Case Study 2: Building Complex for Municipal Welfare uses in Thessaloniki

1. How did you come up with the idea of this competition? What was the plan?

​

We made this decision by taking into account two major factors: the site ownership and regulatory status and the social infrastructure indicators for Thessaloniki's districts according to the revised version of the General Urban Plan. The site is an entire building block with increased accessibility that could efficiently address the public service inefficiencies of the Papafi district and its adjacent neighborhoods.

​

2. When reading the competition aims one can sense a deep concern for the public space and the connection of this block to the neighborhood. Was there an effort to include the inhabitants' perspectives within the program of the project? If yes, what was the mode of their involvement?

​

Yes, there was indeed. During our late talks about the possible scenarios of intervention, the Municipality of Thessaloniki in collaboration with the 4th District and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki organised a participatory design workshop with the area's inhabitants and the local collectivities. The workshop theme was "A courtyard for the neighborhood" and its results helped shape the competition aims and the brief. 

  

3. What was the nature of the involvement of the city council?

​

The council approved the Architectural Competition and the regulations of the brief with no further objections or counter proposals. The only issue that was discussed in detail revolved around the issue of what the maximum height of the intervention would be. Eventually, it was decided to preserve the neighborhood scale.

​

4. In the first stage of the competition the jury endorsed no less than 16 proposals. Did that make your decision any harder at the end?

​

Many participants did in fact respond to the competition requirements and the competition aims in an efficient manner. This was a very positive development as our goal was to use this input to support a constructive dialogical process between the jury members and to allow for the brewing of different lines of thinking that could be ultimately used as a means for evaluating the proposals and assigning the awards.

​

5. What is the relation of this project to the strategic plan of the Municipality of Thessaloniki?

​

This project is part of the 2014-2019 Plan for Thessaloniki. It falls into two different domains: a. the Environmental and Well-being domain and b, the Social Welfare, Education, Culture and Sports domain. It was therefore critical that it contributed both to the improvement of the local welfare services as many of the Municipal services will eventually be moved to the new building, as well as to the greater area's infrastructure and urban landscape upgrade.

 

6. Would you change anything in this competition?

​

After having concluded this process successfully and having awarded the first prize to an architectural proposal that fully responds to the competition aims, I don't have any reason to change anything. I do, however, think that the State should assist local administration authorities more by simplifying the process of commissioning the project and by significantly reducing the duration of the bureaucratic procedures required until the project is seen to completion.  

​

 7. What is the project current status?

​

The administration committee has already secured the funding for the project and is about to sign the commissioning contract with the winning team.