• Can an agreement that defines the contours of a program and a site also become a diagram for the architecture of the project?
  • How can we create a building that celebrates the interstices as much as the core programs?
  • How does one define a campus within a larger campus without resorting to devices such as boundary walls and hedges?
  • How can a social space unfold in a highly structured program?

Deshpande Centre

The design for a social foundation within an existing university campus explores the juxtaposition and the resultant interstice as a technique to define weak and strong programs. The building leverages the inherent formal characteristics of the program, such as the raked floor of the auditorium, to generate an interplay of open and closed spaces that allow for a multiplicity of uses.

Project Facts

Project Name: Deshpande Centre for Social Entrepreneurship

Typology: Institutional

Location: Hubballi, Karnataka, India

Built up Area: 5000 sq.m.

Project Team: Praveen Bavadekar, Vinayak Patil, Pankaj Chindak

Photograph Credits: Suryan and Dang

Text Credits: Thirdspace Architecture Studio

Clients: Deshpande Foundation

Consultants:

Structural Design: Cruthi Consultants, Bengaluru

Year of Completion: 2009

Site and Program 

The building was the product of an agreement between the University and the NGO where the University would give a site within its campus and, in turn, the NGO would build an auditorium that would be a shared facility with the university, The Foundation / NGO would also have offices and teaching facilities that they could use exclusively.

The brief called for a shared auditorium of 320 seats and a dedicated program of classrooms, office space and a library.

Design Strategy

The program is divided into two blocks, one housing the institute and one housing the shared facilities such as the auditorium. In a way the design is an ossification of this negotiated agreement between the two organisations. These two blocks are juxtaposed against one another forming a common public space that is the culmination of an avenue of the university. The building further explores the phenomenon of being a micro campus within a larger macro campus. It defines its own open space by a manipulation of the built masses.

The raked auditorium is lifted off the ground to create an interstitial space that serves as a public space full of possibilities. This space also serves as a lobby for the entire building. The auditorium is wrapped with a metal skin that encloses a circumambulatory corridor. The design is a playoff between the institute’s core facilities and the shared auditorium as well as between closed monofunctional spaces and semi-open multifunctional interstices. Each form is an expression of the function that it supports, with the raked auditorium being the dominant form. 

The auditorium block is sheathed in a light skin that is made of translucent polycarbonate and metal cladding. This skin fronts the circulation block that wraps the core space. A bridge at the upper level connects the two blocks.

The building is an expression of the section that is the result of a careful study of the programs involved, as well as a sectional exploration of built and unbuilt spaces.