Case Study 1: Lycabettus Pan.Orama

​

1. What was your experience like in preparing the Lycabettus competition brief? What were the major challenges?

​

It was an extremely interesting experience. We wanted to set the framework without necessary limiting creativity so that contestants could work on a given set of parameters but to be able to eventually develop their own individual paths. Our aim was to write a succinct and detailed brief that would provide participants with all necessary information and thus avoid entanglements, questions, clarifications, etc. One of our main challenges lay in the complexity of the competition itself because it combined public space regeneration along with interventions to a modernist building of a monumental character. The other challenge was a practical one: the collection of the design documentation needed to support the design work required by the contestants.

​

   2. You have participated in architectural competitions in the past and now you were responsible for preparing one. How has your experience helped you in the Lycabettus research?

​

Our competition experience has indeed helped a lot in writing the brief. We couldn’t have done it had we not had similar experience in building and landscaping competitions. Our experience in public works also helped.

​

  3. What kind of information did your team opt for? Did you work with other institutions or researchers to obtain it?

​

This was a research-oriented endeavour that required collaboration with many people at many levels of administration. We worked with ETAD (contracting authority, organizing authority); its technical and legislative department and also with the public relations department. We also collaborated with the members of the related research program conducted by the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), the Agricultural University and the Ministry of Culture (due to the character of the theater of Zenetos which is a listed building). We met and discussed with the representatives of the above mentioned bodies many times; a conference was also held with the active participation of all the parties involved. The collected material was consecutively sorted out in terms of its instrumentality to the competition aims, while a thematic analysis of the sub-areas of the hill and its views was also implemented. Part of this material was used in its original form, but we have also created new maps with content that we thought would help the contestants.

​

   4. Did your research aim at specific areas of interest?

​

After careful evaluation of the material we collected and with respect to the general direction of the research program and the objectives of ETAD, we set a framework with the following objectives:

A. Any intervention should be in tune with the surrounding natural landscape and integrate it in a manner that people direct their gaze and their thought outwards. The title attests to this goal: we chose Pan-Vision, alluding to participants' holistic vision of the cultural; the natural and the intangible qualities that would eventually allow for the creation of a modern metropolitan attraction.

B. The creation of a central public space, a place of recreation and observation.

C. The redesign of the supporting facilities in order to highlight the Zenetos Theater and to improve its functionality in the event of its use.

 

  5. How long did it take you to prepare the competition folder?

​

It took us two to three months in total to compile the material and write the brief; however, there have been several delays mostly of bureaucratic nature and as a result, we were able to complete the process after six to seven months.

​

  6. How many people worked for this research?

​

There were three of us; two full-time and another part-time collaborator.

​

  7. Would you care to comment on the competition results?

​

We have not seen the results of the competition in full analysis. From what we have seen though, we believe there was a great range of different approaches, which was very satisfying because each of the groups was able to express its own cultural and architectural perspectives: thus, there were proposals that offered subtle solutions that accepted the impact of time on the natural landscape and others, that sought to restore the landscape using a more dynamic approach.