recognition of the importance of the Albertov Campus. Nevertheless, both buildings are trying to “look” at each other. Some of the levels of both buildings are high enough to become a mutual visual reference over the campus buildings situated between them. The terraces on the top levels also facilitate an undisturbed view of the city with the Prague Castle area in the background.

Due to the nature of the city planning concept, which exhibited an exceptional potential, the jury selected this design for the second round. The jury particularly appreciated the work with public areas and their relation to the wider context. On the other hand, the architectural rendition of both buildings and especially the lack of elaboration of the research centers’ key facilities was rather disappointing. The minimum progress in the elaboration of the project between the first and second rounds, which failed to take into account the jury’s recommendations, was the main shortcoming of the design.