We proposed a building of serene representational character combining, on the one hand, a singularity that lives up to both its important program and its significant position on the campus, and on the other, a formal restraint that integrates naturally into the built environment of the university. An abstract solid in green ceramic brick — unitary in its legibility yet repeatedly carved and with simple lines — materializes that synthesis.

The building volume being carved is conceived to generate a semi-covered public space at ground level, next to the main entrance. Through its unique identity, this public space has the potential to become a recognizable meeting place for all on campus.

The ceiling of the main public access space on the ground floor is pierced by some of the courtyards that connect the upper floors. Upon entering this public space — of sufficiently substantial dimensions to host events and other types of outdoor activities — one will perceive the main entrance hall to the building at the back, made of glass. Its light and ethereal character contrasts with the two massive volumes it connects: the north and south wings that make up the ground floor.

The competition brief established that offices and individual work areas should be placed facing east, while common work areas, toilets, offices, rest and recreation areas, and meeting rooms should face west. With this premise, we decided to generate the necessary linear meters of east and west orientation — within a square of 60 x 60 meters — so that every one of the spaces on the main two floors has the orientation required for it.

To that effect, the strategy consists of creating a series of 6m wide courtyards unfolding north to south that allows us to place each space in its appropriate orientation, either facing an interior courtyard façade, or the east or west façade— all of them, therefore, with natural ventilation and optimal natural lighting.

The courtyards on the 1st and 2nd floors are arranged following a staggered pattern. Thus, on the one hand, the distribution of light is as balanced as possible within the floor plan, and on the other, circulations perpendicular to them can be inserted. When these circulations — arranged equidistant from each other — intersect with the vertical ones, spaces for meeting and alternative uses are proposed that can be occupied either spontaneously, in an improvised manner, or to host some previously prescribed activity, according to the needs arising over the course of the building’s life.

The building’s internal volumetric complexity has been deliberately designed to give rise to a series of generously dimensioned patios and terraces on all floors so that a large number of indoor spaces have direct access to an exterior. Other than being taken advantage of by individual users, these courtyards and terraces could be activated for other purposes; for example, for small receptions, learning gatherings, outdoor exercise sessions, and workshops.

The load-bearing structure consists of reinforced concrete walls running the entire height of the building and 50cm thick post-tensioned concrete slabs. Brick is chosen as the main material for the façades to give the abstract solid a massive character and at the same time confer it with a certain attentiveness to the human scale. We propose recycled brick and choose a dark emerald green tone in line with the serene singularity sought after in the building’s presence.

The patios that are “carved” into the green mass are materialized in glass with minimal framing. These glass carvings deliver a material continuity similar to that of the exterior brick envelope while at the same time engendering a sensitivity and character opposite to it. The heavy, on the outside; the light, on the inside.

It is important to highlight the importance of proposing a building whose main floors have been designed to be flexible in their capacity to accommodate programmatic variations over time without falling into an undesirable neutrality in its spatial character. Even if all the partitions were eliminated, the result would be a fluid and continuous floor plan yet articulated and nuanced by the spatial and light conditions provided by the staggered arrangement of courtyards.

The strategic placement of the walls, never in the middle of any space, allows for a multitude of ways of occupying the floor to be imagined; in the current case, many small spaces, but in the future, who knows, perhaps a series of larger spaces that would either be attached to the courtyards or emerge free of them—or even a situation in which the entire floor would be freed up. In any of these cases, the floor space would globally maintain the singular character conferred by its basic structuring elements. Flexibility, yet made possible by a spatial infrastructure with a specific character.