EUROPAN 13_OTANIEMI_ THE IN-BETWEEN CAMPUS
AN INTEGRATED MODEL
The emergent model in planning theory and practices in
European regions focuses on new models of participation
that could be defined as integrated decision processes. As
intermediation between top down and bottom up actions,
the integrated approach envisions the contribution
in planning process of several and diverse social and
economical parties to the development of new models for
collective inhabiting.
This integrated approach is fundamental in the proposal
for Otaniemi Campus. It is articulated around three main
factors that define the meaning of the proposal entitled
“The In-Between Campus”:
MERGING ACTORS
Stakeholders of private sector, student and resident
communities, university services are the main actors
taken in consideration for the proposal that provides a
wide range of possibility for interaction within the public/
common ground that acts physically as the plateau of the
neighborhood. The public space located at ground level is
composed by common services as sport and fitness zone;
nursery; welcome areas; creative for innovation hub. The
services, that could be managed by private companies or
self organized community (organized by community itself),
lie on a porous basement that connects them also with
green areas and diverse kind of mobility routes (mainly
bicycle and pedestrian). So the merging of different actors
to vivify the district are located on public/common ground
as a diversified plaza that hosts several activities for the
living community.
MERGING ECOLOGY WITH BUILDINGS
The proposal is characterized by openness and integration
between green spaces and buildings. The merging of
these two components composes an innovative urban/
natural tissue that adds a positive and active value to the
ecological character of the area. It embodies the specific
quality of the competition area , that is of being a porous
border between the urbanity of the Campus and the
Natura 2000 Reserve area. The ecological value of the
intervention is considered as a model of social innovation.
The community is encouraged to be active supporter
of natural condition through the massive insertion of
gardens not just on the ground but also within and on
the roof top of the buildings. The presence of winter
and summer gardens in the housing blocks also acts as
intermediation for birds and plants within the context.
MERGING PRIVATE AND COMMON SPACES
The third way of integration is reached in the proposal
by giving a big variety of quality spaces on public level
and on housing one. The proposal encourages collective
life through the prevision of common spaces within
the dwelling typologies that are thought as microcommunities
( student dwellings are for 6 up to 12
students for apartment). This condition aims to enforce
the sense of community, that lives and inhabits common
spaces and takes active part in maintaining them alive
and reach attention for the ecological equilibrium within
the built context.
DESIGN STRATEGIES
OPENNESS AND INTEGRATION
The strategies that guided the proposal on urban level
come from the importance to give an answer about hoe
to integrate human and no human values in the site.
The proposal then offers, in its settlement principles, the
possibility of openness and flexibility. The main strategy
was to define a tissue for the competition area that could
dialogue with the other buildings presences of (present in)
the campus, but at the same time the idea of tissue must
be integrated with nature, opening the blocks in their
settlement as a porous border between the city campus
and the shoreline of Natura 2000 area. The blocks are
deposed in a transversal way in relation to the sea in a
way of creating a visible and physical contact between the
interior of the campus and the outside area of shoreline.
Also the idea of a pullulation of buildings of controlled
dimension was a specific choice in opposition to big scale
programs. In this way is really strong the idea of micro
city, open towards nature.? Area of transition between
residential and university functions.
MOBILITY
The improvement of public transport will modify the
infrastructural asset for mobility within the campus.
Less need for cars will improve the reconversion of
parking areas on surface and there will the need also of
remodelling the road sections. Within this perspective
the proposal links the competition area to the new
developments where also will be located the metro
line stop. The Otakaari loop will be transformed in a
pedestrian boulevard where electric vehicles will transport
students trough the Campus.
The main boulevard provides access to the underground
car parking located at 3.00 meters on the sea level and
under the same street, in the area near the existing school
buildings (+6.00m) that allows the possibility to host an
hidden parking plot. The parking areas provided on the
north and on the south are on ground level and could be
converted in future less need for car as public gardens.
FLEXIBILITY
The In-between campus is organized toward an extreme
flexibility thanks to the different typologies adopted
for residential blocks organized around common
constructive strategies. Same constructive shape (12x12)
and the possible agglomeration leave possibility for (of)
rearranging areas following a participative process to the
definitive design. Within the same rules of construction
great variations are left for the organization of singular
apartments that are divided in three main typologies:
Tower (12x12m); Court (12x24); Drawers (12x36 and more).
Spaces for common/public services are located on the
groundfloor, and on the roofs of each block are present
winter and summer gardens for residents.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The general articulation of the proposal defines three
main areas within the competition borders.
On the north part of Area A are located ,near the health
center, new spaces for sport and fitness; the regular
houses more in contact with the residential area nearby;
a surface parking.
The central part of competition site (Areas A and C)
hosts the “In Between campus” with regular and special
housings; the public ground and the services that are
of small surface but numerous and diversified; the
underground parking.
The south part (Area B) hosts University functions
and parking surface area. In this part is located a new
building called Creative Innovation Hub to enforce the
activities already present nearby. A place to enforce and
stimulate relations(exchange and interchange) between
students, stakeholders and institutions for creating
smart and innovative spin off , companies and so on.
HOUSINGS
The modular structure guaranties a deep flexibility for
the apartment disposition and a great typological variety
of singular dwellings.
As in a game of combinations, the apartments are
arranged on a single or double level maintaining as
fixed points staircases and services (bath/kitchens).
The advantage of this concept is a great diversity of the
apartments, a large settlement density and unlimited
flexibility in adapting to the needs of different housing
types as requested. The mix of housing types corresponds to diversified
needs and range from 25 square meters to 100 square
meters. The proposal defines three main blocks ‘s typologies.
The TOWER typology (12x12m) is a special housing
that hosts small student community in apartments
(composed by)of one or double level (up to 6 students for
2 levels apartment). The apartments are composed by
double rooms, bathrooms, living/kitchen and spaces
for common study. The different spaces are organized
around a central space of double high that is the core of
the house. Each apartment is also characterized by the
presence of a winter garden that mediates the interior
space with the outside.
The COURT typology (12x24m) hosts also special houses
for students organized also in small communities (up to
14 students por 2 levels apartment. The single housing
unit is organized as semi court where spaces as rooms,
kitchens, study areas are all connected through a double
level green area dedicated to winter garden and space of
outside living for the students.
The DRAWERS typology (12x36m) hosts regular houses
organized by typologies of different size. Starting from
25sm (for a single resident) up to 100 sm for families,
they are all characterized by small wood drawers that
locate outside green areas that could be arranged as
productive garden.
GREEN AREAS
Each block is characterized by a strong presence of green
areas, within each apartment as well on each block’s
roof. On the top floors, in fact, are located green areas
for residents, common spaces that can be self organized
by the living community. The green areas are also the
“common matter” between the block articulating ,
the public ground floor through common yards, green
courts and more intimate spaces for outside relaxing
and concentration. The spaces will be left natural as
possible to enforce the idea of a necessity of ecological
equilibrium presented as drive force in the proposal.
ROUTES
Pedestrian and bicycle routes are main factors of
articulating the ground space. The present routes are
connected with the public outdoor spaces of the plateau.
The proposal then collects and connects all the previous
routes within the idea of connected terraces towards
nature. In this way ecological sphere is left out of intervention
but at the same time is a constant presence within the
building space. The architectural identity of the campus is thought in
coherence with the built cultural environment mainly
based on the utilization of red brick surfaces. The Block
show ever voluntarily loses their compactness to be
more open and bringing into their external shapes the
nature. For that reason the housing block presents a
wood curtain where winter gardens, outside spaces
and green roof are envisioned
