Long considered boffins and nerds, scientists have begun to take advantage of the power of architecture to raise their own profile and promote their work. Australian universities, in particular, have become active in engaging architecture to further the cause of science.
Architecture is also fostering increased self-esteem within the scientific community. Great buildings contribute to great research. Local and international trends reveal that another consequence is more collaborative research as a result of better planned buildings. Scientists are being encouraged to build communication and connect with the wider community. A new generation of buildings is making this possible. These projects speak not only of technical rigour and sound investment, but provide kinder, more personable spaces than the sterile, anonymous box that largely left researchers to their own devices.
Architectus has emerged as one of the leading participants in this brave new world of architecture that brings a more human dimension to the world of nano-technologies and super-sciences. The firm’s extensive body of scientific laboratory work is hallmarked by a commitment to creating habitable spaces within iconic envelopes. Recent projects by the firm that demonstrate this trend include the Victorian Government’s $200 million Australian Synchrotron, the Electron Microscope facility at Clayton, Victoria (which is part of Monash University’s push to attract the world’s leading researchers), and the new College of Pharmacy building in Royal Parade, Parkville.
These projects demonstrate that cutting edge scientific work and humane, egalitarian workplaces are not mutually exclusive. In successful workplaces for the sciences, the design process must be integrated at a primary level. To achieve this, thorough design research must be undertaken from the very first stages of the project. This view is also held by Australian Synchrotron communications manager Stefanie Pearce. “I was impressed that the entire staff of Architectus Melbourne was keen to engage with our project,” she observes. “They requested a presentation for their office after hours one evening. Everyone, from their IT people to the receptionist, wanted to understand the project and feel involved. That to me was a sign of a really cohesive team that demonstrated a pride and ‘ownership’ in each and every project.”
Typically laboratory buildings tended to be functional and did not include consideration of their occupants. For instance in the Synchrotron building, the brief called for no natural light and yet our observation after visiting European facilities was that natural light was possible and highly desirable for staff wellbeing. Good, functional laboratories are also humane spaces and this quality really emerges from a high level of client collaboration and understanding. I think one response from our clients would be that while they have engaged us, we have also engaged them in the design process. Once the client understands the rationale for your approach there is a much greater chance of acceptance. Conversely, as architects you need good antennae to be receptive to what the client can bring to the design.
Buildings for the sciences are very refined in terms of their performance specifications. They really are analogous to building a Formula One racer. Everything has to work. The interest of universities and institutions in hard-working, good-looking research buildings is now much better understood. They are strong brands that cannot afford to be caught with second-rate goods.
The collection of science buildings by Architectus to date displays a design approach which, without incorporating any extraneous elements, has eschewed the rigid, austere minimalism so prevalent in science buildings in the past. In this way, Architectus has defined a new modernism with its recent work that is warm and humane, and encourages a new, highly socialised way of working. By creating buildings with a striking public face, Architectus has provided the scientific community with a powerful visible presence. Whereas sciences were once plugged into the back of a university and simply used by a single department, they are now a focus of national and international attention with a far less secretive modus operandi.
Synchrotron project director Ruth Wilson of Architectus says that science is now listening closely to architecture – and vice versa. “There’s a new level of information sharing and scientists, by nature, are interested in this. It is refreshing, and sometimes challenging, dealing with such enquiring minds. Scientists are very respectful of our skill base and they have a tendency to want to understand every aspect of what we do. The Synchrotron and Electron Microscope projects put a dynamic face to science but are as much about the fully layered work and social experience,” she says. “Sustainable design is intrinsic to our work. It’s definitely not just applied. Everything from emissions to energy efficient, recyclable materials informs our approach.”
Before commencing design of a new science building, Architectus undertakes extensive research, often including interviews with the broader scientific community. Wilson notes that it is not uncommon to talk with scientists anywhere on the planet before putting pen to paper. “We visited exemplary facilities in Europe and found scientists willing to share, and there is tremendous expertise and insight for the asking. The interesting thing is that they have very little to gain from the exchange. We take a half a day of their time and question them and they follow up with e-mails and they will give you as much time as you need. We encountered great generosity of spirit in that process.”
In some senses these new facilities can offer spaces reminiscent of the Gothic era. High ceilings can be uplifting and it is often those almost subconscious spatial moments that work – it is a warm minimalism. In labs you do not often have plywood walls for example, yet we have shown it works. Work environments should be supportive. There can be a certain element of theatre when there is so much that is exciting about science. It need not be dull or drab.
Architectus resisted taking the easy option. We could have been lazy, dropped the ceiling, and hidden the ductwork. What we have instead is something soaring. The ethereal feeling is quite palpable. The firm is strong on the notion of the collegiate/ communal space with a big, timber dining room table around which the scientific ‘family’ gathers to discuss work that is under way. These spaces are strategically located near the front entrance and are closely linked to the kitchen (which happens to open into a beautiful garden) and the library. This effectively connects social and work activity. This approach to planning is consistent with Architectus’ design philosophy regarding modern office and education design.
It is institutions that typically buy scientific buildings, and as they become more experienced in their purchasing, they are looking at architecture to underpin their long-term strategic aims. The University of Melbourne, for example, has gone down this path because it wants to be the place of choice on the basis of its superior facilities. Once you have this shared strategic aim, you have the possibility of great partnership with good architects. The bottom line is that good science needs good architecture. Melbourne IVF exemplifies this well, its business having grown beyond expectation since it started operations from its Architectus rejuvenated premises less than 12 months ago. Even the client has been pleasantly surprised by the results. They expected growth from the organisational synergies we introduced but the view is that good architecture has delivered a tangible bottom line benefit.
Science, it appears, is finally discovering the elusive DNA of good design to be an investment that brings unexpected rewards.
Peter Slifirski Director Architectus peter.slifirski@architectus.com.au
Published in the TEFMA Summer/Spring 2006 newsletter
