A_Pocket – stoa

Autumn 2017

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:00:58 +0000

Name A_Pocket
Type Open competition for students
Organiser Aalto University Campus Development + Aalto Campus & Real Estate ACRE
Level Bachelor/Master/Doctoral
Competition jury Outi Turpeinen, Juanjo Galán, Tommy Lindgren, Säde Palmu, Janne Kupiainen, Riikka Manninen
Competition secretary Heini-Emilia Saari
Students featured Jasmine Chung, Rouven Grom, Chengxin Hao, Tigran Khachatryan, Juha-Matti Lappalainen, Xiaohan Liang, Siiri Mikola, Matias Murole, Michele Sordi, Andre Vicentini, Susanna Virolainen

A_Pocket Student Design Competition was organized in autumn 2017 by Aalto University Campus Development and Aalto University Campus & Real Estate in two phases. The objective was to find innovative and feasible proposals for the A-Wing courtyard at Otakaari 1X. Participants were encouraged to propose ways to enhance the social and spatial character of the site as part of the campus. In October 2017, the jury selected five finalists out of 40 ideas submitted in the 1st phase. The finalist teams developed their designs with mentors during the fall term, and finally presented their work in an open event on 7 December 2017. The jury awarded all five teams and in addition to the 1st prize given to “Kaija“. Proposals “Voices of Aalto” and “A_Fire” were commended with honourable mentions.

Kaija

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:00:36 +0000

Jury’s statement A bold and minimal design intervention that proposes a rectilinear wooden platform to extend from the courtyard entrance to a pedestrian pathway on Alvarinaukio; a bridge between building and nature. Starting off as a somewhat private platform by the door, the design gains a more public nature as it extends towards Alvarinaukio. The clear idea is powerful in its potentiality to produce a new connection that is not only about access but also staging presence and free form activity on the site. The jury recommends the authors to further explore these informal and social opportunities in the 2nd stage. The strength of the proposal lies in its clarity, and the radical simplicity of the gesture.

A_Fire

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:00:21 +0000

Jury’s statement The proposal is a microcosm, yet the primary element is a fireplace sunken into the courtyard, inviting social gatherings. The graphic presentation is convincing, especially the simple black-and-white diagram communicating the concept. Fire as an element and the sheltering form of the fireplace–auditorium propose a new social space, which is strategically sunken towards Alvarinaukio to decrease the instant visual effect in the landscape. However, since the fireplace-auditorium is such a strong element, the jury recommends that the proposal could be enhanced by giving up some of the secondary activities proposed and simplifying the design agenda to match the scale of the site. Despite the subtle visual connection to Alvarinaukio, the program and the design offer a bold project for the site that also reframes Alvar Aalto’s architecture. The proposal transforms the landscape of the building at the courtyard, today characterized by white marble and low grass. The effects of light from the fire and proposed projections are intriguing and suggestive.

Voices of Aalto

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:00:54 +0000

Jury’s statement This project suggests an interesting framework for opening up the university as a community and introducing new forms of interaction and engagement. This would be materialized by using the marble-clad walls as projection surfaces displaying diverse content, which would activate the site during dark months of the year. The projections are complemented by some interventions on the landscape of the site. The bold graphic presentation is visually inspiring and communicates effectively the spirit of the proposal. The authors manifest a strong concept for new social interaction on campus based on an analysis of the current state. While also some other proposals introduced the idea of projecting onto the walls, in Voices of Aalto the idea was taken into a larger framework for facilitating engagement. The concept enables the display of all the things that take place within the walls of the university. The materialization of other parts of the intervention aside from the projections remain abstract (platform, bench, ramp, lighting), and should be developed further in consideration of this core idea.

Aalto ATM

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:00:47 +0000

Jury’s statement The proposal offers diverse technical elements as part of the design, from printing and storage devices to seating with integrated heating, light and sound systems. Aalto ATM combines the design of objects to functionalities aimed at establishing communication among people. Further development of the project could take many different routes, depending on what is to be the authors’ objective. For example, the jury could imagine the Aalto ATM as an impressive art installation of glowing eggs with strong symbolic meanings and experiential qualities, instead of technological functionality. Designing with light is a positive factor in consideration of the dark Finnish winters, and the proposed round objects create an interplay with the rectangular building. The visual character is at once interesting and subtle. The glowing “eggs” could create a playful form of lighting that would even be visible from under snow. Furthermore, the art piece–like presence could attract passers-by to visit the courtyard, and create a scene that can also be experienced from indoors.

Playground

Group X — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 07:00:04 +0000

Jury’s statement This proposal integrated a Design for All –philosophy in creating a playground concept with an emphasis on visual and experimental aspects. The most praised element in the project was the “LED-swing” idea, which also introduced components of augmented reality. The cables and the frame propose new geometry and material palette to the courtyard, yet delicately leave the A Wing buildings facades unobstructed with the thin structures. The idea was presented with beautiful sketches displaying the atmosphere through the use of lighting. “Playground” would reprogram the courtyard with a combination of light, augmented reality and a slender web of cables and frames for different modes of engagement. The three-dimensional nature of this structure is very intriguing, yet the podiums and surface materials proposed as secondary elements in the presentation seem off in their scale and extent on site.