We made it to the top 5 contenders! support and vote us for Best Online Magazine at the Open Web Awards! [close]
Become a fan of ArchDaily on Facebook!

Exploratory Science Museum of Unicamp winners announced

By Sebastian J — Filed under: Awarded Competitions , Museums and Libraries ,
 

1252423033-museum-access

The International Competition for the Exploratory Science Museum of Unicamp winners were recently announced. Daniel Corsi, Dani Hirano and Reinaldo Nishimuro from CHN Arquitetos won the competition.

The Exploratory Science Museum was instituted in 2006 as an organ of the State University of Campinas (Universidade Estadual de Campinas – Unicamp), one of the most important universities in Brazil. The Mission of the Exploratory Science Museum is to promote the dissemination of scientific culture in a space that values learning, companionship and social inclusion. It intends to accomplish its mission by unveiling the processes by means of which science and technology are constituted and contributing towards the comprehension of its impacts on everyday life, as well as on the biological and social environment at large.

In general terms, UNICAMP’s Exploratory Science Museum aspires to be a museum that accompanies the most recent trends in museology, becoming both a national and international reference, and attaining the same level of excellence as the best museums in the world. It’s main priority are those individuals that attend schools (elementary, junior high school, high school and college students), without, however, excluding other visitors from its potential public, those that are out of school, that is, that are not currently attending formal education.

First and second place projects after the break.

First Place
CHN Arquitetos

1252423066-reception-area

Being Science the institution and main purpose of this project it becomes possible to reveal in an exceptional manner the relation between Man and Nature. And if in that relation science is concerned with understanding the existing, architecture deals with what still does not exist: it presents itself as an opportunity of expression of Man and his creation, originating a phenomenon of its own. Upon this, two absolute conditions are presented: the singular location where the project will be placed and the universal institution to be manifested.

A museum as a phenomenon, a phenomenon as landscape.

1252423095-time-space-square

First, the place reveals us the indispensable need for the relationship between the new museum and the landscape to give rise to an event of territorial scale. The new museum should become a landmark on the horizon as a geographical fact. A museum that observes and is observed. A building that reveals itself and originates a new relation between Man and Nature, Architecture and Landscape. Second, it is crucial that the new museum should, above all, enhance the value of the institution through its architecture, be the Science in itself. The new building should reveal this aspect, be unique and not just a common structure.

Simultaneously the new building seeks through its design, the primal metaphor between the infinite dimension of the universe and the human property of understanding reality through Science: intervention and landscape, vertical and horizontal, interior and exterior, light and shadow, cosmos and individual. Architecture as a determined act of human manifestation, a scientific instrument of learning and identity for the revelation of Science. Thus, it is unquestionable and determining the synthesis of the significance of the museum and its action in the territory.

1252423100-time-space-square-sunset 1252423089-temporary-exhibition-2 1252423081-temporary-exhibition 1252423052-permanent-exhibition 1252423043-night-view 1252423039-night-air-view 1252423033-museum-access 1252423018-model-3 1252423008-model-2 1252423001-model-1 1252422987-facade-detail-sunset 1252422979-facade-detail-night 1252422972-facade-detail-day 1252423072-site-plan 1252423106-transversal-sections 1252422996-longitudinal-section 1252422992-facade-surface-concept-diagrams 1252422963-construction-elements 1252423058-plans

Second Place
UNITYDESIGN, STARBURSTAR and ASA

1252423551-01

We proposed a new, 21st Century architectural sense for the design of this project, that utilized the space and environment as had never realized before in past decades in Brazil. The rich landscape, calm climate, and brilliance of the sun formed the basis of our proposal that focused on sustainability; reducing the reliance on artificial energies such as air conditioning. The unique architectural design was meant to be as an extension of the environment, to mold the structure onto and into the surrounding land, while enduring over time.

We also anticipated that the citizens of Campinas City would want a design that realized their traditional way of life; one that truly co-exists with nature. This project achieves creating comfortable spaces, as nature intended, by using the natural wind and shade, and is effective in also realizing the importance of alternative sustainable energies and architecture for the 21st Century.

1252423631-08

Our proposal for this project was based upon the concept of the <NECKLACE>. Our necklace design comprised of the <POROUS LOOP> or ‘chain’ and had <DISCRETE VOLUMES> which represented the ‘jewelry’ or ‘stones’ of the necklace.

The double bricked <POROUS LOOP> wall formed the exterior circulation space between which exhibition spaces were formed. The ‘chain’ concept of the necklace and loop allowed visitors to walk freely around the museum, whilst interacting with the dynamics of the natural environment such as: sunlight, shadows, wind, mist, clouds and sky. In this way, visitors interact wholly and as part of the exploratory science museum’s exterior and interior design. To explore certain exhibitions in more detail, visitors could purchase tickets to enter special exhibition areas, created by the <DISCRETE VOLUME> spaces.

1252423685-14

This Loop, or the spine of the architecture, was not controlled by electrical energy (air conditioning, ventilation, illumination, dehumidification etc.), but rather simple mechanisms controlled by the environment and managed by the people. This included the flow of natural light or wind, skillfully distributed by the curved porous walls, liberating the architecture itself from a dependence on machines and energy based installations.

The brick walls were made using the soil located on site. Our intention was to realize the space and architecture based on the conventional materials available locally, for easy construction and maintenance. In this way, the architecture would truly be harmonized with the surrounding environment. The brick wall, which represents the primitive elasticity and toughness of Brazil, would also show its beauty with time<DISCRETE VOLUMES> representing the closed exhibition spaces, were to be built following the rich landform like houses dotting a primitive village. Each volume had the necessary spec functions and requirements including but not limited to high ceilings, open views, continuity to exteriors, and open spaces. By minimizing the amount of these high spec spaces, our proposal reduced the initial and running costs of the building, and also the environmental impact of machines.

1252423657-11

The <NECKLACE> was intended to be a flexible ’system’ of space, under which the shape or size of the space can be determined in the process of discussion (workshop) between the architect and the user. At the same time, this system allows for future changes without losing the function or the beauty of the architecture.

To preserve the dynamic panoramic view from the hilltop location, the <NECKLACE> was designed to slip into and onto the existing landscape. This meant that half of the Loop was set on the existing landform, while the other half was buried under it; naturally realizing the relational potential to the landscape. The horizontal skyline of the <POROUS LOOP> as seen from the campus would become the new landmark of UNICAMP, and emphasize the beauty of the sloping hillside.

1252423618-06

Science is everywhere around us. Our proposal of the <NECKLACE> with the exterior circulation space was done so in accordance with our philosophy that the NEW exploratory science museum should be a space where people could directly learn science from the miracle of the surrounding nature and incorporated architecture, and not just from the exhibits in the room. Our concepts are to design and realize lasting architectural structures with ‘strong’ spines. This does not mean making things by using eternal materials. Our intention is to realize a strong ‘SPACE’ designed in and responding to, lasting natural phenomena.

We call this concept ‘Phenomenal Infrastructure’, which essentially means designs and architecture realized with sensitively to the movement of the sun, flow of the wind, landforms, and human and natural activity, beyond any ordinal infrastructure that only exists for efficiency.
Our goal is to envision a truly ‘sustainable’ form of architecture not by quantitative measurements but by understanding the special phenomena occurring at each and every site.

Our exploration of the 21st Century sustainable architecture has just only begun.

1252423677-13 1252423667-12 1252423643-09 1252423605-05 1252423585-04 1252423573-03 1252423562-02 1252423551-01 ESMU_P4-002

 

20 comments »

viniruski says:

Hey, I’ve seen a museum just like this in San Fran! some copper clad number by some swiss guys named Herzog & de Muron?
Ooops.

 
# September 8, 2009 at 12:26

I think the winner is by far the most appropriate design but the second place design is very interesting, specially in the use of the evaporation technology and the whole organic form.

 
# September 8, 2009 at 12:36
arch critic says:

the winner is sick, period. way better than those H&dM guys.

 
# September 8, 2009 at 13:13
    Lite says:

    You’re right! It may sound absurd but this really seem to be way better, and i’ve visited the Museum in Frisco!

     
    # September 8, 2009 at 13:22
viniruski says:

Their write up is so phoney: “. . primal metaphor between the infinite dimension of the universe and the human property of understanding reality through Science”.

H&M’s was an art museum, and I think they demonstrated an idea of circulation between exhibition spaces. Whether it worked is another question. Also, art museum interiors have to be careful to not distract from the exhibits.

This number here seems more about the architecture. Although a science musuem, I don’t see any clear idea in the renderings that it is. Nevertheless, thanks for the T-rex skeletons and hanging blue whale. I love hanging 1:1 blue whales.

 
# September 8, 2009 at 14:17
    Lite says:

    Museums are all about circulation and blank exhibition spaces, aren’t they? (Wright’s Guggenheim, UNStudio’s Mercedez, de Young, etc). The circulation at de Young is kind of confusing actually. It lacks the intuitiveness and simplicity of buildings like the NY Guggenheim and UNStudio’s in Stuttgart. Simplicity present in this one. Also, think about the possibilities of this ceiling high and the span length. Remembering that Campinas is not a Global Center such as SF.

     
    # September 8, 2009 at 17:12
      viniruski says:

      De Young’s circulation is less rigid than Guggenheim which dictates that you must follow the spiral procession. de Young allows more freedom of movement and intersections of space. That is the spirit of 21stC architecture isn’t it?

      Gug is a good precident for a musuem, but i don’t how when you get to the top there is nothing except an elevator door. And you just stand there going “did i miss something?”. Processions through spaces are most architectural when it ends with the grandest and biggest space in the building; or something small and intimate like a Tempietto structure or a sacred room.

      One last thing, I don’t see any “simplicity” in the winning design. It is the hardest characteristic to achieve in architecture. Even if one designs the most minimal building possible, it does not necessarily make it “simple”.

       
      # September 8, 2009 at 21:49
InLoveWithSejima says:

If the first prize is a weak copy of H & deM, nobody noticed the total lack of creativity in the second place? It’s Louvre Lens mixed with a house project in China made by SANAA.Shameful!

 
# September 8, 2009 at 15:36
sebastijan says:

these comparisons with H+deM and SANAA and allegations of copying are all b*****t! architecture is all about stealing/borrowing/copying/being inspired by other projects. also, as viniruski said, an art museum and science museum are quite different by nature therefore i do not think it appropriate to compare the two as equals, or to say one is superior to the other… apples and oranges. i like the de young. you can get lost in it. to me that is often more desirable in a museum than clear simple linear circulation like in the guggenheim.

 
# September 8, 2009 at 18:08
kenchikuka says:

your all too hooked up upon what it looks like.

i would have thought the structure in the first is interesting- very wes jones

and the environmental diagram in the second is where its at

both are really seductive

:P

 
# September 9, 2009 at 09:17
Lite says:

@viniruski

I agree with your point but i think you should have compared the de Young with the Mercedes in Stuttgart to keep the arguments upon 21st century museums, since this seems to be one of the points in your arguments. If you compare them (H&dM and UNStudio) seems to me that the second one has much more of the qualities you have acclaimed (”more freedom of movement and intersections of space”). Also does the de Young achieve that “grandest and biggest space in the building; or something small and intimate like a Tempietto structure or a sacred room”. If it does, please tell me where, because then “i missed something there”.
Look, i find the de Young a nice experiment, and it is nice to get to the top of the tower and get the sights of the city and the park. But honestly the exhibition spaces aren’t that rich (do you agree?) Even those two gardens (ferns and eucaliptus) and the dry patio seem tiny … Again it is a nice experiment but in such a place (GG Park is an amazing place) i think they could have done it better.

Back to this one, i didn’t mean simplicity relating to sublime qualities which are in fact some of the hardest things to achieve in architecture. I meant as a simple (but nice and competent) huge space infilled with natural but controllable light and where the possibilities of exhibitions are many. And this is a quality that the de Young lacks (ok, different purposes art, science, but it lacks anyway).

 
# September 9, 2009 at 10:06
    viniruski says:

    Lite:

    I will definately have a look at the UN project you mentioned. It’s that short cylindrical structure right? Or all curvilinear in some way.

    And yes, I do agree with most of your criticisms of the de Young. I hope I didn’t convey the idea that the de Young blows me away. I just think the winner of this competition is a total knock off of the same form/massing (especially the tower part), perf metal cladding, and cantilevering steel frame. Both are lukewarm to me.

     
    # September 9, 2009 at 12:09
bak says:

Actually I see Brazil vs Japan here. Both have a very clear heritage, and that’s why I truly like both.
But as Campinas is in Brazil, I favour the Brazilian one. A project that reminds me of projects from Paulo Mendes da Rocha and Oscar Niemeyer. Way more poetry as H&dM could fabricate.

 
# September 15, 2009 at 09:08
哈利 says:

有意思 呵呵

 
# September 17, 2009 at 05:03
tomnguyen says:

it is efficient to use the transparent material on all the facades. the building shape is strong and simple. the entrance is noticeable. great design. i choose the first place

 
# October 1, 2009 at 01:42
biin says:

museum oh museum emang paling2 dah

 
# October 5, 2009 at 01:50

Links to this article »

Leave a Reply »

Want to have your own avatar? Get yours at Gravatar.

Latest Comments »

I could get lost in a...[+]
“simplicity is complexity” quoted from...[+]
Ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen, wasn´t it called like that. avangard...[+]
what i like the most about this...[+]
alucidwake on SOZAWE / NL Architects:
hey guys, get this. if we step the building form up in the...[+]
you’re aware that video shows the old version of...[+]
archilocus on Piranesi Awards 2009:
similar typology but I find the work of DECA much more integrated...[+]
this was a very nice project, keep in mind that everything you do in...[+]
Comment – Valid Argument = Fail[+]
well, I can try to translate it, at least part of it....[+]
Just because the two projects have some principle in common, that...[+]
I can see some similarities, but it’s far from being a copy paste...[+]

Browse by category »

Our partners »

Browse by date »

Friends »

Proudly hosted at »