I met with Bengt Svensson and Linda Mattsson at White Arkitekter today. Bengt is the principal in charge of the Karolinska Solna hospital project and Linda is an architect who is also very involved in the project.
They were also the lead designers of the office building that they occupy. It is on the southern edge of Södermalm adjacent to a very busy multi-level arterial bridge on one edge, and a seaway on another edge. They have published a small book illustrating the different strategies that were implemented in the project to conserve building cost and energy. Graphically convincing. Systematically convincing. There are several things that they are doing to reduce their loads. One: external shading devices are used with automatic sensors used for deployment. Two: Thermal mass of the building is increased by using the water from the seaway to cool the building in the summer. Conversely, that same water is used to slightly heat the building during the winter so that the temperature differential is not quite as great. Ulitmately, they designed a building that is beautiful, comfortable, and energy efficient. The hard numbers: It uses 85 kWh/M²/year, equivalent to 27 kBtu/ft²/year.
Now they are applying similar strategies to the Karolinska Solna Hospital project. They took me through their presentation of the project from the urban level to the detailed level. One thing that I had not understood until this meeting is that this is actually going to be a NEW organization. A totally new hospital. It will bring together two existing organizations melding them together with a new idea for care, but this new facility will not replace either of these existing facilities.
Another very interesting aspect to this project is that they are planning in ultimate flexibility for the building. That is, every floor, every room, can be used for any function. That has extensive implications. They have calculated the maximum load requirements, the maximum height requirements, and the maximum ventilation requirements, etc. for the most difficult spaces (notably the Operating Suites and Diagnostic and Treatment facilities) and are designing to those specifications throughout the building. Therefore, when the hospital functions change, which they inevitably will, the building can accommodate that shift. Surgery can be located anywhere, imaging can be located anywhere because the height, structure and ducting have all been sized appropriately from the initial design.
At the end of their presentation they showed this slide, which has really stuck with me as the center of why I am studying here in Scandinavia.
Now, this seems like a funny thing to say probably, based on this image. But, I think this shows a lot, really. This is an industrial kitchen, in the basement of a hospital. What is present is natural light, a view, the ability for the kitchen workers to go sit outside and take a break. It looks like a really nice place to work! It is not buried in a basement where the time of day, weather, and any connection to what is happening in the natural world has been cut off. I asked Bengt and Linda when I saw this image if there was some kind of regulation in Sweden that required that workers must have some kind of proximity to a window or daylight. They said no, but that it was the right thing to provide. In order to have a work place that people will agree to work and a place where people will work productively, this is what must be designed. This seems like a cultural shift. Their point of view was “we do it because it is right, and to not do it would be taking something away from those who work there.”
This discussion led to another important topic: the size and cost of Karolinska Solna and framing that “cost.” This will be a 350,000M² = 3.77 million ft² project costing 14.1 Billion Swedish SEK = $2.32 Billion in today’s dollars. That is $614 per ft². Bare in mind that the exchange rate right now is not in favor of the dollar, which effects this figure. Linda and Bengt brought forward a new way of framing the cost of the building, however. If we think of the building in the scope of the total cost of healthcare — the building really does not cost very much comparatively. If we can make the healthcare component even 10% more effective through the architecture of the building, then we have essentially made the building free to the organization. I like that as a business case.
