Filling Station(s) (2015)
Brief summary
As the automobile became a highly celebrated and desired part of western society during the first half of the 20th century, the filling station followed closely behind as the architectural counterpart of this new phenomenon that was changing the world. An air of pride surrounded driving and refueling your car, and filling stations were designed as monument of a future that had already arrived.
However, as car ownership exploded around the world, the novelty started to wear off, and filling stations were soon regarded as a source of income rather than the celebration of a bright future. The fall from grace was further solidified when it became clear just how much of a negative impact the car has on the environment. What unifies typical filling stations of today is uninspiring appearances built at low upfront costs and surrounded by an air of neglect. Consequently, most of them has a negative impact on their surroundings.
Is there an ideal contemporary filling station, and can it be designed to last both functionally and aesthetically?
The goal of the competition is to generate a universal filling station design that is easily recognized regardless of its location, but still offers a more sensible approach to visibility than the general filling station of today does.
The first criterion is providing a design approach that can be applied to stations throughout the world - albeit with a tolerance that allows for modifications depending on factors like climate, economy and other local requisites. The balance between universal uniformity and local variation is left to the discretion of the participant.
The second criterion relates to the typology: concepts should address different types of fuel (gasoline, electricity, hydrogen etc.) and their status around the world, as well as potential additional services & facilities - and whether these are to be applied universally, or vary from location to location.
In order to show the versatility of the design, each proposal should be presented in two different locations - one being along a Colombian country road, the other is left to the discretion of each participant. This second site can be located in any country of choice, in either a rural or an urban setting.
Awarded proposals
1st prize – Nu Oil by Felix Yang and Thomas Noussis
JURY’S COMMENTS: Nu Oil not only envisions a new architecture for filling stations, but an entirely new method of distribution. By challenging the actual concept of refueling, this proposal at once disappears the typical filling station and adds a “futuristic” one, full of potentials. Even the ground apparatus – referencing the gas-guzzling filling station typology of the past – supersedes its predecessor in a far more spatially efficient way. Much like Amazon’s delivery drones or Google’s proposed Wi-Fi blimps, this scheme is defined by a growing collective desire to be less connected to physical, built infrastructure and shaped more by the potential imbued in simple, semi-autonomous technologies. The floating vessel idea would eliminate the need for intrusive and expensive infrastructure by bringing fuel directly to the user. Underground oil tanks that leak and pollute, and unsightly power lines that are vulnerable in storms would no longer be needed. This must of course be seen in the light of having giant blimps full of fuel hovering over our cities and rural lands. It takes advantage of current technologies and offers new uses for them. As a floating refueling point, Nu Oil can provide fuel and other sustenance to people in all sorts of dire conditions. This additional feature of disaster and emergency response is precisely the type of bonus feature architecture should always strive to accommodate. The proposal is presented in a simple and straightforward way, clear and informative.
2nd prize – Modular Filling Station by Mattias Dahlberg, Robin Krasse and Karl Lagerqvist
JURY’S COMMENTS: Modular Filling Station has a pragmatic approach to the future of filling stations: there are no extravagant ideas, just a straightforward but thoughtful analysis of what a filling station is – and can be, depending on location. Passing over rethinking the actual concept of refueling, the proposal focuses mainly on a universal aesthetics for the typology. It evokes a traditional infrastructure form, linking the past to the future. Part ruin, part construction site, it provides spaces for a multitude of other programs, be it canoes, fishing huts or Apples stores. While the design clearly feels at home on relatively empty sites, an urban example would have been useful to gauge its adaptability to different environments The concrete modules possess a timeless beauty, as if they have always been present: basic building blocks that seem as capable on their own as they are when being part of a substantial development. Although you could argue that the components are basic enough to be a viable option regardless of local economy, they do require an enormous amount of material to complete a simple task. The presentation effortlessly captures the essence of the design variations, and explains the concept satisfactory without using any descriptive text, save for en excerpt from a poem to set the tone.
3rd prize – Fill Up Here by Alex Cox
JURY’S COMMENTS: By placing people at the center of the design rather than vehicles, Fill Up Here shifts focus from present-day filling stations to those of the future. The increasing fuel efficiency of modern cars will slowly but surely put emphasis on refueling the travelers themselves rather than their vehicles. The function of the service station – whether it is to store fuel, serve food, or house people – is adapted to the pod. This opens up an interesting discussion about whether or not architecture should adapt to the user or if the user should be expected to adapt to the architecture. While the “one size fits all” approach never seems to be the most ideal – it always requires so much compromise – it is convincing as a viable solution to any site. It deals with the activities that these pods can provide for an uncertain future, without focusing on the design too much – even though it has been considered in terms of dimensions of these activities. Another benefit of the pod approach is its allowing for technological changes in the future while still providing for a clear vision of the filling station and its accoutrements. Presentation-wise, the proposal does a great job of showing, rather than telling, through carefully selected vignettes. And while the graphic style is distinctly playful on the surface, the proposal reveals a deep understanding of the brief.
Honorable mention – Absent by Filip Kabelis and Maria Wronska
JURY’S COMMENTS: Absent is at the same time a very modest and a very bold proposal. Rendering the filling stations of the future virtually non-existent, it presents an ideal scenario: the stations disappear, and consequently large quantities of space are made available. However, while it solves the problem of the unattractive filling station, it leaves the associated issues and opportunities largely unaddressed. By relying solely on technology for locating the refueling points and refraining from using architecture in any sense to announce their existence, the proposal takes a very clear stand against the visual pollution presented by today’s filling stations. By doing so, it positions itself in a future (and global economy) where everyone has access to smart phones or equivalent technology. The conversational tone of the presentation works well for a proposal that refuses to compromise, wanting to offer something that is as beneficial to a pedestrian as it is to a driver.
