View Full Version : Another Turku entry


Marr
27-09-2005, 22:04
Made this entry with a finish friend of mine, Hannu, about a year ago. At the time I had just finished my third year and the co-author was about to graduate.
Mikael posted an entry to the same competition recently. See his entry here http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389

I agree with mikael that there were a lot of technical issues to resolve, like parking, vehicular access, and so on that took a lot of time. But it was fun to participate and we recieved quite favorable reviews from the jury. Their main critical point was that we didn't really show how the new buildings would look, i.o.w. we just made them as white blocks.

Here is the competition brief http://www3.turku.fi/ympakaavi/sivut/Ajankohtaisia_hankkeita/Kakola/Kilpailuohjelma_osa1.pdf

Here is the text from the presentation boards:

We have chosen to create a dense urban environment on the northern and eastern side of the Kakolanmäki hill, while leaving a vast area to the south as parkland. The park could be an ideal place for picnics and recreation for the people of Turku, and would assure the status of the monumental façades of the main prison building and the western cells as landmarks in Turku. Facing south, this park would have plenty of sunlight, and a great view towards the city and to the sea.
The new buildings as well as the old, should house diverse functions. We feel that mixing residential, commercial and public function in a dense environment, is the key to create a lively neighbourhood . We propose new 3-4 story blocks and town houses with mixed functions. Our intention has been to make the scale and proportions of the new buildings to be in harmony with the old prison buildings, and even slightly submissive in order to preserve the visual significance of the old. A major factor in determining placement of new buildings,has been to allow view from
the hill to the city, and from the city to the historical buildings on the hill. In total, the new buildings in our proposal accommodate just over 90.000 m2. This is above the recommendation in the guidelines, but we have found that the area can accommodate this much without sacrificing the
quality of outdoor spaces and green areas. Also, we find it important as a part of a sustainable development to build densely in inner city areas.
For the old buildings, we suggest mixed use as well. The main prison complex could be ideal for public functions such as a school or a university and a museum, mixed with commercial and residential. The Remand prison could be used as a hotel and for commercial purposes. Next to it, we propose a new culture centre, partially buried into the hill, which could house a theatre for instance. A viewing tower could be placed here, since this is one of the highest points of the site, and has beautiful view over the centre of Turku. The existing tower on the Kakola main prison
building could in fact be refurbished and used as a viewing tower as well.
We propose a new road leading from Linnankatu through a tunnel to Puutarhakatu. Moving the main through fare from Pakkarinkatu to this new street gives space for new buildings west of the hill. By closing the street going right past the Juhana Herttuan Koulu ja Lukio, the school can be extended in a natural manner to the east. The new tunnel road also provides a more direct access to the new neighborhood on si hill. The main road through the area is proposed from the junction of the new tunnel road and Malminkatu in the west, leading through
the new neighbourhood and joining with Kakolankatu in the east. This road would serve as the main through fare on the site and provide access for public transportation. Other roads on the hill should be dead end to reduce traffic, and are mainly intended for lighter traffic, pedestrians,
access of emergency vehicles and to drop off people and groceries etc. We propose a new road over the old stone quarry, connecting the Kokola main prison building and the remand prison and creating a clear axis through the area. A new building could integrate the rock face of the quarry,
for example in a thermal bath or a swimming hall, thus preserving a piece of history. With most or all of the parking underground, a unique opportunity to reduce the bulk of infrastructure on the hill is created. We propose a grid of walking paths between the buildings, to provide access as well as scenic routes through the area. A place so unique as the Kakolanmaki hill should not only be for the people who live and work there, but for everybody to enjoy.

Board nr. 1

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:07
Board nr. 2

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:11
Board nr. 3

Grey are existing buildings, black are new.


A SCHEDULE OF ACCOMMODATION
1. 3-4 stories, 3950 m2
2. 2-4 stories, 1950 m2
3. 3-4 stories, 2850 m2
4. 3-4 stories, 2450 m2
5. 3-4 stories, 3950 m2
6. 2-4 stories, 1350 m2
7. 3-4 stories, 5250 m2
8. 3-4 stories, 2000 m2
9. 2-3 stories, 1350 m2
10. 2-3 stories, 1400 m2
11. 1-2 stories, 200 m2
12. 3-4 stories, 1750 m2
13. 3-4 stories, 3050 m2
14. 3-4 stories, 3800 m2
15. 2-4 stories, 1150 m2
16. 2 stories, 600 m2
17. 3-4 stories, 2550 m2
18. 3-4 stories, 4650 m2
19. 3-4 stories, 3150 m2
20. 3-4 stories, 2350 m2
21. 3-4 stories, 2450 m2
22. 3-4 stories, 3750 m2
23. 3-4 stories, 2950 m2
24. 4 stories, 6500 m2
25. 3-4 stories, 4150 m2
26. 3-4 stories, 6150 m2
27. 3-4 stories, 2850 m2
28. 3-4 stories, 5550 m2
29. 2-3 stories, 5500 m2
30. 2-3 stories, 1050 m2
31. 2 stories, 600 m2
32. 2-3 stories, 900 m2
33. 2-3 stories, 900 m2
34. 2-3 stories, 900 m2
total: 93950 m2

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:13
The fourth presentation board.


EXISTING BUILDINGS
1. Western Cells - Prison Museum, Art Museum
2. Workshop Building - Commercial Use
3. Night Cells - School Offices
4. Day Cells - Dormatory Apartments, Hotel
5. Prison Building Kakola - School Main Building
6. Kitchen Building - Restaurant
7. Workshop Building - School Workshops, Commercial Use
8. Eastern Cells - School Workshops, Commercial Use
9. Houses for the Senior Staff - Restaurant, Café, Commercial Use
10. Remand Prison - Hotel, Commercial Use, Restaurant
11. Workshop Building - Commercial Use

NEW BUILDINGS
A) Café, Restaurant, Exhibition Building - 2 stories, 600 m2
B) Baths, Swimming Hall - Cellar Floor, 2000 m2
Commercial Use, Hotel - Upper Floors, - 4 stories, 6500 m2
C) Ground Floor: Commercial Use, Upper Floors: Apartments - 3-4 stories, 4150 m2
D) Ground Floor: Commercial Use, Upper Floors: Apartments - 3-4 stories, 6150 m2
E) Ground Floor: Commercial Use, Upper Floors: Apartments - 3-4 stories, 2850 m2
F) Ground Floor: Commercial Use, Upper Floors: Apartments - 3-4 stories, 5550 m2
G) Commercial Use - 2 stories, 1500 m2
H) Theatre, Conference Use, Café - 2-3 stories, 4000 m2
I) Commercial Use - 2-3 stories, 1050 m2
school apartments culture restaurants commercial sports/leisure hotel

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:18
The new park beside the old prison.

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:22
the crossing of the mainroad and the pedestrian boulevard

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:23
the new square and the street beside the remand prison.

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:25
Traffic

Marr
27-09-2005, 22:26
Underground parking

primocordara
28-09-2005, 04:57
Congrats marr! I like your approach of creating an urban environment by densifying as seen in board 3, while leaving the park as urban space.

The area seemed totally amorpic before with the free terrain around the prison buildings.

SWANK-E
28-09-2005, 06:08
your diagrams are clear, though i have to say that none of those perspective views say anything to me other than saying that you can use photoshop to montage people and trees... sorry

Marr
28-09-2005, 08:39
your diagrams are clear, though i have to say that none of those perspective views say anything to me other than saying that you can use photoshop to montage people and trees... sorry

I agree. The perspectives are not very successful. When the level of detail is so low, it is hard to show anything on ground level perspectives. Perhaps we should have taken the consequences of the low detail level, and just don't post any perspectives.

Marr
28-09-2005, 08:57
Congrats marr! I like your approach of creating an urban environment by densifying as seen in board 3, while leaving the park as urban space.

The area seemed totally amorpic before with the free terrain around the prison buildings.

Thanks primocordara. That was exactly our main goal, to densify on the north and eastern side while leaving a park on the south and west side.

Mikael
28-09-2005, 11:28
Thanks Marr for posting this. It is interesting to see the amount of "solutions" that are available for a complex site like this. I think that your low detailing of the buildings should not be a problem, we did the same, it is (to me anyway) more of an exercise in urban/city planning rather than detailing buildings. That is, the big problem is not the facades; it is where you can or want to build and how you solve the supporting infrastructure. Btw, how did you get remarks from the jury, did you win a price?

Mikael
28-09-2005, 11:35
Another thing I just realised. What happened to the quarry? Did you choose to fill that up to make a buildable terrain?

primocordara
28-09-2005, 12:30
your diagrams are clear, though i have to say that none of those perspective views say anything to me other than saying that you can use photoshop to montage people and trees... sorry

I totally agree, they don't emphasize your project. I got an idea of it only for board Nº3

Marr
28-09-2005, 12:55
Mikael: You are absoloutly right about the competition being about city structure and urban strategies rather than the look of the buildings, that's not up to the planners anyway. But I think it is difficult for people to evaluate the quality of the entries without using quite a lot of time to study them, because of the size and complexity of the program. That's probably why neither entries are getting much feedback from pushpullers.

If you look at board 4, you will se that we propose thermal baths in the old quarry at basement level with the rock-face visible, with a hotel on top.(I know it's difficult to see on the downscaled jpg's). We decided to build over part of the old quarry to make a street connecting the remant prison with the main prison. On the last perspective you can see this street. If you want I can send you the PDF so you can have a closer look.

For some strange reason the jury didn't bother to write reviews about the entries in english except for the ones that received a price or a mention. But luckily i did the entry with a guy from finland and he translated roughly to me what they wrote in finish. They were satisfied with our traffic solutions and they thought proposed new buildings were successfully adopted to existing city structure. They quite liked the main concept as well, dense on one side, open parkland on the other. The main thing they criticized was that we didn't show how the architecture would look, i.o.w. the facades of the buildings.

The winning entries can be seen here: http://www3.turku.fi/ympakaavi/sivut/Ajankohtaisia_hankkeita.php?lang=eng&ins=10&content=Kakola#10

digdoi
28-09-2005, 15:41
I agree. The perspectives are not very successful. When the level of detail is so low, it is hard to show anything on ground level perspectives. Perhaps we should have taken the consequences of the low detail level, and just don't post any perspectives.

I think the case is not exactly that. For me perspectives are the best way to show this kind of proposal, because it can show the real feeling people will have of the urban spaces. I guess your big mistake was not only the lack of detail in the images, but the lack of more images. Views from the eye of the pedestrians, showing the intended new look for the site. The boards layout should be thinked better. Boards #1 and #3 are almost the same. Actually I think you could show in one board what you showed in the 3 first ones!
I like the overall idea very much, but looking to your presentation it looks too superficial.

Marr
28-09-2005, 16:06
The boards layout should be thinked better. Boards #1 and #3 are almost the same. Actually I think you could show in one board what you showed in the 3 first ones!
I like the overall idea very much, but looking to your presentation it looks too superficial.

Actually, the drawings in boards 1 and 3 were required by the jury in the brief. But you definitely have a point, the presentation should have been better.