multiplicity

ASPIRATION
The new school of architecture for the University of Melbourne presents the faculty with the opportunity to physically manifest its pedagogical underpinnings, and to solidify its identity and position within the contemporary discourse of architecture. However as of now, where that position is, is a little unclear. And if there were a consensus on where the faculty is placing itself, it is that there is no one right way of doing things. A little uninspiring, perhaps, but nonetheless true.

MULTIPLICITY
The aspirational brief calls for the demonstration of the “best possible processes of design, collaboration, procurement and construction”. Reflecting on these aspirations three proto-architects took command of the design brief, each requiring to maintain their “individual freedom, style, design method, ontological commitments and all the rest” while concurrently negotiating with one another to present a new architecture of multiplicity. The site in the Concrete Lawn, and one condition is that none of the trees are to be removed.

VALUE
If the way of the faculty is that there is no one right way, how do we then determine a suitable formal expression for the new building? Another dilemma is of the moment. As styles come and go it is naïve to assume that architecture will retain its meaning after a period of time. Thus the design framework that is put in place needs to address the question: How to make an architecture that transcends its time, and still bear some value and significance fifty years from now on? The current faculty building, designed in 1959, has undergone many renovations and consequently, whether or not intended, typological transformations as well (from a u-block to a courtyard type to a glass house atria). Very fittingly, today, fifty years after the original faculty building, the opportunity arises yet again for us to re-ignite the debate of what architecture means for the new school of architecture.

TYPOLOGY
Back to the question of form, we observe that architecture often strives towards singularity. These are perhaps most strongly expressed by typologies. Could the new school of architecture be a u block type, as the original? Or could it a courtyard type, or a pitched roof house, or a series of boxes? Or a tower type, perhaps the most pragmatic solution considering the site constraints? Or could it be a somewhat more radical form, a form with an image so strongly identified almost to the level of the architectural type, like an Eisenman grid lattice or a Koolhaas loop?

ORGANISATION
Or could it be a combination of different typologies in multiplicity? The chosen strategy is to stack six architectural types enveloped within a tower type. Internally, the stacking of typologies articulates a set of six clusters of three storeys each. Within each cluster a figure-ground relationship emerges in the perception of the ‘built’ form and its negative space, cognitively forming a set of identifications of the building’s internal parts. One thus perceives the interior of the tower not simply as a homogenous stacking of floor plates and corridors, but rather as a narrative of architectural experiences.

PEDAGOGY
If the failed utopian architectural projects could tell us anything about the discourse, it is that it fails to recognize the contingency of ‘the moment’; architecture can never be authoritative in the sense that it cannot possibly dictate ‘how are we to live’, or in this context the way the faculty runs itself. On the contrary, architecture can only serve to provide its inhabitants with the necessary spatial structure, in which its use may be adapted over time. It is therefore not an aim in the design for the new school to introduce a new pedagogical structure or to be overly deterministic.

PROGRAM
If the heart of the new school of architectural lies indeed within its pedagogical structure, it is of utmost importance that its research, learning and teaching facilities reflect this. The design aims to engage - on a very basic level - what makes a good academic office, studio and teaching space. The room, which is so fundamental to architecture and yet so often forgotten in favour of the hero images. On a larger scale, the clusters each contain a specialised function: administration, crit, computer lab, model making workshop, exhibition, discussion, staff room, a lecture theatre and a roof terrace. These form a communal interface facilitating formal and informal interactions between staff, student and the general public. The ground level is envisaged as an ‘agora’, a marketplace of encounters, entirely porous and public accessible with a post office and a stationery store on one end and a bank on its other end. The ‘agora’ interfaces Union House with the north lawn as a strategy to activate the latter as the new public square.