Future Africa Campus

Future Africa: Developing African Science Leadership_ A Pan-African Research Centre..... “This space is not an institute, at least not in the traditional sense. Nor can you consider it a campus...... it’s a place animated by ideas. Future Africa is designed to be a hub not merely for interdisciplinary research, but trans disciplinary research. (While the former looks at the nexus between disciplines, the latter refers to “two or more disciplines transcend[ing] each other to form a new holistic approach)”. _ Prof. Bernard Slippers The brief called for the design of an environment that would facilitate and enhance trans-disciplinary research within the African context. The facility should be a place where collective research is done with a strong focus on science leadership development. Future Africa is to provide an integrated live-/work environment for post-doctorate students from all cultures and backgrounds; fostering fellowship, understanding and collaboration among the vast diversity of cultures and disciplines on our continent. The diaspora of African academics has left scientists isolated. This often leads to discouragement and subsequent loss of valuable knowledge. Facilities: • 280 one-, two-, and 3 bedroom living units • Central Hall (Future Africa Hub) • Research Commons • Conference Facility: o 250 Seater Auditorium, o Two 50-Seater Multi-purpose Rooms o Six Break-away Rooms, linked to the Auditorium; also doubling up as Translation Booths. “We can’t solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”. _ Albert Einstein Future Africa is not only about place (locality, meaning) nor space (building), but also about the contribution a building can make to the ecology within which it is developed. Key concepts explored were: 1. Open Building, Disentanglement, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Systems, Adaptability: o Systems and tectonics were deliberately disentangled to allow for parallel off-site manufacture and on-site assembly. Primary, Secondary and Tertiary systems were integrated all the way down to the detail level of furniture design, which were flexible and adaptable requiring user interaction to suit each individual’s requirements. o The levels of permanence can also be read in the tectonics. The primary (concrete & masonry) required heavy equipment through to the secondary structures (steel also accommodating post-fitted services) required lighter equipment and the tertiary systems being completely hand-assembled by either the user or unskilled labour. Allows for future adaptability. o Timber was used extensively for the Tertiary systems. Plywood and LVL were digitally “converted” into puzzle pieces. Then brought to site and hand assembled by unskilled labour on site. o Not only does this OPEN BUILDING allow for adaptive re-use and re-cycling, it also allows for alternative, more inclusive contracting. This opens up the industry to smaller “players” and unskilled labour. The Hub Building was assembled by 9 previously unskilled laborers. Elements were all kept to a scale which can be handled by human-hand. Steel elements were designed within specific weight restrictions to allow elements to be carried by laborers. 2. Regenerative Design / Catalytic Development: o Breaking the buildings down in clearly defined elements offers the potential of outsourcing manufacture to small and micro enterprises. The tolerances and integration of elements is done by the architect in the digital realm. Assembly is done by unskilled labour on site. The catalytic nature of mobilizing these micro enterprises can be highly impactful on an economy with huge unemployment. o Design, not to simplify the management for the contractor but, to allow for the establishment of new industries and micro enterprises which can be funded by community banking; new small factories or Buros utilizing digital tools to close the gap between formal training and market access. i.e._ it’s easier to teach someone to operate a CNC machine than to train a master carpenter. o Informal systems in the developing communities already exist; if these can be augmented with quality control and moderation a whole new sphere of democratized industrialization can be established. 3. Democratization of Building: o Opening the building industry up to allow for small and micro enterprises to participate in large projects is key to the project. Not one of the contractors responsible for the manufacture and installation of the tertiary systems have ever worked on this scale, nor have they produced anything of this nature. Using companies with established infrastructure are seen as low risk but the increased cost and rigidity of these industrialized organizations do not allow for innovation nor does it provide the opportunity for meaningful associations. o The level of ownership taken on by the small contractors resulted in immense pride, meaning and a sense of accomplishment; traits that has been lost to our industry since the industrial revolution when labor were reduced to commodity. 4. Parallel vs. Linear value/supply Chains: o We deliberately curated local skills rather than using established highly specialized imported building systems. o All materials were sourced directly with processing taking place on or close to the site. Apart from the Aluminium Windows and the Mechanical, Electrical and Electronic equipment, no manufacture were done further than 20km from site. o Integrating the production of the various manufacturers negated the need for linear value chains by material being handled only once before installed. 5. Systems Thinking / Inter-connectedness: o The building is not only space, accommodation and shelter but, central to a system where people are key. Primary, secondary and tertiary users all get to participate in the success of the eco-system. o Integration of the local economy, ecology and landscape was critical parts of the project. o The project and the impact during construction is just as important as the final product. Close_ The environment resulting from the development must foster community, ownership, participation and thought integration through spatial transparency, democracy and choice. Conventional approach at universities call for clusters of buildings with some shared facilities central to the residential units. These still created islands and isolation. The re-imagining of this typology called for centralized spaces for interaction; these would facilitate collaboration, cultural interaction and friendship. Central to the collaboration/communal facilities are food and the preparation there off. With the vast cultural diversity on our continent the idea of sharing thoughts around “dinner tables” was core the the organization. The landscape design also formed part of the system by re-introducing 56 orphan crops and allowing foraging to explore alternative cuisines and creative interaction around new tastes, textures and colours. André Eksteen, Project Director, Earthworld Architects.