We analyze in detail the first-prized conceptual solution of the Belgrade architectural studio MitArch.
The competition for the new building of the Natural History Museum and we received an excellent winning solution, signed by the studio MitArch, headed by an academician prof. Branislav Mitrović. The conceptual urban-architectural project is very complex, so it would be best to analyze all segments through a separate text, so that the public can get a true picture of the first-prized solution.
After the news that we got the winner of the competition, the media immediately sensationalized the news that Belgrade is finally getting a new building of the Museum of Natural History. To start, the city got excellent architectural solution for the mentioned museum, and when it will actually be carried out, it remains up to the state and the city, how ready they are for the same project to start with its implementation.
But this is also a good start, ie. moving from a standstill, because the Museum of Natural History, apart from its administrative building and a smaller facility for occasional exhibitions, never had a complete facility with permanent display areas and depots in one place.
Read more on Gradnja.rs:
Urbanism
After the initial announcement of the winning solution, she started an avalanche of criticism on various segments of the project, mostly on urban planning, which the public understood in two different ways. The architectural profession positively evaluated the solution, while the general public, most likely out of ignorance, found a few objections.
One of those objections also refers to line of the pedestrian-bicycle pathwhich cuts through the area from Branko Bridge to Hotel Jugoslavija, as well as other paths and alleys, which according to critics have overly geometrized scheme.
Looking at the first-prized solution, it is noticeable that almost all paths they follow either the existing matrix or the course of the Danube, with the exception of the central promenade, which is set as the main connecting axis that connects all spatial-urban segments with one strong penetration. Her form, which ends ferris wheelresembles a thread of thread, unwound from a large spool.
On the other hand, this emphasized geometrism is not a violation of the existing condition (the existing paths will all be preserved) but a more concrete connection of all the buildings and a tribute to the original solution for the area of Friendship Park from 1965, signed by the architect Milan Pališaškibut also fitting into the micro structure of the scheme of the Sava and Danube Promenade, executed in 1978, whose author was the architect Branislav Jovin.
The authors believed that the two matrices – straight and wavy – should be reconciled and form a spatial image that will have the characteristics of both units.
How is the subject area most of the park areaon the one hand directly supported by the orthogonal matrix of the Central Zone of New Belgrade, and on the other hand by the slightly wavy line of the right bank of the Danube, the authors considered that these two matrices – straight and wavy – should be reconciled and form a spatial image that will have the characteristics of one and other entities.
New Main Alley is parallel to Nikola Tesla Boulevard and the orthogonal matrix of the Central Zone of New Belgrade and is designed as the origin of all directions in the ground floor. In the central part, across from the Palace of Serbia, the Main Alley intertwines with the coast line, forming walking out and the possibility of going down to the river.
The positions of all the planned buildings are directly connected to the Main Alley, making it so a thoughtful system of spatial experiences which are continuously connected during the walk along the alley, from Branko Bridge to the Hotel Jugoslavije.
Near the Branko bridge the alley rises in place of the spiral motif and connects with the zone directly under the bridge, where it is connected to the planned one pedestrian and bicycle footbridge which follows the direction of the bridge and connects the old part of the city with the new.
The Museum of 21st Century Art is planned in the contact zone between the Museum of Contemporary Art and Main Alley, on its northeast side.
The natural history museum is planned in the narrowest zone of the subject area, opposite the Palace of Serbia and is directly adjacent to the main avenue on its south-western side.
The decision for this position of the museum resulted from the desire to visually integrate the building with the most natural part of the Great War Island, and on the other hand to minimal impact on existing greenery which is very thin in this zone.
He caused the most doubts in the public glass cube, which is positioned near the Museum of Contemporary Art, which the authors envisioned as its annex, dedicated to works from the 21st century. The Museum of 21st Century Art is planned in the contact zone between the Museum of Contemporary Art and Main Alley, on its northeast side.
The panoramic wheel was conceived with a very reduced design and partially buried in the ground, so that its size and silhouette would threaten the surrounding contents as little as possible.
The building of the new museum was designed as elongated rectangular structureburied in the ground, with the main access from the position of the alley and a direct underground connection to the Museum of Contemporary Art.
Criticisms also went to the Ferris wheel, which as a motive really can be an incongruous excess in many urban spaces, but here it was conceived with a very reduced design and partially buried in the ground, so that its size and silhouette would threaten the surrounding contents as little as possible.
One of the main spatial and urban advantages of the solution is two triangular viewpointsone at the mouth itself, and the other at the Ferris wheel.
It is truly absurd that the Sava quay has been ending in trees and bushes for decades, without a logical connection with the Danube quay (not to mention rafts and other vessels), so this pointed accent, right at the confluence of the Sava and the Danube, was more than necessary like spatial-communication turnipsr.
Museum architecture
The Natural History Museum is an object with three levels formed – underground level, ground floor level and gallery level. It is designed as partially buried object under the slightly undulating surface of the grass roof.
The slope of the roof rises towards the river and follows the curve of the right bank of the Danube in a sickle shape. The roof surface of the building is grassed and slightly inclined towards the building of the Palace of Serbia, which leaves the possibility of using the roof space as a natural amphitheater for public gatherings.
Access for passenger vehicles is provided via car ramps parallel to Nikola Tesla Boulevard, through which you can enter the underground garage area.
The main pedestrian access to the museum is from the northeast side (from the Main Alley), from where you can access the ground floor level, which is uneven in relation to the height of the promenade and gallery level of the museum which was formed only on the side facing the river.
Access for passenger vehicles is provided via car ramps parallel to Nikola Tesla Boulevard, through which you can enter the underground garage zone. It is enabled by the same principle descent by delivery vehicles for a cafe-restaurant and bringing equipment and items into the museum.
Access tourist buses and short-term detention due to the exit of visitors is possible from the side of the boulevard, via paved surfaces which is connected to pedestrian penetrations through the roof surface.
Access for persons with special needs is provided via the access plateau on the north side of the building and from the auxiliary garage sliding-lifting platforms.
The mezzanine ceilings are reinforced concrete, while the roof slab is slanted and supported on concrete frames via counter-beams.
According to the project assignment, the museum space is divided into seven spatial and functional units: Public area, Reception area for museum material, Depots with objects of organic origin, Work rooms for objects of organic origin, Depots with objects of inorganic origin, Office block and Technical rooms and garage.
The applied constructive system is combined. The garage area is designed in a grid of 8 x 8 m, with reinforced concrete columns. All perimeter walls are reinforced concrete, assumed to be 25 cm thick.
The main part of the museum building was designed with reinforced concrete frames at distances of 8 or 16 m, due to the large spans that bridge in the transverse direction. The mezzanine ceilings are reinforced concrete, while the roof slab is slanted and supported on concrete frames via counter-beams.
The entire facility is funded on foundation slab with an assumed thickness of 80 cm. Seismic bracing is provided in two transverse directions using reinforced concrete bracing walls.
Ecological concept of the museum
Since the object of the competition was also the building of the Natural History Museum, it was logical to envisage a building with the most modern ecological concept. Achieving and improving the building’s energy efficiency was achieved through implementation quality, environmentally sustainable materialswhich contribute to the overall thermal and energy balance and functional comfort in the building.
They are foreseen three-layer glass in facade glazing systems and thermal insulation from extruded polystyrene in composite facade walls. The required amount of fresh air in the facility is provided naturally, by opening the window according to the user’s needs.
All work rooms have the door that separates them from the rest of the building so it is possible to control the negative impact of drafts. It is provided in the facility maximum introduction of daylightthere are glass surfaces of sufficient size in the work rooms.
A system was implemented to collect rainwater and recycle it for watering green areas, which reduces the use of drinking water and the negative impact on water resources.
When choosing materials for the construction and finishing of the building, priority is given environmentally friendly and recycled materials which have a minimal impact on the environment. Also, energy-efficient systems for heating, cooling and lighting were implemented, using green roof solutions for additional energy efficiency.
Through the use of renewable energy sources such as solar glasses on the facades, the aim was to reduce CO2 emissions and long-term sustainability. The ecological concept of the natural history museum additionally includes the integration of green areas inside and around the building, such as vertical gardens or urban forestswhich not only contribute to the aesthetics of the space, but also absorb CO2 and improve air quality.
Also, a system was implemented to collect rainwater and recycle it for watering green areas, which reduces the use of drinking water and the negative impact on water resources.
Conclusion
It is noticeable that the conceptual solution of the MitArch team looks a bit like the spatial-architectural forms of the architect Richard Rogers, but it is a domestic project far more subdued and non-aggressive according to the natural and urban environment.
This primarily applies to park units, but also to existing protected buildings SIV (Palace of Serbia) and the Museum of Contemporary Art, as well as the future building of the Philharmonic, for which such a solution is more than desirable, because it would adequately connect it with all the content in the coastal zone.
Of course, there is also the main problem that comes with such large public projects – time and scope of performancebecause it often happens that solutions are reduced and partially implemented, with incomplete content (which best suits the contractor and the client) with a known delay of 5 to 15 years.
To the winning team congratulations on an excellent solution and we want the project to be carried out for them as soon as possible, both for their sake and for the sake of the visitors of the future museum.
