ARTICLE I:AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CENTRE

MINIFIE NIXON ARCHITECTS

Marina Bonet BuenoAlberto Carbonell Crespí

AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CENTRE

The Australian Wildlife Health Centre is located at the Healesville Sanctuary, a zoo founded in 1921 in the foothills of the great Dividing Range, specialising in native Australian animals. The zoo is set in a natural bushland environment where paths through different habitat areas show various animal species. The Wildlife Centre is a me-dical research centre that pioneers a program that combines wildlife education center, veterinary emergency ward, hospital operating theatres, laboratory, rehabilitation and safe areas for the release of recovered wildlife.

This project came to be as a response to the increasing endanger of the Austrialian indigenous fauna, caused mainly by the process of urban development. It is both a veterinary hospital and a unique experience for the visitors of the Healesville Sanctuary. Its purpose is to deliver a vivid understanding of wildlife, through a close-up experience for the visitors with the sick wild animals. The AWHC helps people to reconnect with wildlife, and become unified with a desire to make a difference, and work towards guaranteeing a healthy future for animals.

KEY WORDS

Conceptual approaches:Morpho-ecology

Trans-speciesBiological rationalism

Technological development:

Cellular automataCosta surfaceDigital avatar

Strategies:Inside-out

TransparencyNatural process

ResponseParticipationCommunity

Healesville Sanctuary Wildlife Centre

Cosmopolitical context

The project is located in Melbourne, a city of continuous architectural invention, where new experiments are tried every year, which allows buildings like this one to become a reality.Australian fauna has always been one of it biggest values, almost 90% of its species are endemic of the country, ma-king them highly unique. Although, since european colonization in 1778 and until present day, human activity has destroyed many of its habitats, bringing a wide number of species to its extinction. That is the reason why nowadays its government hosts a large number of programmes and protected areas, even though it may not be enough to save the threat to wildlife. Is in this context of trying to preserve its natural richness, where projects like the HWS come to be.

The Healesville Wildlife Sanctuary was established as a medical research center focused on native fauna. It is current-ly a 30,3514 ha shelter with over 200 species and it has become a major tourist destination in the Yarra Valley with over 300,000 visitors annually. The AWHC serves as the hospital for the Sanctuary’s wildlife but also as a clinic for injured wild-life brought in by members of the public. The Wildlife Centre was constructed on a site that previously hosted a walk-through kangaroo exhibit, and was identi-fied in 1988 as the most suitable location for a new veterinary hospital. The location provides a wide range of natural vegetation and is adjacent to the natural waterway of Badger Creek.

Australian EndangeredWild Species

Related news reports.

Involved population

One of the main premises of the project was to develop a strong posthuman relationship between humans and animals, based in the “inversion where the man, traditionally idealized creature on top of the natural hierarchy, is recast so that it becomes an ordinary member of creature classes that are integrated in a common world”. There-fore, there are two population groups that coexist in balance in this project: humans and wildlife animals.

When it comes to the human realm, many individuals have contributed to the development of this project: From the political sphere, to the Healesville organization representing animal health, experts in information technology, dis-covery and learning, marketing and communications, work and maintenance, horticulture, retail, scientific research, finance… All of this layers of society had to work together and join forces in order to make the project become a reality.

Social problematics

This project came to be in a context of crisis between the australian zoos, facing less and less visitors. This situation was actually the optimum social and political environment to try and redefine a new concept of zoo. One were humans should not be protected from animals, since it is actually animals the ones being endangered by humans; and where we should be perceived as equal species. On this same line, there was an increasing need to make society understand the consequence of their actions towards nature. Australian wildlife is continuously damaged, and one of the main reasons is human activity: from hunting to car accidents. Therefore, this project had as one of its main goals to open the eyes of the public towards their own responsibility with the environment they live in, so that they would learn how to become involved and active in order to maintain it.

Tourists

Animalexperts Vets Politicians

(Jhon Thwaites)

Architects(Minifie Nixon)

Traditional Zoo New paradigm

Involved agents

Cellular automata: artificial intelligence.

WILDLIFE

HUMANS:-State Government

-Healesville Organization-Architects (minifie Nixon)

-Landscape architects (Rush Wright)

-Technology experts-Vets

-Visitors

This project involves a shared process, where those in charge of economics and those who care for animals had to collaborate and work towards a common goal. It would have never succeeded without the support of the property directors, the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Zoos Victoria and the State Government.

Events

The project was first conceived in 1998. The Australian Wildlife Centre began in 2000 in an environment of economic rationalism, when the australian zoos were facing important financial shortfalls in an increasingly com-petitive environment. The solution involved two aspects: raise revenue by attracting increased visitation and lower costs by reducing services. In the middle of these processes of change, the idea of attracting visitors by admitting them into the world of veterinary care, came to life.While the project was coming to life, another important process was going on. The organization was re-inventing itself in order to become a contemporary Zoo. They had the need to strengthen its business case to government for the procurement of funds necessary for the development of the building. In 2003 the site of construction was confirmed, being the most suitable for the Centre. In 2004 both stakeholders and government were fully involved in the project. It became the responsibility of the Deputy Premier, Victoria’s Nº2 Jhon Thwaites. It was officially opened by the Victorian Premier Steve Bracks on the 14th of December 2005. Since that moment it has become a huge success, saving more animals every year and nowadays is the major tourist destination in the Yarra Valley with over 300,000 visitors annually.

Strategies

The main idea was to turn a veterinary hospital inside-out, exposing all of the procedures and operations that usually happen behind closed doors. The building has been designed to bring visitors into close contact with the vets and their patients, to gain understanding of how sick and injured animals are cared for. Its design challenge the dichotomy between nature and society, between humans and nonhumans.

Rethinking the human-animal relationship through a posthuman approach, challenges architects to design spaces where combined programs can be developed. The posthuman approach identifies similarities, rather than differences between species, a concept that is reflected in Wolch’s goal for a trans-species urbanism: “Once we abandon a strict human-animal boundary with human subjects on one side and animal objects on the other, we seen to be obligated to figure them into our ethical consideration and everyday practice”.

The three main architectural elements that define the building are the “costa surface”, the central gallery and its exterior texture. With the assistance of digital avatar, the architects are able to generate complex forms and patterns that accommodate the different programmes. The architects regard the use of computational design “not as a cold mathematical or experimental exercise”, but to reiterate the integration of human technology and animal bodies.

The cellular automata process generates the pattern, composed of two different concrete blocks, that co-vers the exterior of the building. The block work pattern on the façade is derived from an algorithm which describes the cellular response towards its immediate surroundings. In this way, the exterior materiality is developed in reference to nature. Instead of mimicking a complete form, the façade mimics a basic form natural process, the cellular activity. Similar to the cell’s response to its immediate su-rroundings, the pattern of the coloured bricks reacts to the position of building elements such as windows and doors, considering them as factors of change in the pattern organisation.

The Costa surface is the surface that is the smallest area it can be without intersecting itself, given its constra-ints. The costa surface’s logic of curvature cannot be conceived by mere drawings. It is developed with a formalized mathematical concept, where external forces act onto a known geometry, altering its form from the interior, pushing it beyond its limit through inversion, therefore creating negative spaces in response to the specific programmes. This costa surface not only contributes to a new form to architecture (coming after the plane, the helicoid and the ca-tenoid), but it also accomplishes programmatic and environmental functions. This surface element resolves the roof, courtyard, skylights and solar chimney. It provides concentrated natural light access into the main gallery, where all the operations are showcased, creating the sense of being outside, while in fact one is inside.

The roof form from the centre of the gallery inclines to the floor level, forming an internal courtyard where visitors can observe the veterinary projects through multimedia reflected onto the glass screens.This design demonstrates the application of morpho-ecology, since its form is a result of the response towards com-fort needs and functions required by the programme. Through the study of homeostasis, the building is designed to be equipped with a passive ventilation and thermal control system. This study is one of the elements that drive the generation of the costa surface, where hot air will rise and be released into the external environment to introduce fresh air into the building through other openings in order to maintain the atmospheric pressure created within the interior. Its morphology resembles the heart’s ventricle, required to provide the essential need of oxygen to the rest of the body. This parallelism enhances the elements as a vital component of the building in order to achieve the comfort levels it requires.

The main gallery is a doughnut-like space that surrounds the “costa surface”, forming circulation space su-rrounded by the examination rooms, laboratories, surgical rooms, recovery areas… The visitors can walk around and observe the veterinary actions through a glass wall. This architectural form developed with material transparency is the result of the idea of showcasing the operations of veterinary to the public, instead of hiding the actions behind solid walls, as is usually done.

From the central space, visitors can witness the diagnosis of animals, the work of the laboratory, see animals being operated, and their recovery. A rich multimedia experience enables them to gain a bigger understanding of how animals are healed. The most important space is the Operating Theatre. The vet and nurse can be seen through a large glass screen that separates visitors from the patient. With the aid of microphone headsets the staff are able to communicate directly with the visitors, introducing themselves and describing the procedure that is going to take place. During the procedure, the staff explains their actions, providing first hand insight into wildlife surgery.One of the main goals of this experience is to make visitors gain consciousness of their own responsibility. In a speci-fic facility, visitors learn that many animals are injured as a result of a road trauma. They find out about wildlife rescue and the basic first aid do’s and don’ts. The Post-mortem area is where visitors gain an understanding of the procedures that take place after the death of one of the patients. Each visitor can make a personal choice whether or not to enter this facility.The final area is Reintroduction. Wild creatures deserve freedom, therefore the job of the WHC ends when the indi-vidual is able to return to its natural habitat and survive. Technology is a vital part of this reintroduction to the natural world, and visitors can interact with a real transmitter that tracks and monitors the animals.

Reverse inside out toroid

Ventilation scheme

conventional health politics phisic barrier dissolution

out

visual contact

outout

inside insideinside

Conventional Health politics

BarrierDissolution

Interaction

Levels of the intervention

This project defines a posthuman approach from a political way, a programmatic way and also an architectu-ral way.Firstly, this project carries a big political statement in its proposal: giving priority to preservation and conservation of nature is essential, and we should understanding life as a common issue for all species. As we have described, this project, that challenges our usual relation with wild animals or veterinary centres, needed of an understanding of the political arena in order to be developed. Therefore, the first level of this intervention was to involve politics in a profound way and start to change their perspective towards the importance of bringing nature and its species to the same level of humans. The second level would be the approach to its main programme. Zoos, and in this case, veterinary clinics, have been reinvented. No longer is the humans who are protected from the dangerous creatures behind bars, but is us, humans, who are recognized as the true threat. The transparency with which all the processes involved in healing wild animals are presented to the visitors, intends to imply the change of role in nature where animals should be protected against human cruelty instead of the tradi-tional concept of protecting humans against wildlife threat. Through the experience in the Centre visitors see a new perspective of their place in the world, where the differences between humans and animals is less obvious and the shared challenges of health and survival become common goals.Through the theme of HEALTH, the facility tries to change the way people see the world and their place in it. Crea-ting a sense of place and belonging and giving humans a new perspective on where they fit into the world will start to create a connection to community through an environment that involves people and wildlife in a supportive way. The third level would be the building in itself. Minifie Nixon approached the definition of its elements from a posthuman way of designing. With the assistance of digital avatar, the architects are able to generate complex forms and patterns that accommodate the different programmes. The costa surface and the pattern of the façade are ar-chitectural elements that no longer are a mere decision of the architect ( the human), but they result of mathematical and technological processes in response to constraints or following natural patterns of behaviour.This approach could be understood from the field of Morpho-Ecology: where architectural form is created in referen-ce to the natural pattern of life, therefore resulting in a more sophisticate design with and better performance. The AWHC is designed as a flexible mixture in response to its programme, structure, and context. Its architectural design of form is approached from the framework of morpho-ecology since it responds towards specific needs following the logic of nature.

Difficulties

The gestation period of this project was long and difficult. For a project like this to come to life, a big level of support amongst different individuals had to exist. This included government, sponsors, organizational leaders and the community. It required changing the perspective from where these layers of society understood how a “zoo” or veterinary centre works. On the other hand, the main point of the proposal is problematic in itself: Balance and coexistence between humans and wildlife is not easy. Bringing together visitors, health staff and wildlife animals is an unprecedented reality that needs of a specific way of designing the spaces, conducting the flows and the behaviour of each group. The animal patients are to be protected from physical and psychological disturbance, staff are to be protected from distraction caused by the visitors, and these are to be protected from sights, smells, infections and situations that they are not used to deal with. There is also a difficulty or controversy in patients being exposed to potential disturbance during operations or even the “post-mortem” area. Therefore dual facilities were designed in surgery and care areas, that makes it possible to protect certain patients from gallery exposure.

Success and failure

The building is definitely a success in terms of hosting a challenging programme. Its spaces allow visitors, animals and vets to coexist as an ecosystem where no species is endangering the other, or is viewed as superior. The transparency of the whole gallery allows visitors to see every part of the process of healing, while still creating a protective barrier between them. It is an example of an architectural process helping to explore new programmes, and is also an example of the architect as a facilitator and agent in a complex process, this project is impressive.Nevertheless, the building, and specially its Costa surface design are a continuous matter of controversy. It faces many different and contradictory responses from architects, critics and visitors, since it is not an architectural element we are used to experience. Somehow, this controversy could be seen as a strength of the building, because it trans-lates one of the main purposes of the project: to challenge society’s perspective towards reality. In order to evolve towards a posthuman future, society needs to break with its established or traditional behaviours and patters. This building is designed hugely by computational processes that follow natural patterns of behaviour; and by elements that could not be conceived from a traditional way of drawing. Therefore, it is opening future ways of understanding and conceiving an architectural reality that not only comes from the architect’s mind and the human perspective, but involves many other agents.

On the other hand, the approach of this project towards a posthuman reality was not easy, but it definitely ended up being a huge success that could serve as an example for future designs. The building is able to connect people with wildlife and the natural world in a unique way. Through its transparency showing every piece of the healing process, visitors empathize with nature on a powerful way. At the same time, they face how their actions can affect wildlife, therefore gaining consciousness of their own responsibility towards nature. Such a real and raw experience is a really powerful learning process.The building also challenges the programmatic conventions of a traditional zoo or veterinary hospital. It creates an environment where patients, professionals and visitors come together in a real way and are conceived as being equals as species. The unifying idea that wildlife and humans share the same basic needs for survival and have more similarities than differences is the final idea that visitors should bring home after this experience.

Human beings have a special role to play, linked with our ability to care for other species, to foster respect for all living things and to create a future full of hope in a shared world.