National Library in Astana, Kazakhstan / BIG
BIG was recently awarded with the first prize on an open international design competition for Kazakhstan’s new National Library in Astana.
The new building has an area of 33.000 sqm, arranged as a continuous circulation on a Möbius Strip, as the result of 2 interlocking structures: the perfect circle and the public spiral. The sections (see below) clearly show how the horizontal program shifts to a vertical configuration, combining vertical hierarchy, horizontal connectivity and diagonal view lines. The skin, which changes from wall to roof as the strip develops. It sounds a bit complicated, but the sections and diagrams explain this pretty well, and you can get the idea on how the spaces and diagonal views relate on the renderings. In short words, a clear lineal organization (ideal for an archive, library) is mixed with an infinite loop.
“What is a library but an efficient archive of books… and a path for the public to reach them” (Thomas Christoffersen, Project Leader)
This shape also looks forward to become a symbol for the nation: “the circle, the rotunda, the arch and the yurt are merged into the form of a Moebius strip. The clarity of the circle, the courtyard of the rotunda, the gateway of the arch and the soft silhouette of the yurt are combined to create a new national monument appearing local and universal, contemporary and timeless, unique and archetypal at the same time” (Bjarke Ingels).
But once again, BIG diagram´s are way better to explain this than my words. See the diagrams, sections and renderings after the break:
Typology
Diagram
Structure / Envelope
Program
Circulations
Ecotect analysis
6th floor plan
North-south section
East-west section
Elevations
Night view
Access
Interior
Interior
Interior
Model
Model
Architect: BIG
Client: Kazakhstan Presidential Office
Collaborators: ARUP AGU
Size: 33.000 M2
Location: Astana, Kazakhstan
Partner-in-Charge: Bjarke Ingels
Project Leader: Thomas Christoffersen
Team: Amy Campbell, Jakob Henke, Johan Cool, Jonas Barre, Daniel Sundlin
Related articles:
116 comments »
Another home run for the bigs at BIG!
feels like if he actually pulls this one off, it’ll be another step that pushes him into starchitect territory (following the mountain dwellings). i hope the interior experiences match the ones of the exterior.
wow…the diagram is so great. But I think this concept looks like something made by Zaha Hadid.
do you mean the Civil Court of Justice in Madrid? not sure about being similar, one thing I like about this BIG project is the entrance, there is a manipulation of landscape and I believe guiding myself from the model and section you sort of emerge on the center, both have different contexts…which one works better? could be a question.
no way.
This is much smarter than what hadid does.
hadids work is pearl and this is its shiness….my dear.
I like and respect Bjarke Ingels work. The way he explains his projects is a plus, is not like he is the only who does it because other architects do it too, but he does it a fun way (you don’t have to agree). When I look at this project and after I see the diagrams I say okay, even if it reminds me to the shanghai pavilion he did, still good. But then I look at the North-south section and I felt weird…maybe I missed something there.
THAT SECTION DISTURBS ME TOO..
but i really adore B.I.G.!
The north south section is bad. I’ve never seen so much wasted space. Am I missing something?
absolutely not a waste of space, compare yourself standing on one of those open platforms to standing on one of the floors of the east-west section,on the north-south section is where you would really experience and appreciate the design of structure.
i think they rendered to look like a physical model.
another masterpiece of design! but not architecture
Seattle Library on steriods!
Regular rooms housed
in a sculptural shell
gives much REMnanat space.
Remember those good old days when big copied OMA? Now they moved on to copy UNStudio, I’m getting old…
@Heli: yes, that’s exactly what i’m thinking about. Well, if these two projects are not similar, so why you do you think about Civil Court in Madrid when i said this project looks like something made by Zaha?
Anyway, i like this more than Zaha’s, may be it’s because of the diagram, it’s too convincing!
one word : BEAUTY
another BIG genius.
Come on! relax your fanboy mentality towards architecture and the people heading the design-teams.
haha. i’m an architecture student, you can’t blame me for that reaction. ;)
you need to grow some, and get out of puberty
its nice, i like it…but once again…I dont know if bjarke ingels wants to be more mature or what, but Im missing something innovative here. couple a years ago, with every new project, there was also some kind of statment “how can we do it differently?” and there were tons of small ideas added to the project to make it more fun for the inhabitants / visitors and, what i think, make the building actually work.
here / its a library, but nothing else, people would come here to read books, but nothing else would make them spend some more time here and explore the building.
in one sentence: its nice, but it is boaring.
And that’s the worse you can say about BIG, cause, that’s theyr trademark. Not necesserily nice, but always FUN
Architecture wise: AMAZING!
Interior Design wise: Very poor… Interiors are not part of the last minute details… Interior design is a whole challenge/project by itself.
How can you separate “architecture” from its interior? – Isn’t architecture always the whole thing – inside and outside?
no, architecture is the design of a space, the exterior is stunning, but the interior is well below the standards of a building of this calabur
The section is horrible. It reveals the uselessness of these weird, narcissistic shapes. It looks pretty from the outside though, and the diagrams are mildly entertaining.
Nice form, but more for a pavillion (Shanghai, anyone?) than for a real building. Quite typical is that you don’t see any books one any of the drawings, except in the far background – I thought it was a library, not a business center…
I agree with Al Gaddor, very nice design but not especially architecture.
I don’t see that much a game with landscape, more a landscape creation, and nothing in the documents here about the interaction with surroundings or urban intentions, plus the floor plans look quite simplistic.
Ok, beautiful shape, renderings… i love it i won’t say, but i would be missing something if i wasn’t taking a closer look the the building functionality and meaning…
太喜欢BIG 了，年轻而直接
YES IS MORE!
欢迎加入每日建筑讨论群9946538。
创建于20090826.
very lazy… just take any mathematical geometry and force a section within it’s skin, add some unconvincing diagrams to pretend it works and instant visual diarrhoea…
I do I have the impression they did this somewhere else…I dont know the Danish Pavillion for the Shanghai Expo….I just wonder…I am not saying it is similar, just looks too much the same…..otherwise I think it is a good concept
nice diagrams… certainly really graphic design but sorry to say that I miss the point… Always liked to see BIG (and before PLOT) working the program more than the shape but now seems for me that this is to be aestheticism more than anything else. kind of agree with PANZA >> maturity do not well that way
I fully support your statement!
Why do they hire architects… if the renders are by a a render office and the ideas a recylced… they took the danish pavillion and scale it bigger… so no sense on the shape….
no sense on the concept
people say its nice just beacause they are like sheeps… following trends and since BIG is a trendy name… please people be more critical… and I also wonder all these “competitions” in corrupt countries… no context… no nothing
really concerning about the state of architecture nowadays
….and I fully support your statement!
..and so do i!
and this building is everything excetp efficient, so
“What is a library but an efficient archive of books… and a path for the public to reach them” (Thomas Christoffersen, Project Leader)
Is nothing but ANOTHER BIG BULL*
I think they were using the same concept, in both competitons, at the same time… and, “unluckily”, they won both…
wow,it’s real big!!
not that ugly as it first appears.
why mobius strip always be used in concept?
and agree with Freud
how can they manage “waste space” ?
Fun shapes, bad architecture.
Dear readers,
Comparin this library to the Danish pavilion is like comparing a cube used as a stool with a house designed as a cube…
Both might be infinite loops, but their structures, and results are way different. The Danish Pavilion is a continuous section, containing a space with the same form, with the roof used as a bike path. This loop is a structural skin, that encloses different spaces, two separate structures… more like Seattle´s Library (on which Bjarke worked back in the day).
That´s why I reached BIG to feature all this detailed diagrams and plans (unlike other websites that just feature renderings and low res drawings), so you can fully understand what´s “inside” the project.
I also take this opportunity to publicly thank them for always sharing detailed info with us…. we do a big effort to be an architecture blog done by architects and aiming to HELP architects through information and debate. I hope you value this.
I really commend you guys on archdaily for what you people everyday—new projects in detailed explanations and documentation to the masses! You are indeed a great resource, but like you I think there are too many douchebags that drink Haterade and say “I don’t like it” and “that’s not architecture” to sound off and feed off their ego. What’s lacking in these comments are a questions about the project’s processes and analytical comparisons that spark debate–not angry rants…c’mon on people this is architecture—not healthcare in America
I am an architect student and I love looking at projects here and then reading comments from people. Looking at projects is mostly just keepin me updated what’s going on in architecture, but reading the comments is sometimes a learning experience for me!
I get so irritatet when people just say “this is boring” or “this sucks” or “ahhh, another BIG building”!!! I wonder if many of these people are experienced architects out there. I get absolutely no joy in telling someone off without having good arguments…how can you enjoy writing something like this when you’re not backing it up with good arguments. I really don’t understand it!?? I looooove when I get pointed out something negative about my project that just has the most beautiful arguments behind it! It’s the best learning experience I can ever imagine. It sometimes happens here when people who bother write what’s on their mind with good care, but I really wish it was more often!
I have nothing to comment on the building…I prefer sucking other peoples comments…at least for now.
I fully agree with your statement. I like the term “haterade”
Hello David,
Although I really like BIG projects, I have to disagree with you.
As you can see in the “Public Spiral” diagram, the blue spiral is exactly the same shape as “(…) The Danish Pavilion is a continuous section, containing a space with the same form, (…).” But with an exo-struture, or skin.
Not that I think this is a problem. Or that makes this project weak. But is the same shape…
PS: What you guys from Archdaily are doing is amazing. You are definitely the best arch blog. The number of posts is incredible and the space for discussion created is priceless.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Keep the good work!
thanks archdaily, it is impressive to see the structural diagrams and that this is more than a rendering and it can actually be built!
But Denmark pavillion for shangai was without mobius strip. Danish skyscraper by Bjarke was also without it(other M.C.Escher trick was used as inspiration). The geometry of pavilion was quite simple. It’s nice that finaly someone is going to build real 3d mobius strip as building skin.
the wall becomes a floor? where can i see this in the internal structure?
and why is there no connection between the external structure and the inner one (feels like 2 buildings)?
thnx
hey noName… First. if both structures would be connected (the inner and outer one) that would be a shame since the inner structure is the one that encloses all the functional spaces and its the one that structurally supports the library, while the outer structure is the one that works as a skin and gives continuity to the building, providing protection from the sun and other outer factors. So yes they are both structures, but they work as two completly different systems, (inner one works as the weight support system and the outer one only as a cover or skin system). so, although both are components of the same building, they need to be separated in order for the building to be more clear and understandable. And is the tension between both structures is what creates the most interesting spaces of the library… its that extra thing that separates this library from any other, and what creates the connection that you write about between both structures. Second. the thing that changes from wall to roof is the skin that is continous… Saludos!! sorry for my english…
So in summary, you mean 2 skins with different functions like the Torres Siamesas by Aravena :D
not two skins… two structures
right…I said skins because I picture the section and see two layers, but each in reality is a structure.
Cher Damien
i m sorry but you are wrong my friend
“a shame to connect both structures”?
“they need to be separated in order for the building to be more clear and understandable”? as if some kind of structural, spacial, physical … connection would undermine the understanding of this “building”.
it s very easy: like your comment, this project lacks content, the only content are the books inside the library.
it would have been a great asset, a great value, if both structures were connected. if both structure needed each other to exist, like your own skin and the rest of your body, that is the real tension. think about it.
bye
noName. It seems you didn´t understand what I tried to say or I didn´t say it well. I didnt mean to say it is a great building. what I ment is that if there are 2 structures with completely different purposes but work toghether for a building to function, they dont need to have physical contact in order to be connected or related. But if there would be a mixture between both structes the one that makes the building stand up and the one that covers it, the project would lose clarity. if there is no intentionality to hide the supporting structure, then it is better to dont mix it with other one that serves for a different purpose. and the space left between the real building and the skin, as we see in the renders, seem to be the best quality spaces of the library.
Damien, thanx for your reply,
I do understand what you’re explaining, but we have a different perception.
The clarity which you speak of is to ‘clear’, there is no depth. Do not rely on the renders, most of the time they are deceptive advertising…just compare the renders and the sections…
D. Basulto:
We are incredibly thankful for your effort.
And critique, good or bad, is critique at the end of the day.
even more when is meant in a constructive way.
The critiques are towards the project… and the architects must be used to that, since the are one of the “publication architects”
The concern is really on the substance in this case.
And knowing how these offices work.. their design process, its not really like comparing a stool and a house… its just a 3d model or a foam model that they like and then all the bla bla bla came after… anybody that has worked there knows it.
Being a good story teller doesnt make the stories true.
Maybe it works with ignorant clients, but there are more critical people out there.
DMas,
I´m not against critique, actually I´m answering the comments to further continue the critiques. But I don find that this comparison (Danish Pavilion / National Library) is being done in a quick way, and I´m clarifying some aspects to “en route” it.
Thanks for caring about the importance of critique (for me is more like Debate).
Ow yes! I like that!
Really interesting project.
Simple idea but nicely put into architecture.
the section is the best part.
if this gets engineered and built, it will make every future ecotect facade optimization seem totally rote. which is a good thing–it should be part of every design these days.
the INTERIOR doesnt look bad at all. Bjarke is really killin the game right now. period.
Don’t really get the point of a ‘SKIN’ around the internal structure which looks pretty cool in term of space creating for a discourse inside/outside and ‘wall becoming roof becoming floor becoming wall…” (OK the last one not sure but…)
Feel this skin really formal where I find the core of project having a really good potential …
Anyway it’s nice to read all your comments and thanks again archdaily for the everyday news, research, …, amazing work.
I really admire Bjarke Ingels Group…(I’m a FAN)
but this building looks so hillarious, I mean, BIG always bring to us projects with a lot of complex in the concept, and really wise way to formalize the building.
this project looks nice to the first sight, but a lot of details are missing, of course the diagrams are usefull to understand the idea, but are incongruent in the empty spaces between structure and exterior facade.
Anyway, nice to see another rare proposal of BIG..and yes, reminds me to Denmark Pavillion for Shangai 2010
After doing all of OMAs ideas BIG is now doing UN Studios..or what? A big shape and twisted once again.
Looks almost like a monument from the old soviet or communist China! Only missing a statue of the president in the middle…I really miss democratic architecture….
喜欢
BIG projects make me sad. i really do think they lack a consideration for materials, especially interior use, as most of their projects feature these overwhelming renderings from outside but look much less impressive in terms of spaces inside.
Wow, this is ridiculous
I thought, owkay I follow the proces, it can work. But than the section AUCH
Happy to see other people think the same
excelente. very good.
i like their simple, straight-forward diagrams. even the dumbest person can read them.
however there seems to be something lacking as of architecture… perhaps they should have at least shown us the context in one rendering?
Hey Bjarke (such an unpronounceable name for such a clearly lined architecture)thanks for making me feel I did not waste my time at school. People like you deserve what they have.
Honestly, great work always.
Best wishes from BCN!
JJM
BIG is amazing!
great explaining diagram, its allways in Big’s
those open terraces contained by a perforated patern may look great and have high quality feeling
but i think there are just too many void spaces
I enjoy BIG’s work for it’s fun, analytical approach, amazing graphics, collaborative approach. The work appears to be completely analytical by the diagrams but at the same time I don’t completely believe that. I think they are clever enough to portay it that way yet I do think they also have a some preconceived notions of ultimately how it is going to turn out, in this case a mobuis loop.
this great edifice is truly remarkable progress of mankind’s civilization in the field of architecture
beautiful interior spaces. hope there is one in vietnam. love it
buaguusnya
What is this? A library for ants? It needs to be atleast three times bigger than this.
brilliant project
lots of people have played around with minimal surfaces but
these guys do it best.
program/form/function; hybridized..it’s like Rem Koolhaas on crack (in a good way), and Zaha Hadid with rationality
I think this is a breakthrough project alongside
FOA’s Yokohama Port Terminal
Seattle Library is nice too but it lags in comparison technologically, aesthetically…it is less contemporary
Please do not compare to the fabulous Danish Pavillion. This is merely a really clumsy copy by another projectleader, but probably a lot more influence by Bjarke Ingels. It’s really blasfemic to compare BIG to OMA…stop it
Just read through all the comments – very interesting, many varied arguments for and against many elements of this scheme. However one key element that seems completely un-discussed is that of context… Both direct, i.e. this will be built in Astana – the 1st new capital of the 21st Century, a Utopian city being built on petrodollars by a 21st Century authoritarian ruler (Authoritarian with a small a!!) in the freezing cold steppe. Grand gestures and forms are part of the package here and in comparison to Foster’s pyramid I personally think this scheme a success. But surely the other key part of context is the social/philosophical context of working in Astana and primarily a regime like Nursultan Nazarbayev’s? Architects have always bickered and dis-agreed about levels of ethical responsibility – from extremes such as Speer (&Hitler) to Le Corbusier’s courting of Mussolini through to Venturi & Scott Brown’s entering competitions to build Saddam Hussein’s mosques. Nazarbayev is not on the same level as the genocidal dictators of the 20th Century but he is none the less unanimously condemned by all human rights organisations and holds the whole country in his grip, he offers Western architects huge fees and a lot of freedom in design (and build – the buildings themselves are built at Dubai speeds yet within a year of completion show signs of bad workmanship) and demands unique and utopian schemes which are undoubtedly fun for a designer to produce.. but where is the line? Should BIG be supporting/legitimising a corrupt regime where the President has made himself so for life and where vocal journalists disappear if they criticise him? Or is the argument that only through interaction and the exportation of ideals of democracy, expressed through architecture, can Architects fulfil their ethical role a valid one? I wonder what other readers believe? To me it seems only too easy to bypass the ethics that one might hold regarding other issues in life and hide behind logic referring to professional life when the carrot (financial & Design wise) looks so tasty..
its great this is actually the production of architecture.
Please note that BIG Architects plagiarized the design. The design was registered in the United States by Anwar Al-Mallah in 2003. BIG Architects submitted and won a prize for copyrighted work they shamelessly stole and presented as their own. Type “Mobius Building Anwar” in Google and see page 5 of the article at “ftp://ftp.formz.com/pub/formz/PDF_files/eCAADe_paper.pdf.” then you’ll see who the real Mobius Building designer is, or visit the U.S Copyright office and search for Mobius Building.
Links to this article »