AVS. Arkitektúr verktækni skipulag - 01.06.2005, Blaðsíða 47

leading universities with the goal of
furthering research that can benefit
economic activities in lceland will be
the main emphasis of the new UR.
The role of the university is to
increase the competitiveness of
lcelandic firms and with that in
mind UR will focus on four main
areas; innovation, technical devel-
opment, collaboration, and inter-
national exchange. Iceland has a
great deal of potential for building
powerful companies, both large
and small, where university educa-
tion and research play key roles.
Need analysis of UR
forms the foundation
Location, housing and the over-
all university environment will be
important for the future develop-
ment of UR, as well as to its ability
to compete and fulfil its intended
role. It is not easy to gaze many
decades or even a whole century
or more into the future and cre-
ate a comprehensive plan for the
development of a university. UR
therefore consulted two American
architectural- and consulting firms,
Arrowstreet and Rickes Associates,
to assist with the need analysis and
search for the best existing mod-
els abroad in regard to our spatial
requirements etc. The cities of
Reykjavík and Garðabær received
an analysis from UR detailing hous-
ing and parking requirements, as
well as the highlighting the need
for adequate adjacent space for
collaborating institutions and firms.
This analysis was very detailed,
although not as detailed as if this
had gone out to tender. The main
issue was the definition of the basic
requirements for a future site.
A difficult choice
between two good
alternatives
When the proposals from Garðabær
and Reykjavík were received it
was clear that the choice between
Urriðaholt in Garðabær and
Vatnsmýri in Reykjavík would be dif-
ficult. Both locations had pros and
cons. Further, this choíce was to
be uninfluenced by local authori-
ties or national politics. This was
not a beauty contest. It could
not be ruled out that feelings and
points of view that do not directly
concern the future development
of the university could have undo
influence on the public’s attitude
towards UR. Professional analy-
sis was emphasised in to ensure
that the people in charge of the
university would have a firm foun-
dation to base their opinion on.
Three consultants, two
lcelandic, Línuhönnun and VSO
consulting, and one from abroad,
Rickes Associates, were hired
to evaluate the proposed loca-
tions. They approached this task
from different angles but came to
the same conclusion. Vatnsmýri
is definitely a better choice.
The location decision can be
based on several main issues:
1. Spatial needs and comparison
to the need analysis of UR
2. Planning- and technical eva-
luation
3. Policy issues and risk.
These issues were important, and
although policy issues and risk were
given more weight some aspects in
1 and 2 had considerable impact
that had be taken into account.
1. Spatial require-
ments and com-
parison to the need
analysis of UR
The proposals of Garðabær and
Reykjavík were both assessed as
being satisfactory compared to
the required spatial needs of UR.
Available space is considered to be
more than adequate and in addition
the plot ratio of individual sites can
be increased and integrated into
the environment in both locations.
2. Planning and
technical issues
With regard to this issue many
important planning and technical
aspects were looked into, includ-
ing the planning process, the
end of preliminary work, future
development and possibilities
for growth, national development,
population distribution, the road
network and traffic, public trans-
portation and footpaths, climate,
pollution, buildings, and cost.
According to the consult-
ants there were some differ-
ences between several aspects of
Urriðaholt and Vatnsmýri. None of
these aspects, however, is decisive
on its own with regard to location.
3. Policy issues and
risk
Central to the comparison of these
two locations are policy issues and
risk associated with the location.
The future vision and ideology
of UR are founded on a strong
commitment to innovation, tech-
nical development, collabora-
tion and international exchange.
Competitiveness was defined as
being an attraction for the main
focus groups, students, staff and
external collaborators. Assessing
these aspects the assessors inter-
viewed UR staff, leaders in the
university community in lceland
and abroad, and a review group
consisting of students. The opin-
ions of business leaders people
and institutions that UR invited
to an introductory meeting were
taken into account as well as that
of potential partners and others
influential in the location decision.
These interviews lead to an
emphasis on the creation of a