Project (Competition)
Location:
Basel (Switzerland)
Areas:
Site: 2.027 m2
Built area: 10.580 m2
Architect:
Alejandro Aravena
Associated Architects:
ELEMENTAL
Client:
Kunst Museum Basel
Project (Competition)
Location:
Basel (Switzerland)
Areas:
Site: 2.027 m2
Built area: 10.580 m2
Architect:
Alejandro Aravena
Associated Architects:
ELEMENTAL
Client:
Kunst Museum Basel
Proposition 1
In a museum, there are always two forces pulling in opposite directions.
On one hand, the program ideally requires a rather hermetic box: an exhibition space with plenty of walls, controlled sources of light, and security for valuable pieces of art.
On the other hand, museums tend to be located in privileged contexts, so it is desirable that the different halls benefit from those locations by opening spaces and establishing a permeable relationship with the surroundings.
Conventional windows are an inadequate tool to mediate between the introverted box and the permeable building. So, how does one negotiate between the 2 forces?
We propose a building made of rather opaque structural elements that provide plenty of linear meters of wall to clearly define the required rooms. By sliding them laterally, slightly, we create monumental but punctured openings that allow the city to penetrate the museum in a measured way and for the museum to look at the city from strategic and privileged points of view.
Proposition 2
Basel has a rather dense, urban fabric in the historical core. Whenever there is a confluence of streets, and a certain opening is created, a hierarchy with a status of public space is introduced in the city. The problem is that those moments of relief in the compactness of the urban fabric are normally back-filled with infrastructure - particularly transportation.
The museum lies in one of the most prominent of these city openings. Five streets converge with one of them acting as a bridge so wide and with such long views that it is, in a sense, a public space in itself.
So, how to participate in the potential hierarchy by improving the opening but not loose valuable and well located land necessary for the museum?
Our proposal is to contribute to the hierarchy of this place by liberating as much space as possible on the ground level and reorienting the upper volumes in a strategic way. At the pedestrian level, buildings cantilever to allow diagonals and shortcuts to create both more direct connections and longer views. On upper levels, facades are reoriented to take advantage of this new acquired scale, particularly the one that due to its north orientation can open towards the bridge and the river.
Proposition 3
Another way to achieve a higher standard of public space is by widening the sidewalk. It is the case of the arched portico of the Kunstmuseum Basel which not only improves the urban condition but also introduces an institutional scale in the landing of the building in the city.
Our proposal is to create a wide covered sidewalk to intensify the public condition of this corner in the city and also for the institutional character of the museum to make an impact in the site.
The elements supporting the cantilevered volumes can perform, as in the old building, as displays announcing ongoing exhibitions, introducing a friendlier scale at the pedestrian level.
Proposition 4
Whenever there’s an extension or addition to an existing building, there’s the question of how similar or different the new piece should be.
Every new building has the responsibility of responding to its specific set of circumstances, goals, constraints, and desires. These are very likely are going to differ from the ones that originated every previous construction; so it is unnatural to try to match their forms and architectural languages. Nevertheless it is desirable to acquire and achieve a certain unity among the different buildings.
So, how can we make pieces with a certain autonomy which are physically separated work as a museum complex?
Our proposal is to allow for each building to respond to its circumstances and specific context, but share the same material of the existing museum in order to create an urban visual link besides the underground physical one.
Proposition 5
This is the dilemma:
If the foyer of the new building is placed at ground level, there is a direct connection to the city in case of eventual special events; but mere circulation and tunnel condition of the connecting wing is accentuated.
If the foyer is placed at the underground level of the connecting wing, the main flow of visitors coming from the old museum will be better integrated and oriented when coming into the new building; but connection to the city at ground level is compromised.
So, how to respond both to the connection to the old museum and the surrounding city?
Our proposal is to respond to the connection to the museum with physical continuity and to the surrounding city with visual integration.
By eliminating the ground floor level of the new museum and creating a double height foyer, visitors arriving in the new building from the old one get strategic visual connections to the city. These serve as means of orientating them while experiencing full circulation and spatial continuity with the connecting wing. The double height foyer also permits the city to look into the museum through a kind of balcony condition; eliminating the uncomfortable and awkward relation of museum ground level floors with the city which traditionally tend to be rather hermetic, blind walls.
Proposition 6
This project has the difficulty that from one side, the program can be described as a collection of boxes of different sizes. For the flexibility and efficiency of the use of the museum, those boxes should remain as much as possible as such.
On the other hand, the site is very irregular. For the integration and blending into the context a rather articulated form and geometry would be desirable.
So, how to respond to a programmatic, internal, “boxy” approach and to an external, contextual, articulated parti?
Our proposal is to define big orthogonal volumes, able to provide the appropriate neutrality for internal use and deploy them on the site in such a way that odd angles are absorbed in the open space outside. Those kind of “leftovers” in between regular simple volumes are actually “cracks” that introduce natural light into the halls.
Proposition 7
A museum needs in principle, as many linear meters of wall as possible. But in order to able to circulate between galleries and halls, some interruptions in the walls have to be defined.
Where in a room, are the linear meters of walls less necessary? Where do they least affect the need for supports to display art?
Our proposal consists of interrupting the walls in the corners, where in any case, art tends not to be displayed. So one could describe our project as a collection of halls maximizing the usable parts of the wall and subtracting where they are least used, namely in the corners.
Project (Competition)
Location:
Basel (Switzerland)
Areas:
Site: 2.027 m2
Built area: 10.580 m2
Architect:
Alejandro Aravena
Associated Architects:
ELEMENTAL
Client:
Kunst Museum Basel
Project (Competition)
Location:
Basel (Switzerland)
Areas:
Site: 2.027 m2
Built area: 10.580 m2
Architect:
Alejandro Aravena
Associated Architects:
ELEMENTAL
Client:
Kunst Museum Basel