Dipoli students union building

Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Reima and Raili Pietila

Dipoli is an interpretation of this materialistic idea: the relationship between building and nature. Reima Pietila

The Pietilas use a number of strategies to accomplish their goals. A very distinct plan (fig. 2) echoes the topography of the landscape through its complex form. It springs out wildly in multiple directions but is grounded on an ordered structure which emphasizes the idea of morphing two contrasting ideas. The irregular sections clearly represent a “smooth” space as defined by Deleuze and Guattari in their chapter “1440: The Smooth and the Striated”. There are general directions similar to vectors and space seems to occupy that direction rather than having points and lines delineate its edges. Striation occurs where the sketch (fig. 2) employs perpen-dicular, intersecting lines immediately signaling an imposed order.

Part of Pietila’s explorations were a reaction to the inability of simple Euclidean geometry be “an adequate instrument of analysis”.1 Micol Carlone claims that Dipoli “basically assumed the shape of a sort of “non-building”. […] It is not characterized by any element which is generally identified with traditional architecture: neither an impressive facade nor a conventional internal space”.2 More techniques, as seen in figures 1 and 3, are the use of the site’s excavated rocks as an exterior base for the building, a monolythic roof, large accents on envelope openings, as well as opening up of the exterior walls through the extensive use of glazing and unique views.

1 Micol Carlone. The Development of the Morphology Conceptin Raili and Reima Pietilä’s culture and works. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm. accessed sept. 22, 2009.

2 Ibid.

The building’s close relationship to the site clearly reveals that one of Reima and Raili Pietila’s main goals is to emphasize a strong connection between nature and the built environment. In fact, the forest seems to penetrate the building and in doing so the building disappears as a separate entity and morphs with its environment.

fig. 1

fig. 2

fig. 3

Dipoli’s integrated relationship with the environment intentionally creates a spatial relationship to the one inhabiting it. Pietila brings together those key elements of the genius loci of place and the Finnish sensibility to create both a building that echoes it environment and one which testifies of the Finnish relationship with nature. He shares with Norberg-Schultz that the existen-tial purpose of a building is owed to its environment and thus to create and reinforce a sense of place.1 Being a phenomenologist, Pietila sought a plastic architecture using nature, the perfect example of such, as his model.2 The quest for a plastic architecture echoes Theo Van Doesburg’s theories. In “Towards a Plastic Architecture” he outlines some of the techniques Pietila used such as the resultant architecture having no specific style, merging inside and outside, employing moving intermediate surfaces and the “balanced relationship of unequal parts”. 3

To achieve the morphology of inside and outside, Pietila applies a technique involving varied hori-zontal divisions which Quantrill describes as “attempting to dissolve the wall so that it becomes an apathetic membrane or skin between internal and external space”.4 With the breaking down of the exterior wall and creation of a “skin” which adapts to its environment, a sense of place is created throughout the space. This phenomenon is emphasized by using wider beams to break up the large panels of glazing which would otherwise be unnatural but now echoes the forest around it.5 The presence of moveable walls inside the structure also influence the existing spatial relationships and add to the plasticity of the structure.

1 C. Norberg-Schulz, “The Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architec-ture, 1996, 4232 Micol Carlone. The Development of the Morphology Concept in Raili and Reima Pietilä’s culture and works. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm. accessed sept. 22, 2009.

3 Theo van Doesburg, ““Towards a Plastic Architecture”, in U. Conrads, ed., Programs and Manifestos on 20th-century architecture,1970, 78-80.4 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985 555 Ibid.

fig. 4

Fig. 5

Pietila describes his vision for Dipoli as a monolithic symbol where large pieces of granite form the shape of the roof as a “geomorphic force” to emphasize Dipoli’s “landform sculpture”.1 The unique and irregular shape of the roof echoes the large boulders placed around the building. During the winter the snow makes the entire place invisible and the roof becomes one continu-ous surface with the landscape. Similarly the experience of being inside is reminiscent of a grotto or cave-like space. As a model of the roof suggests (fig. 4), the structure of the roof consists of cave-like forms poured in concrete. The sides of the building open up into the forest bringing the exterior inside while accents such as the furniture throughout the building provide many more instances of biophillic design to emphasize the omnipresence of nature(see fig. 7).

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985 56 Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Beyond the outward experiences that the spaces inside and outside of Dipoli facilitate is a spatial quality about the entire building which Pietilo framed best with the quote he used in the competi-tion for the building: “Dipoli is a dinosaur of the Mesozoic era”. 1 Emerging from the cave-like dimensions and from the skins created by the moveable walls is the phenomenon of being within the bowls of a monstrous beast. 2 When seen in section the building’s reptiliean attributes become much more apparent as it inhabits its forested site(see fig. 8). 3

One might refer to the Banham article which refers to the creation of space and its relation to time using a sense of movement between or of spaces.4 The building’s formal structure remains static but it gains a quality of movement through its design which in instilled in the observer and inhabitant of the space. Movement can be appreciated on two levels, seeing the building in section with reptilian qualities or by experiencing the space directly and witnessing the flux of inside and outside—the natural breathing of a living organism through the its skin.

No doubt the spatial relationships created in and around Dipoli create an experience so unique that it is difficult to categorize Pietila into a particular style and category. His experiments of plasticity and phenomenology challenge the viewer to ground their experience yet Dipoli retains a definite sense of place which expresses the genius loci of the site in the context of Finnish architecture.

1 Micol Carlone. The Development of the Morphology Conceptin Raili and Reima Pietilä’s culture and works. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm. accessed sept. 22, 2009.

2 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985 553 Ibid. 634 Reyner Banham, “Space and Power”, in Age of Masters, 1975, 49-62.

Fig. 8

Works CitedBanham, Reyner. “Space and Power”, in Age of Masters, 1975, 49-62.

Carlone, Micol. The Development of the Morphology Concept in Raili and Reima Pietilä’s culture and works. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm. accessed sept. 22, 2009.

Norberg-Schulz, C. “The Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 1996, 423.

Quantrill, Malcolm. Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985.

van Doesburg, Theo. “Towards a Plastic Architecture”, in U. Conrads, ed., Programs and Manifes-tos on 20th-century architecture,1970, 78-80.

All images from Quantrill’s Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism.