In this article, we continue our series on Competitions.archi, presenting a collection of articles on different architectural competitions. Today, we will be featuring the winner of the Iceland Cave Tower by Bee Breeders.
____________________________________________________________________________
Competition background
In September 2020, we applied for the international Iceland Cave Tower competition organized by BeeBreeders.com. Its main goal was to design an observation tower in the heart of Iceland at the junction of two tectonic plates: North American and Eurasian. Our project The Moving Surfaces managed to win second place. Below we describe the design process which turned out to be as satisfying, if not more, than the prize itself.
The beginning – forming of the team
The three of us connected during studies at the University of the Arts in Poznań, where we are currently doing our Bachelor degree in Architecture. Thanks to the possibility of choosing a studio at our university, we signed up for one that specializes in landscape design – the Space Interpretation Design Studio run by prof. Andrzej Wielgosz and assistant Łukasz Spychaj. One of the elements of their program was participation in a design competition – national or international. While browsing through the various competitions, the Iceland Cave Tower on the Beebreeders platform caught our attention in particular. The unusual location and the planned program convinced us to take up this challenge, which we were deeply drawn to from the very beginning. The challenge for us was a completely new context, because we had never had the opportunity to design only in relation to the landscape, without the direct influence of other architecture.
Our process
Analysis
We started the design process as usual by reading the competition brief. We had to design an observation tower, a tourist center, a small food court, trails and infrastructure facilitating access to the caves. The tourist traffic in this place so far has led to degradation, therefore the newly designed elements were to organize the flow of tourists in such a way as to limit the interference with the natural environment and landscape.
The location analysis itself was not standard for us, as our previous projects were usually nearby, which is why we were able to familiarize ourselves with those spots in person and this made it easier to understand their specificity. In the case of such a distant competition, our main tool was Google Earth and photos uploaded by tourists visiting this place. It was mainly thanks to the visitors who documented their travels that we were able to feel the context of the ground fissure with the caves more deeply than it was shown in the brief.
One of the most interesting aspects of the analysis is becoming familiar with topics that you don’t come into contact with on a daily basis. Our knowledge of geology, in this case tectonic plates, was completely basic, so it was interesting to look at this phenomenon in more detail. The location of Iceland at the junction of two tectonic plates distinguishes not only the island itself, but also the place that was intended for the creation of competition projects. Iceland, belonging to Europe, is also halfway on the North American plate, and therefore is the meeting point of culturally separate worlds. Their connection is visible through the fissure, which widens by up to 2 cm per year as a result of the continuous movement of the panels.
The mechanism of tectonic plate sliding and geological analysis have become one of the main design aspects in this project. Their behavior translated into the later construction of the complex.
A completely different way of building in Iceland is defined by very harsh climatic conditions. Principles rooted in the history of construction perfectly translate into contemporary sustainable buildings. Solutions developed over the centuries, such as green roofs, peat walls, glazing from the south or the use of naturally occurring renewable energy in this region, such as geothermal waters, dictated in a sense the shape and layout of the project. We also looked for ideas and information in the literature. The book “Sun, Wind, and Light: Architectural Design Strategies” by G. Z. Brown was a source of inspiration for us in the search for sustainable solutions for our facility. Thanks to detailed analyzes, we were able to properly optimize the project so that its shape, location and individual solutions responded to the difficult conditions related to its location.
Due to the fact that the subject of the competition was new to us, we also decided to familiarize ourselves with solutions in projects with similar challenges. By analyzing selected examples, we wanted to be aware what possibilities and limitations related to the topic we have.
Exploring ideas
The first ideas appeared already during the initial analyzes. Of course, the key was the place – the unusual location where the project was to be embedded. Characteristic elements of the context, such as huge open spaces and a horizontal landscape, began to mark a different approach to the very subject of the observation tower from the very beginning. We could not imagine an archetypal vertical point there, from which the nearby volcano, the lake and the fissure between the tectonic plates were to be visible.
Bridge between continents
One of the factors distinguishing this location and Iceland itself is the previously mentioned joint of two tectonic plates. This became the most important starting point for us when looking for conceptual solutions, hence we started with this design problem. Currently, it is not possible to cross to the North American plate, so we wondered if visitors should be able to do so, or if the entire structure should be hung on the Euro-Asian side.
Two parts
In this case, the idea was to map the relationship of tectonic plates through the way of entering the viewing point. This idea included the possibility of going to the other side.
One part
The second idea showing our initial approach is a spiral, the design of which was to be entirely based on the Eurasian part. This option was about making the structure independent of tectonic plate movements. Tectonic plates are in constant motion – this phenomenon prompted us to think about how to connect them, whether with one structure or maybe two separate ones. Ultimately, the construction problem became one of the main assumptions of our project. By superimposing two independent parts of the footbridge on the highest point, a fault was created which, together with the graphic designation, became a symbol of the phenomenon taking place in this place.
The Shape
How to connect two caves with a viewpoint and a tourist center? How to properly design the infrastructure of this place to integrate the entire program? We have dealt with these issues since reading the competition brief. Although the scale of the designed architecture was not large, it provided for the solution of several functions that are usually solved completely separately.
In order to define the shape and size of the object, it was crucial to define the height of the observation tower. We decided that the point should be 7 meters above the planned area, as from this height the surrounding volcano and the lake were already clearly visible. In our opinion, the higher altitude was unnecessary, not only because of the visibility, but also because of the difficult weather conditions in Iceland. The first serious design approach to the shape while maintaining the appropriate heights and slopes was a rectangle that contained a tourist center and an observation tower. In this case, we have already plunged the building into the ground and properly illuminated it in relation to the directions of the world. We predicted that it would be covered with earth, thus becoming a part of the surrounding landscape. It was to emerge only from the south side, from which it was supposed to be completely glazed, and from which the nearby volcano was visible. At that time, we already knew what features the observation point should have, which in our case became a horizontal path, and how the building of the tourist center should be shaped. All these assumptions resulted from the earlier analysis, but the project still lacked an appropriate gesture that would tie everything together. This solution was not justified for this particular location.
We have made many attempts, but usually failed to combine all these functions in a rational way. The turning point was the use of the triangle, which ideally merged the entire program provided by the organizer. This shape intuitively referred to the division of not only plates but also 3 mental continents. The inclined triangle also connected all the heights provided by us, the 7-meter observation point and the tourist center under the path.
Our project was ultimately based on the shape of a triangle and the phenomenon of the two tectonic plates moving away from each other. Both of these issues resulted purely from the context of the place and were the outcome of our initial analyzes.
The design
The good cooperation between us had a great impact on the final effect of our project. We were able to quickly develop an appropriate work system. Joint meetings were important to us, which certainly facilitated communication, but also motivated us to continue. Of course, due to the pandemic, meetings were often difficult, as it was important to stay safe, but online meetings are hard to compare to discussions and exchange of thoughts during a live meeting. In competitions, apart from a good project concept, it is also important to properly present the work in such a way that it is not only easy to understand for recipients but also visually attractive.
After the concept was clarified, we started modeling the project in a computer program, and this is where it actually got its final form. For the recipient of the boards, visualisations are important, as they make it easier to imagine the object in reality. Renders obtained from the program were really limited to the object we designed. The visualizations that can be seen on the boards are largely a work of a graphics program, in which we added the surroundings and effects that allowed us to obtain the nature of the graphics appropriate for Iceland. When drawing the plan, we focused on getting the most optimal layout that meets all the requirements of the organizer. We wanted the facility to be attractive to tourists, but also sustainable in terms of materials and solutions. When selecting materials, we were looking for those that would be directly related to the context of the place, which is why we decided to use Roman concrete, containing volcanic ash, in the project. For the best presentation of all these elements, we also decided to add simple diagrams. They allow the recipient to quickly get to know the project and understand it better.
The final step was to arrange the individual elements on the boards. When composing everything, we wanted to keep as much coherence and logic as possible so that the reception of the project was clear.
The final result
What the final project looks like is the result of many hours of work by the entire group. We received a lot of help and support from the leaders of the Space Interpretation Design Studio, which we attended last year as part of university classes. We also received a lot of support from our friends who often helped us with the project. We’d like to thank everyone for that. It was an extraordinary attempt to deal with such an engaging topic, but also, above all, a lesson on cooperation, which proved how much you can achieve when you join forces.
Authors: Aleksandra Bieszka, Maria Pielach, Aleksandra Mucha from Poland
____________________________________________________________________
If you would like to ready more case studies like the one above please check our annual publication
Architecture Competitions Yearbook.
