A2: Mikhaylo Slyusar – Stations in Extreme Conditions

Assignment — We wanted housing. Something like a small apartment building with amenities. Because we wouldn't find it enjoyable and because it's important to realize basic connections and relationships, we chose a theme where there aren't many of those connections. We wanted to demonstrate the skill of creating a residential interior environment for a small group of people – in terms of layout and space, mostly resigning aesthetics of the exterior. The theme is therefore a short-term or medium-term mission in extreme conditions with a scientific focus for approximately 40 people.

Concept — I was deciding between a more architecturally interesting solution that would explore relationships among people and create interesting spaces for them. The cells would, however, not be constructed from the same parts, they wouldn't be interchangeable, and in extreme conditions, they would be life-threatening. Therefore, I opted for a solution that examines spaces stripped of "interestingness".
I divided the group of 50 people into 6 groups of 8 individuals so that natural relationships could form. One cell is assigned to each group. The groups will refine over time, with 10 spots in each cell.
It is obvious that extremely minimal dimensions are a fiction of austerity, as people in extreme conditions are expected to perform complex tasks, for which minimal dimensions are not conducive (according to studies on minimum space in relation to human performance). Therefore, we find relatively spacious huts at the South Pole, and in space, scientific equipment takes up a lot of room, thus astronauts also have space. The task was therefore to create minimal spaces, but in order not to end up with bungalows, extreme conditions were the assignment – the task is thus purely theoretical.
Emphasis on sound insulation of individual rooms. People do not see each other.
Maximum distances, indirect pathways, utilization of the building perimeter. Dividing rooms by function rather than partitioning. People get lost in the mass of furniture.
Due to such small rooms, I felt unwell during the design process.
All members are required to listen to music or studies, which increases privacy, they will hear nothing.
For safety, there are 3 boilers and 3 air conditioning units in the building; hence they are also local.
Avatar, soldiers.
    
DEFENSE

Location — Antarctica. Ramps for construction without a crane.

People — I divided the group of 50 people into 6 groups of 8 individuals.
One cell is designated for each group.
2 groups share dining and technology.
Each group has a special function.

Dimensions — I chose minimal dimensions, 4.16 m² per person.
(2.7 m² without bridges and with a maximum occupancy of 11 people per cell)

Interior — Maximum distances, indirect pathways, utilization of the building perimeter.
Emphasis on sound. People do not see each other.
People get lost in the mass of furniture.
The central cupboard is movable.
Being secured to the ceiling.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS:

Volume?
500 m³, 10 m³ per person, 3 m³ gross area with all the equipment that is here.
Cell 6.1 x 2.5 m of internal space.
How did you choose the location?
I chose the most extreme site on land, 1000 km away from the nearest inhabited place. In order to differentiate the design from ordinary proposals, and to explore the assigned task more.
Raised on legs?
1. For heat insulation from snow.
2. For snow accumulation.
3. To prevent snow from sealing the entrance in the wind, to allow ventilation.
Spacing?
1. Fire safety
2. Exchange of the entire cell
3. Social
Why is there a tower?
In my opinion, a view for the crew is essential.
How is the structure transported to the site?
On skis.
Supplies?
Exchange of the container or by mini crane.
How are the corridors assembled?
The corridor is delivered on a container and then turned 90°.
What does the crew engage in?
1. Work on tablets.
2. The task wasn't to devise what they would engage in.
3. Additional spaces for work can be connected to the structure.
Doesn't the structure seem inhospitable and inhumane?
1. It is a study.
2. In a real assignment, many more details would be included, which I would reflect upon.
3. In school, designs are crafted with consideration of everything, which is why they are all similar. If students focused on specific studies, it would yield much more for them.
Why did you divide the people?
1. Natural relationships emerge in small groups
2. Individualism requires division. It is challenging to live in a group together day and night.
Too small dimensions?
1. I wanted to explore extremely small dimensions.
2. In extreme conditions, people are expected to perform complex tasks, for which minimal dimensions are not conducive. At the South Pole, there are relatively spacious huts, and even on space stations, there is plenty of room.
Emphasis on sound?
All members are required to listen to music or studies, which increases privacy; they will hear nothing.
Situation?
Here. I did not consider the situation as the focal point of the design.
Snow accumulation. Lifespan?
1. 2 - 5 years.
2. Based on the buried dome of the Amundsen Scott station, I determined that 1 m of snow accumulates in 2 - 5 years.
3. After being buried, the containers will be taken away.
Being secured to the ceiling?
The suit is equipped with grips. Secured in multiple places on the ceiling. Choice of desired position.
How does construction proceed?
Construction takes place on the coast and is then dragged in. Foundational structure. Independent cells pulled by a winch.
Why are the ramps not rounded?
It would look less technical. In reality, they would be rounded.
How did you determine the dimensions?
I started with a container, which seemed a bit small, and enlarged it to a module of 800 mm.
Mistakes in the design?
Point lighting. Many furniture parts made from one piece, irreplaceability. Square ramp. The cells are curved into a U shape, although a straight line of cells would be more logical. The interior is inhumane. Professor Vybíral pointed out that my division of the group into 8 individuals suggests a poor opinion of scientists.