 |
|
|
|
From jury's report:
Cut has a conceptually very strong idea and the precise cut in the hill is an ingenious way of giving the Asplund building a totally new context. The proposal has a certain complexity despite its simple idea, the project is both visible and hidden away. The inner blade of the cut goes deep into the hill outside the competition site but restores the hill’s profile in its roof design and some of its foliage in the terraced roof construction. The intrusion into the hill will be very extensive, however, and the building will be obviously noticeable next to the preserved top of the hill.
When reworking the proposals, the architects have successfully dealt with several of the difficulties identified by the jury in the first stage of the competition. By gathering all the public library functions in the inner of the cut’s two blades, the problem of long distances between different parts of the library which were present in original proposal has been solved but unfortunately at the expense of large parts of the library’s public areas being located underground. By devising a cleverly considered connection to the Asplund building via one of the glass-roofed wells, this proposal avoids the earlier dubious bridge solution between the two library components and the Asplund building remains free-standing. The connection to the Asplund building is externally well-placed but there are difficulties with ramp connections and low ceiling heights.
The proposal’s major conceptual merit, the procession up to the deeply set main entrance in the large cut is at the same time its major functional defect. The sunken entry point is connected to the large concatenating underground library level via a series of stepped landings. The ingenious division into levels impedes use since too many separate functional sub-areas will have to be connected by ramps. This makes both overview and orientation more difficult but the most serious problem is its poor accessibility.
At first glance, the annexes seem to have been retained in their entirety. In reality, they are supported by new constructions and incorporated into a constructed landscape that slopes in between the buildings. This constructed landscape can give the illusion of a cut having been made in the hill and the land mass having been “pushed” forward towards Odengatan. The impression the sloping roof construction gives of a landscape covered in greenery, especially on the part that slopes down towards the annexes, is less credible since it is actually an extensive roof construction with long light apertures. The jury doubts whether this idea would have the illustrated effect when implemented.
The library’s functions are more coordinated in the reworked proposal but it is still difficult to obtain a good overview - the architects have had difficulties in finding logical, straightforward solutions to the building logistics. The simple idea would need equally straightforward solutions on the detailed level if it is really to withstand an implementation process.
|
|