We show one of the competition projects of Polish studios that took part in the most important architectural competition in recent years in Poland - the competition for the concept of the headquarters of the CAMERIMAGE European Film Center in Toruń. Architects from MWM proposed a block that would be an extension of Toruń's Old Town, with a facade referring to the traditional buildings of Toruń. We talk to the team about their assessment of the competition process, what the architects wanted to achieve with the proposed concept, and finally: how they evaluate the jury's verdict.
On August 31, 2021, one of the most important architectural competitions held in Poland in recent years - the competition for the concept of the headquarters of the CAMERIMAGE European Film Center in Toruń- was settled. The final winner was the project of the Austrian studio Baumschlager Eberle Lustenau GmbH, which won the highest prize in the history of Polish architectural competitions - PLN 1,500,000, as well as an invitation to negotiate a sole-source contract to provide services based on the competition work. We published the results of the competition for the ECFC headquarters here.
The competition received more than 100 designs from around the world, including works by Polish studios. One of them was the MWM office from Rzeszow, which proposed a building referring to the architecture of Toruń's old town and being an element uniting the surrounding buildings created in different periods. The MWM project was not qualified for the second stage. We talk to the design team about, among other things, how they evaluate the organization of this important competition, the main design assumptions and ask how they evaluate the jury's verdict.
Katarzyna Domagała: During the announcement of the results of the competition, Boleslaw Stelmach, chairman of the jury, stressed several times that this was a very difficult concept to develop due to the high ideological requirements. Do you agree?
MWM: This project was difficult for many different reasons. First of all, locating a large-cubic building in the center of a city always involves the risk that it will become a breach in the urban fabric - a closed area, such as a prison or a huge shopping mall. Seemingly accessible, but only to a few and only at certain times. Such facilities create a socially dead space, with all its consequences. This is the complete opposite of a traditional old town, which is a mosaic of streets, squares or buildings and in which one can move freely in many ways.
Catherine: Were any regulmin guidelines particularly difficult for you to implement in the project or incomprehensible?
MWM: This was a project was full of internal contradictions, but this is nothing new in our profession. Every day we are faced with doing something that at first glance seems impossible. But we are sure that there is no greater fun than a client who comes to the conclusion that he would never have come up with something like this himself.
Competition design for the headquarters of the CAMERIMAGE European Film Center in Toruń
vision: MWM
Katarzyna: What were the main assumptions you made when preparing the competition project?
MWM: These "foundations" in every project are several. In the case of our concept for the ECFC headquarters, the foundation was, first, the desire to create a building that merges with the city. Secondly, we wanted to propose a block that is a natural and smooth extension of Toruń's Old Town. And importantly: an evolution rather than an architectural revolution. Thirdly, we wanted the building to be a glue for the surrounding, rather chaotic buildings, which were built in different periods and styles. We wanted it to "calm" it down a bit. We also wanted the massing to blur the boundaries between the interior and the space around, and to be able to pass through it freely.
Catherine: Hence so many stairs!
Yes. But the stairs, ramps and footbridges passing through, under and above the building are not only for communication. They are meant to become a meeting place for residents, independent of the events taking place inside. The same is true of the amphitheater, which flows seamlessly from the square to the roof.
Competition design for the headquarters of the CAMERIMAGE European Film Center in Toruń
vision: MWM
Catherine:And the form? What does it refer to?
MWM: The form itself was consciously composed on the principle of contrast between light and darkness, which we know from cinema halls. The mystery for us is what awaits us behind the small, mysterious doors of the cinema hall. Even walking through the main entrance doesn't reveal all the secrets to us, as it is suspended in the space of the main foyer, and one has to go deeper inside to experience the sensation of a several-story hall connected by a system of footbridges and ramps, whose geometry is the reverse - the complete opposite of the outer, very calm facade.
Catherine: In turn, the block's ceramic facade seems to refer to historic brick buildings.
MWM: The ceramic cladding of the facade itself is a nod to the traditional Gothic architecture of Toronto. The facades of historic buildings are full of detail that breaks up the monumentality of the masses and is a kind of food for our senses. This is why we feel so comfortable among historic buildings, and usually badly in the company of, austere, detail-free modern architecture. Wanting to avoid the monotony of large planes devoid of detail, but also the pastiche of historical forms, we designed a facade of ceramic, large-size elements, the composition of which refers to the traditional brick facades of the Old Town.
Competition design for the headquarters of the CAMERIMAGE European Film Center in Toruń
vision: MWM
Catherine: But the material that makes up the facade has an unusual shape. It does not resemble a classic brick.
MWM: We realized that the use of traditional, small-sized brick would not give a satisfactory effect, because the size of the building would cause the small elements to merge into one plane. Therefore, we scaled our "bricks" and gave them a variable geometry. This makes the building appear visually smaller, and the elevations change as the observer's position changes.
Catherine: How long did you work on the project?
MWM: About three months in a team of five people.
Catherine: The project did not qualify for the second stage. Do you know why?
MWM: It is not the practice for a jury to justify why it doesn't like any work. It is difficult to require this when the refusal is for the overwhelming majority of participants.
Catherine: And how do you evaluate the organization of the competition and the idea of it in general? After all, it was one of the most important architectural competitions held in Poland in recent years. Well, and the amount of the main prize....
MWM: An international competition with a realistically estimated budget and a design fee of 10% of the cost of implementation is a rarity in Poland! Let's hope that this is an indicator of change. The fact that such a competition has occurred is a real revolution in Polish practice, where the principle of the primacy of the lowest price still applies, which always ends very badly in the end.
We were surprised by the heavily specified requirements for the area, layout of functions and their interrelationships. On the one hand, it's good when the investor knows what he wants. On the other hand, if everything is so carefully thought out, why hold a competition? At the end of the day, we judge the preparation and conduct of the competition itself as very professional.
Competition design for the headquarters of the European Film Center CAMERIMAGE in Toruń
vision: MWM
Catherine: Then now a question that will probably stir up some emotions. What do you think of the jury's verdict, especially the winning entry?
MWM: We have a rather loose approach to any rules and regulations. If the creation of any art could be put into a rigid framework, it would be handled by computer scientists and lawyers. It's a bit like the famous conversation between Patton and Eisenhower - "it is normal to give orders to an American officer, but it is derogatory to his dignity to tell him how to do it." It is similar with the competition. The investor should specify what he wants and how much money he has for it, but a minimum of creative freedom should be left to the architects. Recall the once famous competition for the Martime Museum won by Bjarke Ingels. At that time, the winning concept was one that completely disregarded the recommendations of the regulations, yet the jury thought it was brilliant and that someone who prepared the terms of the competition would never have come up with such an idea. The losing teams protested, but nevertheless the Danes had a lot of sense and decided that the idea was more important than the rules. This is how breakthroughs in science and art are made.
As for the verdict itself in the case of the ECFC, we realize that any critical voice will be perceived as frustration by those who lost. We really try to be objective, but we have to admit that... the final five disappointed us a lot.
Catherine: In what sense?
MWM: Looking at the projects shortlisted for the finals, we have the impression that the developer wanted something flashy and strange, and in fact, that was probably the primary criterion. Looking at these projects, we have the feeling that we have moved back to around the year 2000, when the world was experiencing an excitement for bizarre, organic forms. Practice shows that such extravagances quickly get boring, and the Bilbao effect could never be repeated. We believe that architecture should, first of all, be clever and stem from some rational rationale. It doesn't necessarily have to be bizarre at all costs.
