Forestry Commission - the new Dutch Institute for Forestry and Nature Research - Brief Article

Architectural Review, The, Jan, 2001 by Peter Blundell Jones

The new Dutch Institute for Forestry and Nature Research shows how we can build sustainably without special financial incentives for green architecture.

When the Dutch combined three formerly separate bodies as a single Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, they decided to make a serious example of ecological planning following the aims of the Rio Summit. [1] No special funds were provided: it was to show that environmentally-conscious architecture can be achieved within normal cost limits, and although the building was to represent the ecological concerns of the institute, empty Eco-rhetoric was to be avoided.

The site was a field to the north of the town of Wageningen which had fallen into a depleted state through intensive agriculture. Its restoration was part of the institute's work, and the surroundings would both allow space for the development of experimental ecological gardens and create a green corridor between the Rhine valley and the Hoge Velwe Park. Such corridors allow links between ecologically protected areas, so that plants and animals can spread from one to another and form a network. The handling of water within the site could also be studied, and has included a sophisticated grey water cycle for the building using rain-collection and a sequence of ponds. An invited competition was held with three entrants, and Stefan Behnisch and his architects won with a design based on minimizing embodied and consumed energy, saving water, avoiding toxic products, and allowing for eventual recycling. This meant that choice of forms and materials was often dictated, or at least severely limited, by ecological an d economic considerations. Thus the building is deliberately principle-rather than image-driven, the image being the result of the process.

Behnisch was also concerned not to compromise on providing the humane type of office environment for which the practice has long been known, and to provide a degree of participation in the planning process. Although the result is in some ways reminiscent of earlier works from the firm run by his father, such as the famous Diakonie in Stuttgart (AR June 1985), the architectural language is more restrained, even deliberately unshowy. Cranked angles and colliding details are few, the building being almost entirely orthogonal, and a pragmatic order rules. The ecological commitment was Stefan's, and shows a new direction which the city branch of the firm is taking under his leadership, [2] for though present in an advisory capacity and as partner, his father Gunter had no great interest in ecological matters.

The three-storey building allows for compactness without reliance on lifts, though there are two for use by disabled people. The parti is based on a continuous spine on the north side containing laboratories, from which three wings of double loaded offices extend southward. This articulates the two basic accommodation types and allows a straightforward economical construction grid, extendable if necessary by lengthening the spine and adding more wings. The major architectural innovation lies in the treatment of the two spaces between the office wings, which serve both as ecological gardens and as climatic buffers. Cheaply covered with a standard single-glazed Dutch horticultural system, these courts are not indoor spaces in the full sense, as the office windows and terraces looking into them had to be fully protected and double-glazed as external facades. Since place of work regulations set a minimum temperature of 16 deg C, they cannot be officially included in the building's circulation system although the y are always so used: the official route is via the spine.

As gardens, the courts house ecological experiments while also providing views and recreation for the workers. The plants within them humidify and cool the air in hot weather. As climatic buffers they serve as solar collectors in the cooler part of the year, night re-radiation being prevented by reflective blinds pulled across under the glass roof. If the temperature is high enough, heat is transferred to the offices by opening windows, but even when it is low, heat loss is reduced. In summer the blinds are closed to cut solar input while the large roof vents are opened to provide a thermal chimneys, cool air being sucked in through the crawl space of the north wing. The adjoining offices to each court can then be cross-ventilated via open doors and windows.

Exposed concrete slab ceilings in the office wings act as heat stores, stabilizing the temperature of the working environment. In winter they can be gently heated. In high summer, daytime heat build-up is dissipated at night by through draughts, exhausted via the open roofs of the courts. As a result of all these measures, the office wings could be left without air conditioning, and it is avoided everywhere else in the building except the laboratories, where the nature of the work compels it. Beside saving electricity, avoidance of air conditioning reduces capital outlay on mechanical services, and it sidesteps the bacterial problems known as sick building syndrome. It also meant that no space needed to be left for ducts, so floor-to-floor heights could be reduced by around 300mm. For a low-energy building there seems to be a lot of glass, but thanks to wooden frames and double glazing, heat retention is high, while strong daylight reduces the need to burn electricity for lighting. The relatively shallow pla ns are also vital in this respect, their central corridors being partly daylit by high-level glazing. As in other Behnisch buildings, generous daylighting is inspiring, and even on an overcast day the place seems bright and cheerful: many of the photographs published here were taken when it was raining outside.