On Tuesday May 13th, 2008 Delfts Faculty of Architecture designed in 1970 by van den Broek and Bakema burnt down. The iconic building could not be saved and the process to re-construct the architecture school started while the orphaned students and staff were still grieving for their beloved building. We, inhabitants of BK City, all know pieces of this story although it seems that we missed the opportunity to fully investigate it as an example of project management, architecture and community building. What was the process of constructing BK City and what was the role of the design in the process of converting an empty building within the city of Delft and TU community?After the fire, an emergency team - consisting of faculty representatives directed by the Dean- showed the power and capabilities of TU Delft by utilizing its networks and connections and resuming the facultys activity within one week. The majority of the faculty reappeared in temporary outdoor tents while offices and administration continued in other campus locations. The efficiency of the university working as a corporation smoothened the process and allowed for a fast solution, which would not have been possible otherwise. The next step for the team was to find a more stable solution. After analysis of all feasible choices,

On Tuesday May 13th, 2008 Delfts Faculty of Architecture designed in 1970 by van den Broek and Bakema burnt down. The iconic building could not be saved and the process to re-construct the architecture school started while the orphaned students and staff were still grieving for their beloved building. We, inhabitants of BK City, all know pieces of this story although it seems that we missed the opportunity to fully investigate it as an example of project management, architecture and community building. What was the process of constructing BK City and what was the role of the design in the process of converting an empty building within the city of Delft and TU community?After the fire, an emergency team - consisting of faculty representatives directed by the Dean- showed the power and capabilities of TU Delft by utilizing its networks and connections and resuming the facultys activity within one week. The majority of the faculty reappeared in temporary outdoor tents while offices and administration continued in other campus locations. The efficiency of the university working as a corporation smoothened the process and allowed for a fast solution, which would not have been possible otherwise. The next step for the team was to find a more stable solution. After analysis of all feasible choices,

they narrowed their options down to two main possibilities: occupying an existing building reality- or experimenting with a new model. The former TU Delft headquarters at Julianalaan represented option one. The second option was to develop a creative, innovative campus model, with students and staff involved in continually redesigning and rebuilding it (Den Heijer, 2009) in the sports fields. The first option was a practical and fast solution since the building was already standing. On the other hand, the innovative campus village, meant starting an experimental process from scratch, but was a great chance to let the architectural community express itself. However, it also meant uncertainty and possible discomfort. The team chose the location of Julianalaan so that they would be able to welcome students by September 2008 in a more stable environment. An exceptionally fast renovation during the summer enabled the academic activities to restart in a peaceful setting. Now that the situation had returned to calmer waters, the long-term plans came to surface. There were different opinions concerning whether the faculty should stay in Julianalaan, go back to its own plot in Berlageweg or look for a new location. In order to assess the options the faculty launched an Open International Competition to present ideas for a definitive location. The Building for Bouwkunde competition had a great impact and supposed an example of the faculty practicing what it preaches. The objectives for the competition were to stimulate critical reflections and debate, to encourage young architects and students to be actively involved in re-thinking their faculty, and to promote research by design (Havik 2009). All by attending to visionary, architectural, economic, and ecological qualities. Among the 466

they narrowed their options down to two main possibilities: occupying an existing building reality- or experimenting with a new model. The former TU Delft headquarters at Julianalaan represented option one. The second option was to develop a creative, innovative campus model, with students and staff involved in continually redesigning and rebuilding it (Den Heijer, 2009) in the sports fields. The first option was a practical and fast solution since the building was already standing. On the other hand, the innovative campus village, meant starting an experimental process from scratch, but was a great chance to let the architectural community express itself. However, it also meant uncertainty and possible discomfort. The team chose the location of Julianalaan so that they would be able to welcome students by September 2008 in a more stable environment. An exceptionally fast renovation during the summer enabled the academic activities to restart in a peaceful setting. Now that the situation had returned to calmer waters, the long-term plans came to surface. There were different opinions concerning whether the faculty should stay in Julianalaan, go back to its own plot in Berlageweg or look for a new location. In order to assess the options the faculty launched an Open International Competition to present ideas for a definitive location. The Building for Bouwkunde competition had a great impact and supposed an example of the faculty practicing what it preaches. The objectives for the competition were to stimulate critical reflections and debate, to encourage young architects and students to be actively involved in re-thinking their faculty, and to promote research by design (Havik 2009). All by attending to visionary, architectural, economic, and ecological qualities. Among the 466

#07 03.15 #07 03.15

We need to broaden the scope of architectural education to equip architects not only to produce the best responses to given questions, but to also involve them in designing the right questions and in participating in processes in which the design is actually an instrument of revealing shared problems and shared answers. - Joachim Declerck, Founder and Programme Director, Architecture Workroom, Brussels

We need to broaden the scope of architectural education to equip architects not only to produce the best responses to given questions, but to also involve them in designing the right questions and in participating in processes in which the design is actually an instrument of revealing shared problems and shared answers. - Joachim Declerck, Founder and Programme Director, Architecture Workroom, Brussels

Competition and Competition andConstruction of BK City Construction of BK City

entries submitted some proposed a construction in the old Berlageweg plot, some used new locations (in Mekelweg, in dispersed locations in the centre or even in other cities) and only a few considered turning the temporary location at the Julianalaan, which many students and staff had begun to love, into a place to stay. In March 2009, the jury presented the three winning entries: AMALGAM by architect Laura lvarez, GREEN-HOUSED CULTURE by Laraqui-Bringer Architecture and A WORLD WITHOUT OBJECTS by Gijs Raggers architect. The proposal by lvarez received the highest possible marks because it proposed to extend and enhance the Julianlaan building with an expressive new architecture. The design argued for an extension through new volumes with large patios that would strengthen a back-bone main street such as the one in Bakemas building and would simplify circulation. Following the competition and the resultant outcome, further analysis of the facultys needs led to a new design brief that resulted in a new, restricted competition, searching for an energy neutral building. This follow up competition was called BK Slim because of a surface decrease and the intention of a smart (slim in Dutch) building within the Julianalaan location. Unfortunately, out of the selected offices, none of the entries was successful and the competition was dismissed. This competition limited its participants and did everything but invigorate a new and innovative faculty wide initiative and incentive. What started

entries submitted some proposed a construction in the old Berlageweg plot, some used new locations (in Mekelweg, in dispersed locations in the centre or even in other cities) and only a few considered turning the temporary location at the Julianalaan, which many students and staff had begun to love, into a place to stay. In March 2009, the jury presented the three winning entries: AMALGAM by architect Laura lvarez, GREEN-HOUSED CULTURE by Laraqui-Bringer Architecture and A WORLD WITHOUT OBJECTS by Gijs Raggers architect. The proposal by lvarez received the highest possible marks because it proposed to extend and enhance the Julianlaan building with an expressive new architecture. The design argued for an extension through new volumes with large patios that would strengthen a back-bone main street such as the one in Bakemas building and would simplify circulation. Following the competition and the resultant outcome, further analysis of the facultys needs led to a new design brief that resulted in a new, restricted competition, searching for an energy neutral building. This follow up competition was called BK Slim because of a surface decrease and the intention of a smart (slim in Dutch) building within the Julianalaan location. Unfortunately, out of the selected offices, none of the entries was successful and the competition was dismissed. This competition limited its participants and did everything but invigorate a new and innovative faculty wide initiative and incentive. What started

Inte

rest

ed in

join

ing

a co

mm

ittee

? O

r may

be th

e A

rgus

Boa

rd o

f 201

5/20

16?

Em

ail u

s!

Inte

rest

ed in

join

ing

a co

mm

ittee

? O

r may

be th

e A

rgus

Boa

rd o

f 201

5/20

16?

Em

ail u

s!

Jury

Rep

ort o

f Bui

ldin

g for

Bou

wku

nde

The

jury

reg

ards

Am

alga

m a

s by

far

th

e m

ost

conv

inci

ng o

f th

e en

trie

s th

at p

ropo

sed

usin

g th

e Ju

liana

laan

bu

ildin

g as

a

perm

anen

t so

lutio

n.

Am

alga

m

pres

ents

a

clea

n,

wel

l-ar

gued

vis

ion

of t

he f

acul

ty o

f th

e fu

ture

, and

als

o of

fers

a fe

asib

le d

esig

n so

lutio

n th

at c

onvi

ncin

gly

show

s th

at

a co

mbi

natio

n of

re

-use

an

d ne

w

cons

truc

tion

can

resu

lt in

a s

tron

g ar

chite

ctur

al i

dent

ity,

whi

ch i

s fit

ting

for

an i

nter

natio

nally

ren

owne

d an

d in

nova

tive

arch

itect

ure

facu

lty.

Thi

s pr

opos

al t

akes

a c

oura

geou

s po

sitin

g in

co

mpl

emen

ting

the

exis

ting

build

ing

with

an

arch

itect

ural

ly s

tron

g co

unte

rpar

t.

Jury

Rep

ort o

f Bui

ldin

g for

Bou

wku

nde

The

jury

reg

ards

Am

alga

m a

s by

far

th

e m

ost

conv

inci

ng o

f th

e en

trie

s th

at p

ropo

sed

usin

g th

e Ju

liana

laan

bu

ildin

g as

a

perm

anen

t so

lutio

n.

Am

alga

m

pres

ents

a

clea

n,

wel

l-ar

gued

vis

ion

of t

he f

acul

ty o

f th

e fu

ture

, and

als

o of

fers

a fe

asib

le d

esig

n so

lutio

n th

at c

onvi

ncin

gly

show

s th

at

a co

mbi

natio

n of

re

-use

an

d ne

w

cons

truc

tion

can

resu

lt in

a s

tron

g ar

chite

ctur

al i

dent

ity,

whi

ch i

s fit

ting

for

an i

nter

natio

nally

ren

owne

d an

d in

nova

tive

arch

itect

ure

facu

lty.

Thi

s pr

opos

al t

akes

a c

oura

geou

s po

sitin

g in

co

mpl

emen

ting

the

exis

ting

build

ing

with

an

arch

itect

ural

ly s

tron

g co

unte

rpar

t.

Laun

ch #

7 Le

ctur

e

The

Com

petit

ion

and

Cons

truc

tion

of B

K Ci

try

Laur

a

lvar

ez[W

inne

r of B

uild

ing

for B

ouw

kund

e Co

mpe

titio

n]

Room

B26

.02.

2015

@ 1

7h

Laun

ch #

7 Le

ctur

e

The

Com

petit

ion

and

Cons

truc

tion

of B

K Ci

try

Laur

a

lvar

ez[W

inne

r of B

uild

ing

for B

ouw

kund

e Co

mpe

titio

n]

Room

B26

.02.

2015

@ 1

7h

Upcoming Events

The Night of Philosophy - May 2015Argus Expo - June 2015

PhD Day - September 2015

Upcoming Events

The Night of Philosophy - May 2015Argus Expo - June 2015

PhD Day - September 2015

Contactinfo[at]argus.cc

BG+ West 310, Faculty of Architecture, Delftwww.argus.cc

Contactinfo[at]argus.cc

BG+ West 310, Faculty of Architecture, Delftwww.argus.cc

Den Heijer, A., 2008. The making of BK City. The ultimate laborato ry for a faculty of architecture. The Architecture Annual 2007- 2008. Delft University of Technology, pp.2028.TU Delft ed., 2009. Building for bouwkunde. Open to ideas.

Den Heijer, A., 2008. The making of BK City. The ultimate laborato ry for a faculty of architecture. The Architecture Annual 2007- 2008. Delft University of Technology, pp.2028.TU Delft ed., 2009. Building for bouwkunde. Open to ideas.

as an energizing open process ended up lacking any result. Nevertheless the building still needed some refurbishment, which was tackled within a posterior phase in an ad-hoc manner by commissioning specific aspects to different practices and resulting in what can be argued as a design lacking in a totalizing and powerful concept. The renovation wanted to solve mainly climatic and space issues by solving specific cases individually, which resulted in a kind of patchwork process. Nowadays the faculty is still under renovation but the debate about the space is almost non-existent. As stated earlier, a faculty of architecture should practice what it preaches and exemplify the building and design process. What was the role of the user - as in staff and students- in the process of constructing BK City? How much input did they have in the set of decisions regarding the outcome of BK City? If in chemistry they perform chemical experiments and in aerospace they practice flight simulation, should not a building for educating architects become its main playground for criticism and experimentation like the campus village considered in an early stage of the BK concept? n

as an energizing open process ended up lacking any result. Nevertheless the building still needed some refurbishment, which was tackled within a posterior phase in an ad-hoc manner by commissioning specific aspects to different practices and resulting in what can be argued as a design lacking in a totalizing and powerful concept. The renovation wanted to solve mainly climatic and space issues by solving specific cases individually, which resulted in a kind of patchwork process. Nowadays the faculty is still under renovation but the debate about the space is almost non-existent. As stated earlier, a faculty of architecture should practice what it preaches and exemplify the building and design process. What was the role of the user - as in staff and students- in the process of constructing BK City? How much input did they have in the set of decisions regarding the outcome of BK City? If in chemistry they perform chemical experiments and in aerospace they practice flight simulation, should not a building for educating architects become its main playground for criticism and experimentation like the campus village considered in an early stage of the BK concept? n