Introduction to Practice - Semester 1 Assignment

December 2016

CASE STUDY

Beln Caizares-Espadafor

Reg. Number - 201432607

Jakub Frczek

Reg. Number - 201438768

Belina Koxhaj

Reg. Number - 201430906

Viktoriya Vaskova

Reg. Number - 201440147

INTRODUCTION
Copernicus Science Centre (Centrum Nauki Kopernik in Polish) is a science museum standing on the bank of
the Vistula River in Warsaw, Poland. It is one of the largest science centres in Europe.
The archetype for all centres of this type in the world is the Exploratorium created in 1969 by prof.
Frank Oppenheimer in San Francisco. Currently there are hundreds of this type institutions in North
America. Such centres were created in Australia, South America, Asia, Africa and Middle-Eastern Europe.
Every big country in the European Union has at least a few science centres, they were also created in
Hungary and Estonia.
The success of science centres is associated with the concept of informal teaching through interesting
experiences. In opposition to classical museums of science and technology, where the history of science and
technology is shown, science centres serve the purpose of explaining phenomenons that surround us with
help of scientific tools. There are no glass cabinets and do not touch signs in science centres. There
are interactive devices that allow individual actions conducted by visitors.
The Centre complex comprises:
-A two-storey building with total floor-space of 15,000 square metres housing permanent and temporary
exhibitions, laboratories and workshops, a conference centre, cafes and restaurants, plus office space and a
distinctive rooftop garden
-A garage and a workshop on a subterranean level
-A multimedia planetarium housed within an intriguing boulder-shaped building, including an observation
deck
-A surrounding Discovery Park, including open-air experimentation stations, an outdoor art gallery, and an
amphitheatre.

The work is inspiring in many aspects. We

were proposed with solutions we didnt
expect, but which we like a lot. Its not a
type of aggressive architecture, its
architecture which gently blends into the
landscape.
1

BUILDING CONCEPT AND USE

The centre was opened Its exhibition is divided into six interdisciplinary parts with over 450 exhibits in
total. The first module of the Centre building was opened on 5 November 2010 with five galleries (On
the move, Humans and the environment, Roots of civilisation, Lightzone, Bzzz!); the exhibit for teenagers
RE: generation was opened 3 March 2011; a planetarium The Heavens of Copernicus opened on 19
June, the Discovery Park on 15 July, chemistry laboratory - 18 October; biology laboratory - 15
November, robotics workshop - 6 December, and physics laboratory - 20 December.
In the centre, different fields are combined; music with biology, mathematics with architecture and so on.
Science enters the realm of feelings and the visitors themselves even become the object of observation.
Since 2008, the Copernicus Science Centre along with Polish Radio has organised an event called the
Science Picnic, which now has become Europe's largest outdoor science-popularisation event. Also, in
2011 the Centre hosted the ECSITE conference (European Network of Science Centres and Museums)
one of the most important events in the field of science centres and museums in the world.

COMPETITION WINNER TEAM

The building design was developed by the firm RAr-2 Ruda lska, a firm established by young Polish
architects -

Jan Kubec and Magdalena Gilder, who won the architectural competition for the

Copernicus Science Centre facility in December 2005. With a team of very few people, the practice was
better known abroad than in Poland. They are primarily interested in competitions, so they have had less
completed designs. The Competition Jury was awed with what is the greatest asset of Silesian school of
architecture - the reluctance to overtake the design with an exuberant form. The concept proposed by
Rar-2 studio perfectly fit into the landscape and the urban context of this part of Warsaw. The major
problem was the location of the new centre. Situated by the river and over the Wisostrada tunnel
which was not prepared to bare the structure of a building of that scale. They solved this issue by basing
the building on a series of prestressed beams located on both sides of the tunnel.
Next to RAr-2 Laboratory of Architecture, responsible for architectural design, the participant of the
investment was Buro Happold servicing with concept development, building design stage and structural
design as well as supervision over the executive design stage. The general contractor was Warsaw-based
company Warbud SA.

CLIENT BRIEF
The client was Warsaws Stoeczny Zarzd Rozbudowy Miasta (English: Capital Board of City Development).
Needs and requirements of the client were defined in competitions conditions. The mission was not to
build a museum with glass boxes and valuable items that no one is allowed to touch, but rather an
interactive space, an innovative idea that would make the Science Centre one of the leading institutions
in Europe. The concept of the building is the curiosity of knowledge, to support the cognitive processes
and learning, help with the understanding of science as well as sharing the knowledge with a

bigger

audience. This would be done in a neat and attractive manner that allows to combine science with art. The
objective was to blur the boundaries between science and humanities, with no forced distinction between
the power of empirical results and philosophical understanding.
Visitors would learn through presentations, workshops, laboratory sessions in the Multimedia Planetarium
as well as in concerts, performances and other artistic events at the centre that would build a positive
image of science that anyone could get accustomed to. This way, the non-specialist guests turn into
research and development of knowledge enthusiasts, not only within the centre while they're visiting, but
also when they go back home. For both parties, science and culture collaboration is a chance for dynamic
development in the future.

BUDGET
The architects werent responsible for the budget, which was determined by the client after doing estimate
evaluation based on the project. They only had to keep declared character and building parameters stated
in the project. However, the budget of the construction was exceeded by about 50% relative to investors
introductory assumptions, setting the final cost of the building at 365 Million PLN - About 68 Million
GBP.

INTERIOR RENDERS
3

MATERIAL STRATEGIES
The Copernicus science museums faade is the first thing to catch the eye of the visitor. The interesting
colour palette and the interesting combination of the various hues, create a very harmonious atmosphere.
The choice of materials was not random and there was a lot of research done and people involved in order
to create this result. The main building was cladded in 13 mm thin fibreCconcrete panels, designed by
Austrian material specialist Rieder.
Selecting materials in architecture is a very challenging task for both the design team as well as the people
dealing with the structural core of the building. It is a complex problem that requires critical and analytical
thinking in order to have a successful outcome. Choosing upon the right materials would normally be
influenced by factors such as the technical requirements and the materials tactual and visual aspects.
A vital part of the technical requirements is the life expectancy of the building. This science centre is one
of Europes largest and most innovative museums and it was built to enrich the visitors knowledge about
the laws of science. It is definitely not a project with a short life expectancy; therefore in order to
create a specific outlook and preserve it for the years to come, the choice of materials was highly
determined by their durability, compression strength and performance. Concrete panels are generally
highly durable, they weather well, they do not require frequent cleaning, they are sturdy and they dont even
require extra chemical coatings, while it is a widely known fact that concrete is strong in compression. In
addition, the quality of precast panels is specified as they are produced in factories while the whole process
is monitored and controlled which makes them a safe and predictable choice in terms of performance.
The specific concrete panels that were used for the CNK centre are reinforced by glass fibres, so they are
relatively lightweight, which means that the cladding system doesnt impose extra loads to the buildings
already heavy main structure. Due to the public nature of the building, the fire resistance of the materials is
crucial. However, the requirements were easily met as the fibreC panels are non-flammable, so theyre
absolutely safe and fireproof.
Even though the project did not have a specific budget as a limit, concrete panels are quite inexpensive in
comparison to other similar cladding systems such as curtain walls, so they definitely didnt increase the
total amount of money that was spent. Speed in construction is also worth mentioning, as concrete panels
that are pre-fabricated such as fibreC do not require storage of the various components and the
transportation is eliminated which primarily makes them easy and quick to install but also reduces the
carbon footprint of the building.

During the competition phase, the architectural-spatial concepts needed to include the site in Warsaw
between witokrzyski Bridge in the south, Lipowa Street in the north, Wybrzee Ko Ciuszkowskie
Street and the site partially above Wisostrada tunnel. Because the building would be set in the region of
Nadwilaski park, it was extremely important to take into account the neighbourhood of Vistulaas and to
treat the surrounding landscape with deep respect.
According to the architect, the work produced, had to follow one of the trends of contemporary
architecture in which the architectural object supplements the space with one more natural creation. In
this case, the architects are drawn by the need to use elements of the natural landscape, creating its
imitation. Its an architecture that searches for a symbiosis with nature. Therefore the colours and textures
used needed to represent the physical context and the various natural elements. The fibreC panels were
produced in 7 different hues. 4 tones of brown, coral, olive green and red.
The landscaping of the building was influenced by three schemes: the direction of landscape, the directions
from the city and the park layout. According to this, the final landscaping solution for the space layout
included specific objects. First, it included the courtyard of patio feature, which was partially roofed and
open towards Vistula, with a stage on water. It was mainly serving as a place for meetings, outdoors shows
and presentations, small shows, concerts and exhibitions of fine arts. All those inspired by discovery,
knowledge and illusion. Secondly, the discoverers park, addressed mainly for children, including an
educating playground, such as balance platform or double helix climbing model.

Thirdly, another park is connecting CNK with Bilbioteka

UWs (Warsaw Universitys Library) gardens, 16m wide
promenade posing as the compositional core between the
functional Copernicus Science Centre and Discoverers Park.
It leads towards the Old Town, integrating the function of
the riverside boulevard with a place related to modern art.
The main space inside the Copernicus centre is the agora
which is where the promenade ends.
By creating this layout, it was made possible to stage a
sequential journey through the world of science, culture, fun
while moving freely from the internal spaces of the building
to the external. The entire landscaped surroundings of the
building are public and accessible by the visitors, while the
Discoverers park was nominated for the European Public
Space 2011 award.

BUILDING DESIGN EXPLAINED

The team consisted of 4 architects: Jan Kubec creator behind the idea and philosophy of the project, Magda
Gilner in charge of aesthetics and solutions, and Micha Tomane and Zbyszko Bujniewicz as designers with
permissions. The concept proposed by them perfectly fit into the landscape and the urban context of this part
of Warsaw. Their goal was to develop one of the trends of contemporary architecture. They wanted to create
a building that will continue being a part of the cultural heritage of future generations. For achieving that they
used elements of the natural landscape for inspiration and integrating them later on into the design. In other
words - the work is some kind of an answer to the question of the place of science in life and architecture in
science. It is a statement in subject of the impact science and nature have on shaping architectural space.

The science centre consists of a complex of buildings with two above-ground levels and one below-ground
level. The height of each reaching 12m excluding the planetarium and the hanging point of Foucaults pendulum
which highest point is 16m. The L-shape form used for the layout of the building echoes the style imposed by its
neighbouring buildings. The power station Powile and Warsaw Universitys Library play a key role in
designing the functional layout of the science centre. However, inside, this massiveness is broken and visually the
building becomes porous. It creates massive reinforced concrete-steel shell perforated with craters/patios,
fitting single-spaced exhibition area. The porous cracked elevation that is similar to a rock serves as protection
and tight curtain.
Another interesting part of the design is the roof over the exhibition area, on the surface of which you will find
a geology garden with general access. For them to create the roof gardens external corporation from a
specialist firm was needed. Moreover, the cupola of the planetarium is hidden in an erratic rock and it might
seem as a heavy, shapeless rock during the day, but at night it lights like a meteor, showing its internal structure.

TECHNICAL DETAILING AND

DEVELOPMENT
The building has a structural design and user interface that are not separated by partitions, with the
exception of the amphitheater and the office module, which cause the variation of parameters of the internal
environment. The basis of the design of internal installations of the building was the idea of maximum
simplification of the system and incorporation of natural ventilation. The most important element of the
climate control program in the exhibition part is porous, breathing roof, which action can be compared
to the breathing skin of a living organism. Moreover, craters (internal gardens with natural landscape)
penetrate the interior of the centre of the roof to the ground, causing a contrast between two aesthetics:
one inherited by us for millions of years and the second one created by new centuries. The idea of mystery
finds reflection in the whole project. Copernicus Science Centre was thought as a building which awakens
curiosity and one will not only experience it through the external exposition, but also through using its shell
as a natures exhibit. However, the end of the construction design was announced on the 19th of
September, 2006, and the executive design took 5 months.
Overall, for the accomplishment of the building external corporation was needed: for the construction design
a specialised engineering projects office Buro Happols was hired servicing with concept development,
building design stage and structural design as well as supervision over the executive design stage , executive
designs excluding the structural part were developed by independent designers and as already mentioned
the roof gardens were designed by a specialist firm.

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

During the process not everything went smoothly and problems have occurred. The most significant one that
projected to the budget of the design was the prohibition to rest the structure on Wisostrada tunnel, which
could not bare the structure of the building itself, even though it was prepared for that and competition
terms allowed it. However, on formal reasons lawyers from Zakad Drg Miejskich didnt give a permission
for that to happen. The newly formed team managed to tackle the situation by implementing that the main
CNK building is in fact 40m long bridge crossing the tunnel. Therefore, the building was based on a
prestressed beams located on both sides of the tunnel. As a result to the changes made in the design and
more complexity due to the tunnel projects deadlines were exceeded, due to the term of signing the
agreement. But, in fact, contractual deadlines were kept. Moreover, during the implementation phase the
executor found optic fibres not shown on the map which had to be identified and moved.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The project is a big success both financially and educationally. The client is very happy and satisfied with the
outcome, as the Centre became the best known and recognised educational building in Poland. It is used as a
science centre exactly as it was intended, what is more, it became so famous that its impossible to get in
without being a ticket months in advance and securing a place with a larger group. It influenced other cities
to open similar centres, but young people and school trips still come to Warsaw to visit Kopernik, as it is
colloquially called. The modern way to teach about all brands of science can not be found in schools, and
what makes it more appealing, does not show theories and formulas, but explains how different laws and
phenomenons work in real life and can be applied in every day.
The architects themselves are also pleased with the project. Not only because of its public success, but also
because, according to them, it is one of the most interestingly designed buildings in Warsaw, which
uncommon spatial structure of function and the expression of the idea incorporated in spatial solutions show
new, innovative trend on architecture. Not only the use of natural elements like light and plants was
important for the centre, but also its relations with water and inspirations it created are significant in the
subject of aquatic architecture. Every element of its form has a purpose and serves some role adding to the
main purpose of the Science Centre, which is to educate.
As always, not everything was nice an easy with this project, and there are lessons to be learnt from it. The
most important thing to remember is that organising and defining details about design process and relations
between architects at the very beginning of the project is crucial for successful team work, where lack of it
may lead to tensions between team members which always leads to troubles.
A fact that not many people realise is that the architect does not earn on his work, but on the projects
evaluation. It means, that it does not matter how much effort will the architect put in making the design. It
only matters how will his/hers design be priced, because that is how much will he/she get from the client at
the end.
Another important thing to remember is that the goal of good technical solutions is to simplify them.
Complicated design may be brilliant, but it is more legible for problems, even the smallest mistake in the
execution can lead to a disaster, and any malfunction is more difficult to handle. Whereas a simple design does
not require specialist knowledge to understand and it is obvious if it works or not. Therefore the architect
should understand technical conditions and engineers decisions, but should stay in control of the process.
Only the vast technical knowledge of the architect can allow for creating proper and complex assumptions
for technical solutions in terms of installations and the structure of the building. After all, that is what keeps
the building from falling down, and that is not what any architect would want.

10

11

EXTERIOR RENDERS

12

13

14

TEAM CHARTER
MEMBERS AND THEIR ROLES
Beln Caizares-Espadafor: Case Leader, responsible for calling the meetings and taking a role on
separating tasks as evenly as possible and writing the team charter. Also in charge of putting all the pieces of
work together in a clear and coherent manner.
Jakub Fczek: Responsible for contacting the architects and conducting the interview. Also responsible for
translating all the documents that were sent to him in Polish for the rest of the team to work efficiently
and accurately.
Belina Koxhaj: Main researcher in terms of physical aspects of the building, such as material strategies.
Viktoriya Vaskova: Responsible for research in terms of spatial design and construction process, including
the problems that the team had to face.
All team members are responsible for their own research and making sure that they write specifically about
their own part of the essay so as to make sure that we don't have overlapping information by the time we
put all the work together.
Methods of communication: Meetings are held every Thursday, either before or after the Introduction to
Practice lecture. On that day, we share our our progress as well as our ideas or any questions we may want
to raise. Any extra meetings will be called for if necessary. A Facebook group chat was created specifically
for this project to contact each other outside university and keep track of each others work.
Decision Process: All the decisions are made in person in the meetings to make sure everyone is aware and
agreeing of their own responsibilities and so that we can have a fair discussion to spread the workload as
evenly as possible. This way, everyone has the chance to share any concerns efficiently.
Available resources: There was not much detailed information available on the Internet so we made sure
we wrote down a series of questions that covered every part of the process. The architects were nice able
to give us detailed answers to most of our questions and they were nice enough to send us a good amount
of graphic information such as parts of the site analysis, material study, plans and renders. From that
information and what we could find online we then proceeded to make our own analysis and explain things
further.
We all chose our individual tasks during the meetings and also agreed on writing roughly the same amount
of words per person to meet the assignment requirements.

15