The Humble Digital Library
- Daniel Ho
- Sep 16, 2019
- 6 min read
As a follow up to my chosen design brief - a Library to usher in the Digital Age – My Design colleague Ethan and I have created a conceptual scheme in response. In this post I will be summarising the discourse of our proposal, in addition to the finalised product, the critical response to our scheme, and my reflections of the process in moving forward to our final design.
The Discourse
Where does a Digital Library belong (In a programmatic sense) in Sector 100?
What does this ‘new’ typology contribute to the University of Auckland?
The start of our process was sparked by a critical analysis of the brief itself. Specifically, we focussed on the questions that the brief proposed; articulating our own perspectives on such topics. One such question we encountered was the importance of the body and soul in education, and how these aspects could be effectively implemented into Education Architecture. Inherently, we studied architectural precedents for their phenomenological elements; how they construct a specific feeling, or genius loci, through their architecture. Upon many designs, two buildings became significant to our concept; the Exeter Library by Louis Kahn, and the Pearling Site Museum by Valerio Olgiati.
Precedent – Exeter Library
In Exeter Library, we analysed how Kahn articulated the building’s circulation. From outside, one could enter from one of four of the volume’s corners; interpreting this gesture as opening the building up to all directions, explicating a ‘welcoming’ entry. Yet, these entryways weren’t outspoken. On the contrary, they were humble, narrow entryways that circulated visitors to the open central atrium. In a broader sense, the idea of humble space would become an essential concept in our own design; especially when considering Digital Media as an evolution from books in Education media.
While we admittedly did not adhere to humble entryways in our own concept, the idea of multidirectional entry, in addition to the “open-narrow-open” flow of the outside-inside circulation, and the creation of thresholds between open and focussed spaces, would become essential elements that would transfer to our design.
Precedent – Pearling Site Museum
In Pearling Site Museum, we drew upon Olgiati’s masterful use of light to create atmosphere. The perforations within the concrete roof infuse its massive form with an ephemeral atmosphere. The plan of Pearling Site reveals these perforations to be pentagonal geometries that vary in size and density. The resultant highlights casted through the roof illuminate the interior; transforming what would otherwise be a cavernous space into a porous enclosure.
Overall, our analyses of both Exeter and Pearling Site informed our understanding how we manipulate the atmosphere of a space. With the goal to create a Digital Library in mind, the discourse took a significant shift towards making technology look and feel approachable; it isn’t some foreign programme that is suddenly introduced, but the successor to the book as “Education Media”.
How do we make digital media more accessible?
By manipulating atmosphere, how do we ‘humanise’ a Digital Library?
The Scheme – Exterior
From the outside, the Building melds itself into Sector 100. To do this, we reflected both the materiality and form of the University Clocktower – one of the most iconic features within Sector 100 – in our exterior design. The material we chose was Sandstone/Limestone; a reflection of the warm stone masonry in the Clocktower. In doing so, the design integrates itself into the genius loci. This is further complemented by the atrium towers; a vertical element reflecting the clocktower form. Inversely, the towers are not shy to express its own identity as a Digital Library. Specifically, we considered the Albert Barracks Wall – as a bottleneck point in Sector 100’s circulation – in integrating a “digital façade”; an external expression of the digital library within. By moving through the Barracks Wall, one is greeted by this façade, yet in doing so, we are welcoming the digital library as an integral structure in Sector 100.
The Scheme – Entry
The movement from outside to inside was treated as a sequential journey. We approach this journey as a natural element within Sector 100. To do this, we analysed the circulation surrounding the Commerce A/Elam B site, deducing 3 points where the footprint intersects with the resultant ‘paths’; the NW and SE corners intersected primary circulation routes, while the NE corner intersected a secondary route. These corners would become the entryways to the building; being accentuated by ‘humble’ single-storey porticos. One entered, visitors are met by the reception space, where a ‘Kindleshelf’ is housed. The idea is that people would sign in and pick out a kindle/tablet from the shelf before entering the spaces within. By displaying these devices in ways akin to the traditional book, we play with the library typology to express an evolution from physical to digital education media. Moving deeper into the space, visitors then enter the atrium, where all 3 floors in the building can be observed, thus one is instantly enlightened on the functions within the scheme.
The Scheme – Vertical Hierarchy
Our Building Concept is constructed from a 3-tier vertical hierarchy. Specifically, the design makes a distinction between the Social/Exhibition, Social Study, and Focussed Study spaces; an ascending hierarchy from ‘Noise’ to ‘Silence’.
The ‘Noisiest’ spaces – the Digital Workshop/Digihub and the Hobby space – are placed below ground level, to encourage a higher level of public experience within these spaces. For instance, the Digital Workshop/Digihub is presented as an advertisement of Digital Media; to say it isn’t something foreign, but rather approachable. Making this a transparent space below ground level accentuates approachability. By placing the public above the Digital Media, the shift to digital media is viewed less as an apparent obstacle, but something that everyone can observe, understand, and potentially, apply.
The ground level – the Interactive Study space – follows similar principles to current social study spaces.
The first storey – the Focussed Study Space – is more disconnected from the rest of the building. By placing it above ground, it is not something as accessible as the spaces below it. However, it is this gesture that accentuates the ‘Quietness’ of the space.
The Scheme – Circulation
The vertical circulation within the scheme naturally takes into consideration this ‘Noise’ Hierarchy. Moving from ground level to underground level, people travel through a wide, linear stairway/terraced study space; a generous circulation point bridging between two high ‘Noise’ levels. Inversely, the stairway up to the first floor is a narrow, bending element; acting as a threshold between the noisy lower levels, and the quiet first storey.
The Scheme – Lighting
To allow natural light to penetrate the lower levels of the scheme, we use two different methods. The first method is through the Atrium towers, where a set of apertures are integrating into the East, North, and West faces of the towers. These apertures cast a lighting pattern that illuminates the atrium space. The second method we use are circular skylights scattered throughout the building. These are angled and displaced between floors to maximise sunlight exposure in the lower levels, while also casting a ‘social encompassment’ that unifies the 3 floors into a whole.
Critical Feedback and Reflections
Reflecting on the feedback given by our design critics, they presented aspects I feel may be considered moving forward. Specifically, the critics suggested to focus on how we would interact with the scheme if it were built. I interpret this as a desire to critically evaluate our programmatic gestures. Furthermore, the critics also suggested we design in more detail the social and focussed study spaces within the scheme. While I agree with this – since our programmatic detailing ended up quite ambiguous – I felt that this was inevitable given we were given 3 days to conceptualise/present this scheme.
One suggestion a critic had for such a space was a ‘backpack’ that could be carried into the spaces; establishing one’s own boundaries inside the building. Personally, I found this exact idea to be a little gimmicky; it is a very bizarre replacement for a closing room system like in SANAA’s 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art. Albeit, the relation between architecture and product does seem like an interesting idea to play with later on.
In the end we invested more time into establishing the theoretical basis of our scheme. In my opinion, this was a strong point within our scheme. By establishing our approach to a digital library as a more humble, approachable typology, we have crafted a convincing discourse on how a digital library should be effectively implemented (whether other people think so as well). To extend from this, I feel like our reactive gestures – materiality and exterior form – are strong aspects to move forward with, especially when considering the boundaries between Real and Virtual Space; what differentiates these two ‘realms’? Where does manipulating senses become involved? How do we manipulate these parameters as architects to create a healthy relation between these two realms?
Overall, I would say my colleague and I have produced a successful design on a theoretical level. By establishing a strong theoretical discourse, we lay a convincing groundwork that I feel will be relevant moving forward towards a final design. However, we should also consider some bolder gestures as well, as this scheme was quite conservative; it did not present many polemical or novel elements.
Comentários