Eredeti melléklet letöltése
(PDF file)

Ez a közérdekűadat-igénylés csatolmányának HTML formátumú változata 'A Városligetben felépítendő új múzeumépületek alaprajzai és elhelyezésük'.

www.ligetbudapest.org
Városliget Zrt.
liget budapest
tervpályázat
az Új Nemzeti galéria és ludwig Múzeum
új épületének tervezésére kiírt nyílt 
építészeti tervpályázatának
Zárójelentése
2015. április 8.
3
1. a terVpályáZat poNtos cíMe,  
célja, tárgya és jellege
cíMe
„Az Új Nemzeti Galéria és Ludwig Múzeum új épületének megtervezése”  
célja 
A tervpályázat célja azoknak a tervezőknek a megtalálása, akiknek pályaművei: 
—  funkcionálisan kielégítik a 21. századi múzeumi elvárásokat, flexibilis tereket biz-
tosítanak a következő évtizedekre a beköltöző intézményeknek és megfelelő körül-
ményeket a látogatóbarát működéshez
—  a kortárs építészet legmagasabb színvonalán maradandó esztétikai élményt 
is nyújtanak a látogatónak és hozzájárulnak Budapest épített örökségének 
gazdagításához;
—  tisztelettel kezelik a Városliget történeti parkját és környezetét;
—  egyedi, erőteljes építészeti gondolatot megfogalmazó épületekből álló, jól felis-
merhető és azonosítható együttest hoznak létre, amely képes növelni Budapest és a 
magyar kultúra nemzetközi ismertségét;  
—  nyitott, átlátható, hívogató közösségi tereket biztosítanak Budapest lakóinak és a 
belföldi és külföldi látogatóknak egyaránt;
—  a fenntartható építészet példaértékű, napjaink elvárásainak innovatív módon 
megfelelő épületek;
—  okos megoldásokon alapulnak, biztosítva az elvárt költséghatékonyságot;
—  hosszú távon gazdaságosan üzemeltethető megoldást jelentenek a bennük 
működő múzeumi intézmények számára
tárgya 
Magyarország kormánya elkötelezte magát amellett, hogy új épületeket emel Budapes-
ten hat kiemelkedő jelentőségű kulturális intézmény számára, a Liget Budapest fejlesz-
tés részeként. Képzőművészet, építészet, néprajz, zene és fotográfia: ez az az öt terü-
let, amelynek vezető intézményei egymás mellé kerülnek a Városligetben, számos más, 
több mint száz éve itt működő múzeum és egyéb közintézmény mellé, Budapest egyik 
legrégebbi parkjában, párhuzamosan annak teljes rehabilitációjával.
Az Új Nemzeti Galéria, mint gyűjtőkörének legfontosabb magyarországi közgyűj-
teménye, a 19. század elejétől a jelenkorig gyűjti, őrzi és mutatja be az európai és 
a magyar művészettörténet emlékeit. A műtárgyakat magas szakmai színvonalon, 
megfelelő tudományos megalapozottsággal, nemzetközi kontextusba illesztve tárja 
4
a látogatók elé állandó és időszaki kiállításain úgy, hogy ezen belül a magyarországi 
folyamatok önállóan is tanulmányozhatóak legyenek. Az Új Nemzeti Galéria állan-
dó kiállításának korszakhatára 1800-tól 1950-ig terjed. Az Új Nemzeti Galéria kül-
detésének tekinti, hogy a kulturális örökség megőrzésén túl a „nyitott múzeum” és 
a „mindenki múzeuma” alapelvek szerint széles kör számára hozzáférhető legyen. 
Feladata, hogy nemzeti identitásteremtő helyszínné, turisztikai célponttá, illetve a 
tanulás, az ismeretátadás kiemelt bázisává váljon.
A múzeum egyben művészettörténeti tudományos kutató hely, amelyben a 
műtárgyakra vonatkozó alapkutatás, a tárgyak kontextualizálása folyik, így az intéz-
mény a művészettörténeti és a muzeológiai módszertani megújulás bázisa is. Kuta-
tási eredményeit kiállítások, publikációk formájában teszi a társadalom minden 
rétege számára hozzáférhetővé, átélhetővé és szerethetővé. Az Új Nemzeti Galéria 
a legújabb hazai és nemzetközi kortárs művészeti és szellemi áramlatokra is nyi-
tott intézmény, amelyen belül a kortárs társadalmi és művészeti dialógus új, önálló 
műhelyeként működik a GAIA lab.
Az Új Nemzeti Galéria szoros szakmai kapcsolatot ápol a nemzetközi múzeumi 
világgal, kezdeményező módon véve részt a hazai és nemzetközi művészeti, művé-
szettörténeti és muzeológiai diskurzusban. Az Új Nemzeti Galéria múzeumpedagó-
giai tevékenysége révén nagy szerepet vállal a fiatalok vizuális nevelésében, segítve 
a köznevelési intézmények iskolai és iskolán kívüli oktatási programjainak megvaló-
sítását. A különböző társadalmi rétegek igényeinek sokrétű kiszolgálásával, a digitális 
tartalmakhoz való teljes hozzáférés biztosításával orientálja és neveli a látogatókat. A 
hátrányos helyzetűeket, mozgássérülteket, fogyatékkal élőket kiemelt látogatói cso-
portként kezeli, célja, hogy speciális programok szervezésével elősegítse társadalmi 
integrációjukat. A társművészetekkel való együttműködések, színházi, zenei és irodal-
mi programok befogadásával kreatív párbeszédre inspirálja a különböző művészeti 
ágak alkotóit, és hozzájárul a közművelődés szintjének és színvonalának emeléséhez.
A Ludwig Múzeum – Kortárs Művészeti Múzeum Magyarország vezető jelenko-
ri és kortársművészeti intézménye. Nemzetközi kollekcióját Peter és Irene Ludwig 
műgyűjtőkalapozták meg, majd a magyar kormány emelte az ország első számú kor-
társ bemutatóhelyévé és módszertani központjává. Az Új Nemzeti Galériával közös, 
új épületében a magyar és nemzetközi képzőművészet történetének és legjelentő-
sebb alkotóinak kiállítóhelye, az 1950-től napjainkig terjedő korszakra specializálód-
va. A múzeum elsődleges feladata a gyűjtőkörébe tartozó alkotások, tárgyi emlékek 
és dokumentumok gyűjtése, őrzése, kezelése és kutatása – valamint a tárgyak és a 
kutatási emlékek kiállításokon és más formákban történő bemutatása. Kiemelt fela-
data a magyar és nemzetközi kortárs művészet törekvéseinek párhuzamos bemuta-
tása, a kortárs magyar művészet nemzetközi kontextusba helyezése.
A Ludwig Múzeum – Kortárs Művészeti Múzeum egyedi feladatokat vállal a 
magyar múzeumi rendszerben, mint a kortárs művészet bemutatásának módszer-
tani központja. Kurátorképzéssel, múzeumpedagógiai és muzeológiai kutatásokkal, 
rezidenciaprogrammal, társművészeti rendezvényekkel növeli a kortárs művészet 
társadalmi elfogadottságát, közvetíti és segíti megérteni napjaink vizuális kultúrájá-
nak összetettségét.
5
jellege 
Előminősítéses, kétfordulós, nemzetközi nyílt, tervpályázat.
2. a leboNyolítás röVid isMertetése, 
a beérkeZett pályaMűVek sZáMa 
és állapota
A tervpályázati eljárás a tervpályázati eljárások szabályairól szóló 305/2011. (XII. 23.) 
Korm. rendelet előírásainak és a Tervpályázati Kiírásban foglaltak maradéktalan betar-
tásával zajlott le.
Kiíró az Európai Unió hivatalos lapjában 2014. november 22. napján, 2014/S 226-
399905 számon tervpályázati kiírást jelentettek meg.
2.1 a terVpályáZat MérföldköVei 
Előminősítési szakasz:
Előminősítési jelentkezés kezdete _______________________________________________________________ 2014. 10. 31.
Előminősítés jelentkezés határideje ____________________________________________________________ 2014. 12. 11.
Előminősítési jelentkezés elbírálása ____________________________________________________________ 2014. 12. 19.
Tervezési szakasz:
Tervezési szakasz kezdete, alkalmas pályázók meghívása ___________________________ 2014. 12. 19.
Helyszíni szemle __________________________________________________________________________________________ 2015. 01. 07.
Kérdések beérkezésének határideje ___________________________________________________________ 2015. 01. 13.
Válaszok közzététele ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2015. 01. 20.
Pályaművek beérkezésének határideje _______________________________________________________ 2015. 03. 03.
Eredményhirdetés _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2015. 04. 14.
6
2.2 bírálóbiZottsági tagok 
Pozíció
Név / pozíció
dr. Baán László, miniszteri biztos, 
1
Tag
a Szépművészeti Múzeum főigazgatója
Edwin Heathcote, a Financial Times építészeti kritikusa,
2
Tag
építész
3
Tag
Finta Sándor, Budapest főépítésze
Fekete György, a Magyar Művészeti Akadémia elnöke,
4
Tag
belsőépítész
Füleky Zsolt, építészetért felelős helyettes államtitkár, 
5
Tag
építész
Sáros László György, a Magyar Építőművészek
6
Tag
Szövetségének elnöke, építész
7
Tag
Eva Jiricna, építész
8
Tag
Dr. Klaus Albrecht Schröder, igazgató, Albertina, Bécs
Paula Cadima, tanszékvezető-helyettes, AA London Shool
9
Tag
of Architecture, építész
10 Tag
Rouaida Ayache, építész
Juhani Katainen, Temepere University of Technology épí-
11 Tag
tész karának volt dékánja, építész
Katona András, főosztályvezető, Építészetért és Építés-
Póttag
ügyért Felelős Államtitkár, építész
Póttag
Bálint Imre, a Budapesti Építész Kamara elnöke, építész
Sághi Attila, Forster Gyula Nemzeti Örökségvédelmi
Póttag
és Vagyongazdálkodási Központ elnöke, építőmérnök
2.3 előMiNősítési sZakasZ 
Az eljárás első szakaszában a Tervpályázati Kiírás alkalmassági és rangsorolási követel-
ményei szerint kiválasztásra került a keretszámnak megfelelő tizenegy pályázó, melyek 
meghívást nyertek a pályázat tervezési szakaszába. A tizenegyegyes keretszám a nyolc, 
Kiíró által közvetlenül felkért és alkalmas pályázó, illetve három, az alkalmassági felté-
teleket teljesítő és a rangsorolás során kiválasztott Kiíró által nem közvetlenül felkért 
pályázókból állt össze. 
7
2.3.1 alkalMassági feltételek
A tervpályázatra jelentkezők mindegyikének meg kellett felelnie az alkalmassági fel-
tételeknek, melyek a referenciák bemutatásával a pályázó szakmai kompetenciáját, a 
személyi és garanciavállalási feltételek teljesítésével pedig a pályázó szerződéskötés-
re való alkalmasságát támasztották alá. A referencia feltételek teljesülése a Konzorci-
um, vagy Tervezői Csapat legalább egy tagjára nézve, a személyi- és garanciavállalási 
feltételek teljesülése a Konzorcium, vagy Tervezői Csapat egészére nézve volt köte-
lező érvényű. Az előminősítési jelentkezés és az igazoló dokumentumok a Tervpá-
lyázat hivatalos honlapján keresztül, a pályázó személyes oldalára feltöltve kerültek 
benyújtásra.
Referenciának csak a tervpályázati kiírás megjelenését megelőző 10 évben használatba 
vett kulturális célú közhasználatú épület volt elfogadható. 
A személyi erőforrás feltételek teljesítéséhez a csapattagok kompetenciáját és terve-
zői minőségét az önéletrajz és a rendelkezésre álló igazoló dokumentum feltöltése által 
igazolta a pályázó.
A garanciavállalási feltételnek való megfelelőség igazolásához a Pályázónak igazolni 
kellett, hogy az utolsó lezárt üzleti évének nettó árbevétele és az utolsó lezárt öt üzle-
ti évének összes nettó árbevétele elérte, vagy meghaladta a kiírásban foglalt árbevé-
teli szintet. A garanciavállalási feltételek teljesülését a Pályázó az éves beszámolók 
vonatkozó oldalainak angol fordításával igazolta, melyek szintén a honlapon kerültek 
feltöltésre.
2.3.2 raNgsorolási sZakasZ
A közvetlenül felkért nyolc pályázón kívül három pályázó került kiválasztásra az alkalmas-
sági feltételeket teljesítő, a Kiíró által nem közvetlenül felkért jelentkezők közül a rangso-
rolási szempontok alapján. A rangsorolás a pályázók által, a honlapra feltöltött informáci-
ók és dokumentumok alapján történt. A rangsorolási szempontok súlyozott átlaga szerint 
kerültek a jelentkezők sorrendbe állításra. Az első három, legkevesebb pontszámmal ren-
delkező jelentkező került kiválasztásra és nyert meghívást a tervezési szakaszba.
A rangsorolási szempontrendszer a következő:
Szempont
Súlyszám
1. A követelményeknek megfelelő és benyújtott referenciamunka  10
darabszáma
2. A követelményeknek megfelelő és benyújtott referenciák összes  15
bruttó szintterülete
3. A követelményeknek megfelelő és benyújtott referenciák közül  25
a 3 legnagyobb referencia összes szintterülete
8
4. Szakmai díjak darabszáma
25
5. Alkalmassági követelményekben szereplő szakemberek létszá- 15
mán felüli szakemberek száma
6. Árbevétel
10
Az alkalmassági feltételek és rangsorolás szerint a tervezési szakaszba meghívott pályá-
zók az alábbiak:
Kiíró által közvetlenül felkért, alkalmas pályázók:
—  Ateliers Jean Nouvel
—  Balázs Mihály Építész Műterme és a BME Építészmérnöki Kara
—  David Chipperfield Architects
— Mecanoo
—  Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos S.L.P.
—  Sejima and Nishizawa and Associates
— Snøhetta
—  Zoboki- Demeter & Társaik Építésziroda
Kiíró által nem közvetlenül felkért, alkalmas pályázók a rangsorolás szerint:
—  gmp International GmbH Architects and Engineers, Leonhardt, Andrae und 
Partner Beratende Ingenieure VBI AG, ZWP Ingenieur-AG, bogner.cc KG
—  Henning Larsen Architects, Arup Engineering, Gallagher and Associates, Trans-
solar Energietechnik GmbH, MAN MADE LAND Bohne Lundqvist Mellier GbR
—  Davis Brody Bond Architects and Planners, Földes Architects, Buro Happold 
Engineering, Ken Smith Landscape Architect.
2.4 terVeZési sZakasZ
Az előminősítési szakasz eredményhirdetésének napján meghívást kapott a keretszámnak 
megfelelő tizenegy pályázó a Tervpályázat tervezési szakaszába. A tervezési szakasz a tit-
kosság betartása mellett zajlott le.
A Kiíró 2015. 01. 07-én helyszíni szemlét tartott, mely során a résztvevőkel bejá-
rásra kerültek a jelen pályázat tervezési területe és a korábban kiírt Kétfordulós 
Nemzetközi Tervpályázatok tervezési területei. A helyszínbejárás után a résztvevők 
prezentációk segítségével tájékozódtak a Liget Budapest projektről és mélyebben megis-
merték az Új Nemzeti Galéria és Ludwig Múzeum által, a tervezendő épület felé támasz-
tott követelményeket.
A pályázók 2015. 01. 13-ig tehették fel a honlapon keresztül, a titkosság megtartása mel-
lett kérdéseiket, melyekre a Kiíró 2015. 01. 20-ig válaszolt. A válaszok a közzététel után a 
Tervpályázati Dokumentáció részévé váltak.
A tervezési szakasz végéig, 2015. 03. 03-ig a pályaművek beadásra kerültek.
9
2.5 pályáZatok értékelése
A tervezési szakaszba meghívott tizenegy pályázó közül tízen nyújtottak be pályaművet, 
melyek határidőn belül beérkeztek. A tervpályázati csomagok kielégítették a vonatko-
zó formai követelményeket. A pályázati csomagok bontására 2015. 03. 04-én került sor a 
Kiíró által biztosított hivatalos helyiségben. 
A bontási eljárás során megállapításra került, hogy az alábbi pályamű a Kírás 66. oldalán 
foglaltak (5.1.11 Kizárás alpont) értelmében kizárásra kerül az alábbi okok miatt:
—  tartalmi és formai követelményeket nem teljesítő pályamű:
Azonosítószám
Munkarészek 
Darab-  Megjegyzés
megnevezése
szám
9764
A3 füzet / A3 Booklet
1
A pályázat nem a kijelölt 
CD
1
tervezési területen belülre 
Tabló
13
készült.
Magyar nyelvű szöveg  
a füzetben és pálya- 
munkákon
A zsűri munkáját segítő szakértői csoport 2015. 03. 05-én megkezdte a pályaművek 
véleményezését, az értékelési szempontoknak megfelelően:
Párbeszéd a környezettel
Városképi beágyazottság
  
  
  
Párbeszéd a szomszéd 
  
  
  
épülettel
Párbeszéd a ligettel
  
  
  
Az épület megközelítése
  
  
  
Nagy Béla
Tájolás
  
  
  
Parkolási és közlekedési 
  
  
  
rendszer 
Kerékpáros és gyalogos 
  
  
  
útvonalak
10
Építészet és tömegalkotás
Az épület építészeti össz-
  
  
  
hatása, tömegeinek aránya
Az épület egyedi, innovatív 
  
  
  
külső és belső megjelené-
Hartvig Lajos
se, jellege
Az épület térkapcsolatai
  
  
  
Az épülett tereinek építé-
  
  
  
szeti minősége
Technológia és funkció
Látogatói élmény
LORD Culture           Magyar 
Ludwig 
Horn 
Laure Confavreux,  Nemzeti 
Múzeumtechnológiai 
Múzeum
Márton
Delphine Miel
Galéria
megoldások
  
  
Szipőcs 
  
Funkcionális kapcsolatok
  
Schilling  Kriszta
  
  
Sára
Közlekedési rendszerek
Fenntarthatóság
Energiahatékonyság
  
  
  
Egészség és komfort
  
  
  
Vízgazdálkodás
  
  
  
Kovács Nándor
Építőanyagok 
  
  
  
környezetterhelése
Innováció
  
  
  
Ökológia
Kalmárné Fejes 
  
  
  
Zsuzsanna
Költségek
Az épület kivitelezésének  Sándor Márk
  
  
  
várható költsége
Az épület fenntartásának 
Kocsány János
  
  
  
várható költsége
11
A Bíráló Bizottság (továbbiakban B.B.) kétnapos (2015. március 24-25.) helyszíni Zsűri-
zés során választotta ki a díjazott pályaműveket és meghatározásra kerültek a hirdet-
mény nélküli tárgyalásos eljárásban meghívásra kerülő pályaművek.
A kilenc, érvényes pályamű közül a B.B a 3759-es és 8603-as azonosítószámú pályamű-
vet első helyezettnek, míg a 3087-es és 8210-es azonosítószámú pályaművet második 
helyezettnek szavazta meg. A harmadik hely nem került kiosztásra.
A tervpályázatot követő hirdetmény nélküli tárgyalásos eljárás a 3759-es és 8603-as 
azonosítószámú pályamű tervezőjével kerül lefolytatásra.
Fentiekre tekintettel a B.B. a tervpályázatot eredményesnek nyilvánította.
3. a díjaZott pályaMűVek 
raNgsorolása, illetVe 
raNgsorolás Nélküli eredMéNy 
esetéN a díjaZott és MegVételt 
Nyert pályaMűVek felsorolása
Díjazásban részesülő pályaművek azonosítószámok szerint:
1. helyezett: 
3759
1. helyezett: 
8603
2. helyezett: 
3087
2. helyezett 
8210
A hirdetmény nélküli tárgyalásos eljárásban ajánlattételre felhívott pályaművek 
azonosítószáma:
3759
8603
A meghívási díjat a pályázati anyagot beküldő pályázók mindegyike megkapja, kivéve a 
9764-es számút, mert pályaműve kizárásra került. A tervpályázat díjazása a következő:
Előminősítési szakasz
díjak
meghívási díj/ meghívott
20 000 eur
Tervezési szakasz
díjak
1. díj
65 000 eur
2. díj
35 000 eur
3. díj
 Nem került kiosztásra 
Díjak összesen
 380 000 EUR 
12
A tervpályázat összdíjazása az eredetileg megállapítotthoz képest (345 000 EUR) meg-
emelésre került, tekintettel a díjak megváltozott kiosztására. A Kiíró vállalása értelmé-
ben a többletfedezet rendelkezésre áll.
4. a díjak és MegVételek elosZtása, 
ValaMiNt eNNek röVid iNdoklása
A Bírálóbizottság javaslata alapján a díjazásra a Tervpályázati kiírásban meghatáro-
zottak szerint és mértékben kerül sor az 1. és 2. helyezett pályaművek között, továb-
bá a Tervpályázati kiírásban meghatározottak alapján a tervpályázati eljárás 2. szaka-
szába meghívásra került pályázók részére (azonosítószámok: 8591, 6418, 8210, 0476, 
3759, 8603, 2564, 3405, 3087) meghívási díj kerül kiosztásra az előre meghatározott 
mértékben.
Rangsorolás nélküli Első helyezett, 3759-es számú pályamű:
Az épület környezettel való kapcsolata erős, a látogatói útvonal többszöri lehetőséget 
kínál a parkkal való párbeszédre. Látogatói élmény szempontjából innovatív a meg-
oldás, a rámpákon való kettős útvonalú közlekedés vizuálisan érdekes kapcsolatokat 
teremt, az ebből adódó széttagolt tömeg funkcionálisan azonban problémás lehet. Kör-
nyezeti és fenntarthatósági szempontból sok előnnyel rendelkezik, különösen a termé-
szetes fény és szellőzés terén. A belső térszervezésből adódó tömeg kissé kaotikus, a 
továbbtervezés során átgondolásra javasolt.
Rangsorolás nélküli Első helyezett, 8603-as számú pályamű:
Emblematikus épület, mely illeszkedik a Liget projektben való meghatározó szerepé-
hez, valamint nemzetközi jelképpé is válhat. A tömegformálás egy nagyvonalú gesz-
tusra épül, mely meghatározza a belső térszerkezetet is, a két múzeum megfelelően 
elkülönített, a funkcionális kapcsolatok átgondoltak. Az épület erőssége hogy kívülről 
megközelíthető az épület teteje, ami a közterületek folytatásaként visszaadja a park-
ból elvett területet és új közösségi teret hoz létre. A finom anyaghasználat nemességet 
kölcsönöz neki, formavilága nagyon gazdag. Az épület jelenleg túllépi a szabályozás-
ban megengedett 40 méter magas építészeti jelre vonatkozó alapterületi előírást, ezt a 
továbbtervezés során figyelembe kell venni.
Rangsorolás nélküli Második helyezett, 3087-es számú pályamű:
Az épület kívülről szervesen felépített, tömegformálása miatt, mely természeti kép-
ződményre utal, kortalannak tekinthető. Az épület környezettel való párbeszéde erős. 
Belülről logikusan felépített, alaprajza kisebb változtatásokkal megfelelő egy múzeum-
nak. Múzeumtechnológiai szempontból probléma a falak amorf vonalvezetése. Termé-
szetes fény csak a külső homlokzaton alkalmazott perforált fémlemezen keresztül érke-
zik, mely egyes terekben (pl. irodákban) nem elegendő.
13
Rangsorolás nélküli Második helyezett, 8210-es számú pályamű:
Építészetileg megnyerő épület, világos, finoman kidolgozott. Engedi a parkot átáramla-
ni rajta, nem monolitikus, egyszerű épület. A többi pályázóhoz képest kevesebb terüle-
tet foglal el a parkból. Belső térszervezése, a „házban ház” elv, a felülről jövő fény és az 
átláthatóság építészetileg értékes momentumok, múzeumtechnológiai szempontból 
viszont problémás. A szigorú légzárási előírások (hőmérséklet, páratartalom) betartásá-
ra nincs lehetőség, mivel a két múzeum össze van nyitva. Problémás a kiállítások átren-
dezése, illetve az Új Nemzeti Galéria kiállítótereinek széttagoltsága. A kiállító terek 
szempontjából a legfontosabb kerületi falfelület hiányzik a középső kiállítóterekben. A 
természetes fény kizárásának lehetősége korlátozott.
raNgsorolás Nélküli pályaMűVek
0476
Az épület tájolása kiváló, azonban kevésbé kommunikál a környező épületekkel, azon-
ban ezt enyhítik a felfutó zöld rámpák, melyek a múzeumi nyitvatartási időn kívüli funkci-
ókkal jó kapcsolatot alakítanak ki az épület környezetével. Könnyen megközelíthető, par-
kolási rendszere jó, azonban a lehajtó rámpák a tervezési területen kívül esnek. Az épület 
tömegformálása az egykori Iparcsarnokot idézi. Annak ellenére, hogy az épület törekszik 
kapcsolatot teremteni a Városligettel, építészeti tömegformálása nem ezt tükrözi. Az Új 
Nemzeti Galéria és Ludwig Múzeum terei vizuálisan nincsenek egymástól elszeparálva. 
A kiállítóterek kevésbé flexibilisek és kevés látogatói élményt nyújt. Az épület tartószer-
kezeti megoldásai a megvalósíthatóság határain mozognak, kivitelezésük roppant költsé-
ges. Az épület homlokzati elemei kiforratlanok, tömegformálása átgondolásra szorul.
2564
Az épület a megközelítési irányok mindegyike felől elérhető, fő tájolása azonban a 
Zichy Mihály út felé esik. Jó megoldás a bejárat terepszintről való felemelése, mely 
megfelelő intimitást nyújt. Kevésbé jó megoldás azonban, hogy a vendéglátó funkciók 
nem a park felé orientáltak. Építészeti tömegformálása igen racionális, a belső terek a 
fő, egymásra merőleges tengelyekre rendezettek. Ez a szigorú rendezettség az épület 
külső megjelenésén is visszaköszön. Az terek funkcionális elrendezése konzekvensen 
követi az építészeti koncepciót, mely hatékony, de látogatói élményben túl monoton 
megoldást eredményez. A Ludwig Múzeum alsó szinten való elhelyezésével az intéz-
mény alárendelt szerepbe kerül.
3405
Letisztult építészeti koncepció, mely célja a négy kubusra tagolt tömeggel és a köztük 
létrejövő „utcákkal” kapcsolatot teremteni a környezettel. Mivel a közösségi funkciók 
a kialakuló utcák felé tájoltak, így a Városligettel létrejövő kommunikáció nem sikeres. 
Az épülettömegek karakterét és méretét funkciójuk határozza meg. A terepszint alatt 
elhelyezett előcsarnokból, a múzeumi tömbökbe vezető lépcső pár jó megoldást nyújt 
a koncepcióból eredő „zsákutca” hatás elkerülésére. A négy külön álló tömb koncepci-
ója a közlekedő területek jelentős növekedését okozza. A Ludwig Múzeum időszakos 
14
területei nagy része keskeny térbe került elhelyezésre. A létrejött önálló közlekedő 
magok miatt, a tartószerkezet nagy fesztávja ellenére a kiállítóterek kevésbé flexibili-
sek, kevés tartalék területet nyújtanak.
6418
A megsokszorozott modulokból létrejövő tömeg fő tájolási irányai Zichy Mihály út és a 
Hermina út. A közösségi funkciók megfelelő telepítésével az épület kapcsolatot teremt 
a környezetével. Tömegformálását tekintve próbál a tájba illeszkedni, azonban megjele-
nése miatt ez kevésbé sikeres. Belső terei racionálisak, rendezettek. Egyedi formája, szí-
nes homlokzata figyelemfelhívó, a racionális belső elrendezésnek köszönhetően a láto-
gatók épületen belüli tájékozódása könnyű, azonban az épület gyenge látogatói élményt 
nyújt, a kiállítóterek elrendezése repetitív, monoton. A belső terek kevésbé vannak kap-
csolatban a külvilággal. A múzeumpedagógiai és rendezvény terek nagy része a terep-
szint alá került, mely által nincs természetes megvilágításuk és kilátásuk a Városliget felé.
8591
Kompakt tömegformálás, a fő megközelítési irányok mindegyike felől elérhető. Kap-
csolata a parkkal megfelelő, a vendéglátó funkciók a Zichy Mihály út felé tájoltak. Az 
épületnek nincs alárendelt homlokzata, nyitott a park felé. A tető a koncepció erős 
részét képezi. Térszervezési viszonya kettős. Amíg a Ludwig Múzeum terei flexibilisek, 
elrendezésük innovatív, a tető segítségével kommunikál a parkkal, addig az Új Nemze-
ti Galéria terei, melyek egy dobozba vannak kényszerítve, bonyolultak, funkcionálisan 
és esztétikailag nem megfelelőek. A szerkezet optimalizációjának hiánya miatt keskeny 
terek jönnek létre, mely a flexibilitást gátolja. A bejárat megkettőzése miatt a látogatók 
tájékozódása nehézkes, a két előcsarnokot összekötő útvonal bonyolult és szűk.
5. a toVábbterVeZése VoNatkoZó 
ajáNlások
Jelen jegyzőkönyv 4. pontjában foglaltak szerint.
6. a terVpályáZatot köVető hirdet-
MéNy Nélküli tárgyalásos eljárás-
baN ajáNlattételi felhíVásra Vo-
NatkoZó ajáNlások
Jelen jegyzőkönyv 4. pontjában foglaltak szerint. A B.B. döntése értelmében a hirdet-
mény nélküli tárgyalásos eljárásban ajánlattételre az 1. helyezettnek megjelölt 2 db 
pályamű (3759, 8603) tervezői kerülnek felhívásra.
1. sz. Melléklet
részletes szakértői 
bírálatok
16
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
liget budapest
iNtegratioN iNto the cityscape 
építésZeti terVpályáZat
béla Nagy
Magyar ZeNe háZa
0476
eredMéNylap
The cantilevered mass creates larger plan on the higher levels, increasing the mass of 
the more then 31 m high building mass (inverted pyramid arrangement). The veil-con-
1. díj 
cept is really poetic. Unfortunatelly some of the technical elements and the ramps are 
Sou Fujimoto Architects
outside of area to be built up („building place”)
Kód: 7UYJ84RQ
 
2564
2. díj 
Horizontally articulated regular cube with garden walls and landscaping. The smallest 
ARCVS Projektni biro
building concept of the submissions.
Kód: JDYWM269
3087
3. díj 
Unique, enlarged ornamental piece,work of art in the middle of the park.
AVA | Andrea Vattovani Architecture
Kód: KUPDNHLZ
3405
Clearly  articulated regular cubes concept  with  „streets” between the masses.
Rangsorolás nélkül meghívási díjban részesített pályázók
—  Kengo Kuma and Associates, 2DP58MJC 
3759
—  3H ÉPÍTÉSZIRODA, 2TKGNCZ7 
Unique slashed building mass, exciting building concept in the green.  
—  KLAIR Architecture, M7GD2ZC9
6418
Undulating surface, artificial landscape, built from repetitive architectural elements 
with an architectural landmark (40 m high tower). 
8210
Floating white cube concept with transparent ground level. Clear, well defined con-
cept. Unfortunatelly some of the technical elements are outside of area to be built up 
(„building place”)
8591
Compact layout of sloped building masses. 
8603
Pyramids in the park. One mass devided on two parts.  The building has got a relatively 
closed mass, with 40 meter height (one of the tallest building of submissions).
17
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
dialogue with Nearby buildiNgs
béla Nagy
0476
The hugh building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the dis-
tance (about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed green slope with 
trees decreases this impact.
2564
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distance 
(about 120-125 meters from the next building). The small building height and the pro-
posed foreground with trees decreases this impact.
3087
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distan-
ce (about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed foreground with trees 
decreases this impact.
3405
The  concept of the devided masses reinforces the dialogue with the surroundings. 
3759
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distan-
ce (about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed foreground with trees 
decreases this impact.
6418
The relatively low main building not generates problems with  surrounding buildings, 
because of the distance (about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed 
foreground with car and truck traffic may be problematic.
8210
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distance 
(about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed foreground with trees and 
rehabilitated sports ground decreases this impact.
8591
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distan-
ce (about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed foreground with trees 
decreases this impact. 
18
8603
The building not communicates with  surrounding buildings, because of the distance 
(about 120-125 meters from the next building). The proposed foreground is a part of the 
loading area (truck traffic).
19
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
dialogue with the park
béla Nagy
0476
The architectural concept and the proposed public functions (cafe, shops, terraces 
etc.) create living connections with the park when the museums are closed.
2564
It is an ingenious solution to lift up the main entrance from park and give intimity to the 
ground floor areas. There are public functions (cafe, shops, terraces etc.) basically to 
the Zichy street, not to the green.
3087
Introvert building. The sculpture-like building not communicates with outside 
environment.
3405
The buildings are not communicating with outside environment, the public functions 
are oriented the inner streets.
3759
It is an ingenious solution to create a pearl necklace of different functions, but the con-
cept allowes independent use of different spaces at the same time. Public functions 
(cafe, shops, terraces etc.) are openned around, to the Zichy street, to the park too. One 
of the best solutions in submitted competitions. 
6418
The building communicates with  environment. The public functions are oriented to 
the main foreground openned to the Zichy street and to the park. 
8210
The building communicates with  environment. The public functions are oriented to 
the park and the main foreground openned to the Zichy street.
8591
The building communicates with  environment. The public functions are oriented to 
the main foreground openned to the Zichy street and to the park. 
20
8603
The building concept allowes moderate communication with  environment. The air-
shafts isolate the sloped mass and the facades. The „Museum Plaza” above the gara-
ge is the main foreground of the building. The public functions areoriented to the 
„Museum Plaza” or   located „on the building”. 
21
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
access to the buildiNg 
béla Nagy
0476
The building open to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too.
2564
The building open to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too.
3087
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too.
3405
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too. 
The  concept of the independent cubes is paid by the visitors, because the visitors have 
to go down first to move up to the higher levels.
3759
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too.
6418
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too. 
8210
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too. 
8591
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too. 
8603
The building has connections to the park, to Zichy street and to Hermina street too.
22
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
orieNtatioN 
béla Nagy
0476
The orientation of the building is one of  best  submissions.
2564
The building is accessible from each direction, but basically is oriented to the Zichy 
street.
3087
The orientation of the building is neutral.
3405
The orientation of the building is neutral.
3759
The building is accessible from each direction.
6418
The building primarily is oriented to the Zichy street, but there are added open-air 
functions  around the building. It may occure problems the proximity of the loading 
bay to the „East terrace”.
8210
The building is accessible from each direction, but the main orientation is to the Zichy 
street and the park.
8591
The building is accessible from each direction, but the main orientation is to the Zichy 
street and the park.
8603
The building is accessible from each direction, but the main orientation is to the Zichy 
street and the park.
23
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
parkiNg aNd traNsportatioN 
systeM 
béla Nagy
0476
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), but the ramp is outside of area to be built up („building 
place”)
2564
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses) with underground connections.
3087
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), but the ramp is outside of area to be built up („building 
place”)
3405
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), but the loading bay is opened to the main pedestrian 
access: Zichy street. It raises some problems: the frequency of the use of loading bay 
and the architectural solution of the Zichy street facade.
3759
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), with underground connections. The  geometry of the 
loading area determined.
6418
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), but the loading bay is opened.
8210
The parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck traffic, taxi drop-
off, autobuses are solved. The parking area (visitors/staff) are located in garage  under 
the Hermina street. The loading area is open, covered, operated with elevators.
24
8591
Correct solution (parking places for the staff and the visitors, organization of truck 
traffic, taxi drop-off, autobuses), but the loading bay is opened to the main pedestrian 
access: „loop”. It can raise some questions: what is the frequency of the use of loading 
bay and how to solve the Zichy street facade.
8603
The route of visitors through the exhibition areas is quite tricky; connections between 
the different galleries are assured mainly by lifts.  
The artefacts route is very complicated: elevators should be used several times to 
access key support rooms of artefact handling (i.e. photo studios, research in storage 
and documentary research) and the delivery of exhibition areas requires to go through 
a very long ring underground corridor. Artefacts elevator opens on narrow spaces whi-
ch is not convenient for artefacts handling.
A separated access for staff is provided at each level, without crossing visitors routes. 
But again, staff should go through the very long underground corridor all around the 
building to access to the different spaces.
25
dialogue with the eNViroNMeNt
bicycle aNd pedestriaN routes 
béla Nagy
0476
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path, cycle-storage), but 
there are no predetermined cycle paths.
2564
Right solution (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path, cycle-storage) with 
defined bike connections.
3087
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path), but there are no 
predetermined cycle storages.
3405
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path), but there are no 
predetermined cycle storages.
3759
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, cycle-storage), but there are 
no predetermined cycle paths.
6418
Right solution (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path, cycle-storage).
8210
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path), but there are no 
predetermined cycle storages.
8591
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, bike path, cycle-storage), but 
pedestrian path crosses the loading bay.
8603
Right solutions (pedestrian pathways to the main targets, cycle-storage), but there are 
no predetermined cycle paths.
26
architecture aNd Mass forMatioN
geNeral architectural 
iMpressioN of the buildiNg, 
Mass proportioNs
lajos hartVig
0476
The Overall Architectural Effect of the Building, Ratio of Volumes – The shaping of 
the building was inspired by the regular geometry of the former Iparcsarnok (Indust-
ry Hall) arranged along the historical axis and the organic flow of Városliget (City Park) 
interpenetrating the building. 
The building may be divided into three main horizontal parts: the service level, which 
is hidden underground and its area is rationally organized; the traversable, partly lowe-
red ground floor and partly elevated first floor; and the exhibition areas hidden in the 
floating volume. 
The entrance level and the almost completely open first floor – serving as a public 
space – provide direct connection to and interaction with the park. This Entry, due to 
its gentle forms and spaces, could express the transition of the volumes of the park 
and the museum at the ground level in the most beautiful and sophisticated way. The 
building seamlessly circulates and integrates the surrounding area, and sensitively 
interacts with it.
The geometric volume floating above the covered area reaches over the top of the tre-
es of the park, nevertheless, due to its form, it does not dominate the space rather it 
seeks interaction with it. 
Uniqueness, Innovative Building Character, Exterior and Interior Appearance – The 
plan focuses on maximizing the area of active surfaces (public spaces, green areas): the 
multi-storied entrance space, and the fully utilized roof terrace and green roof provide 
twice as much area to the park users than it actually covers. 
The façade design is rich and diverse nevertheless the volumes and spaces of exhibi-
tion areas have an inordinate visual impact. The unarrayed appearance is partly cove-
red by a membrane with a leaf venation design, hung over the façade. 
A special, outstanding characteristic feature of the building is the green roof with wild 
flowers, and the harmonic shaping of skylights, waterfall and roof terrace excised from 
the green roof, which all enhance the natural character of the building.
Spatial Relationships of the Building – Underground access to the building is misad-
venturously planned from the direction of the City Park promenade, nevertheless visi-
tor and service vehicle traffic is sensibly handled separately. Transportation of goods 
is possible through the access route, in a limited way though, the connection of the 
underground parking area to the space and corridors of the museum is optimal.
27
The underground entrance level works well together with the lobby. The spaces and 
the lighting of the entrance hall are spectacular and it provides open access to visitors 
arriving from both the direction of the field (park) and from Hermina Street. 
The exhibition areas are spacious, flexibly variable yet unified, while office space area 
is strictly arranged. 
The coffee bar on the ground floor has no possibility to expand out towards the park, 
which is a disadvantage of the plan. Despite this fact, the roof terrace provides a spec-
tacular view and experience of space. 
Architectural Quality of Building Spaces – The building captivates the visitors with 
numerous amounts of small tricks, it is an interesting and appealing object, which not 
only has the capacity of attracting the audience but it can also serve as a real meeting 
point due to its covered public space. 
“The City Park Veil” offers exciting, well elaborated spaces; its corridors and internal 
pathways are thoughtfully organized, and it is absolutely not exaggerated (the gross flo-
or area of this building is one of the smallest of all Entries). 
In summary, this is the strongest and the most well-thought-out concept, which by the 
development of a simpler façade may well be worthy of becoming a centre of the new 
museums of Budapest. 
2564
The location and design of the building deliberately imitates the bare rationalism of a 
Roman fortress.
The designer brings in the regular and rectangular lines of the city structures situated 
at the edge of Városliget into the organic and naturally chaotic world of the park in an 
unduly harsh way thus deliberately trying to reorganize and control it.
This type of sharp contrast however is contradictory to the intent of the announcer and 
has a rather displeasing effect in the park environment. 
The design is strongly centralized: the regular rectangle-shaped mass is placed at the 
concurrence of the two main axes. The designer justifies the utilization of straight sto-
ne walls by the existence of these strict perpendicular structures. With this emotionless 
act the designer severs the connection between the park and the building in many ways. 
Due to the structure of the terrain, out the three main stories, two upper levels are visib-
le from afar.
Apart from the stone walls, cutting through the landscape the external view is domina-
ted by emphatic cantilevers sprawling above the ground. 
3087
Like a tree stump left in the ground, so this building stands among the trees of Városli-
get, yet it also has an effect of a split mass, like an obscure oversized rock with crack-li-
ke entrances at opposite ends. 
The axis of the Park rends the Trunk in two, but if one observes the layout it looks as if 
four different persons cut it from four directions, as if the wings of the building were to 
come apart along the cracks. 
28
An inactive volcano, a log, a rock, a termite mound, a tent, a curtain… the visual effect of 
the building raises similar associations but perhaps due to its disproportion and size it 
does not intend to be building-like on purpose. 
Its overall effect is obscure, and volume shaping of the building is faulty. 
3405
The museum consists of four standalone towers which are connected only by the 
underground structures. This idea creates a hybrid space in between the volumes, whi-
ch allows the natural areas of the park winding into the built spaces of the museum.
The building blocks, which serve four different functions, are organized around a 
central area along the historical axis – crossing the square “Ötvenhatosok Tere” – of 
the park. An interesting symbiosis is created between nature and architecture as park 
areas provide the background for the pavilion-like blocks and as the built masses enf-
rame the sight of the trees of the park. 
On the plateau elevated from Nagyrét vegetation breaks in between the buildings by 
strict, geometrically shaped garden segments adjusted to the building line, which per-
fectly underlines the obvious purpose of blurring the barrier between the external and 
internal spaces. 
3759
The designer’s intent was the open enlargement of the city park, which s/he tried to 
achieve by the floating forms of freely-shaped terraces and canopies. The designer 
intends to blur the barrier between the built and the natural environment by the scat-
tered positioning of the slabs, which imitate leaves fallen from a tree. The mass of the 
building tries to imitate the silhouette of the trees of the park by the curved lines of the 
terraces and ramps. 
The open ground floor areas and the moderately inclining terraces facilitate the access 
of the visitors of the museum from all directions. 
Nevertheless, the building has an extremely disordered overall impact, which, as oppo-
sed to the general atmosphere of the park seems rather chaotic. Visitors may hardly be 
able to find the entrance of the building, or if they found one, it would be unlikely to 
find that specific entrance, which leads to their planned destination. 
6418
The basic concept of the plan is to utilize the features of the park to the maximum pos-
sible level. The building does not want to stick out from the park; it moderately follows 
the line of the trees of the park. The rectangular volume is raised a little bit from its sur-
roundings like a gentle hill, but then it flows back smoothly. The arch is formed by an 
array of domes, which are like conoidal frustums. This not only defines the relationship 
of the building with its surroundings, but it has a great role in the development of inner 
space structure.  
The line of the roof and the tower of the offices follow the silhouette of the foliage. It 
serves a sign with a special character, but it also provides an unobtrusive background 
for the natural environment.
29
Nevertheless the characteristic lining up of conoidal frustums is visually surprising and 
odd in the middle of the park. Regardless of the efforts of the designer, it is still a rather 
strange sight among the trees. 
8210
Concept of the building is derived from the dual function of a contemporary museum: 
on one hand it is a quiet place of contemplation, on the other hand it is a public mee-
ting place. Therefore accessible and inaccessible features saturate the two museums 
both on the physical and on the ideological level.
The geometry of the roof created by stressed strands takes the form of a hyperbolic 
parabolid, which is connected to the inaccessible and symbolic level. 
Placing the two museums into a single building creates the possibility of interaction, 
which is derived from their status and their intellectual reserves. The designer places 
the elements of the two museums (both inside and outside) into separate zones. At the 
connections of the museums the designer introduces intelligent filtering zones, which 
are to be made alive by various functions. Functions related to everyday life, meeting 
areas and places for social interaction (e.g. coffee-bar, auditoriums) are located on the 
lower floors while functions related to deep thinking, contemplation and representa-
tion of symbolic values (GAIA) are accommodated in the upper level. 
8591
The central theme of the Entry is “repaying to the city”. It aims at creating a sustainable 
arrangement; practicability takes precedence over the form, however this concept is 
violated by the actual architectural design. 
The roof is inclining towards the square of “56-osok”, which is an attempt of integrating 
the building into the park. This attempt is also enhanced by the environmentally sensi-
tive, veil-like façade development (the columns reflect to the park). One of the greatest 
merits of the building is the structure and shaping of the roof, which allows the park 
to grow onto the building, and facilitates the placement of museum functions into the 
park.
The shape of the building blends into the park, yet it places a substantive mass into the 
natural environment. Its façade is continuously changing and one walks around it, yet it 
does not appear to be closed from any directions. 
8603
The roof, inclining towards the park is suitable for attracting visitors from the Napozó-
rét, but the volume of the building is monumental; the pyramid shape looks strange in 
both the natural and in the built environment, it cannot be linked to anything. 
The highest point of building is 40 metres above the ground, which is way above the 
foliage; it cannot be integrated with the park, and cannot become an attractive sight. 
The main façade is constructed of a puddle wall fixed to the reinforced concrete frame. 
The chosen materials indicate that the design aims at getting close to visitors, however 
the form and size of the building make it look strange and oversized. 
30
architecture aNd Mass forMatioN
uNique, iNNoVatiVe exterNal 
aNd iNterNal appearaNce, 
character of the buildiNg
lajos hartVig
0476
The plan focuses on maximizing the area of active surfaces (public spaces, green areas): 
the multi-storied entrance space, and the fully utilized roof terrace and green roof pro-
vide twice as much area to the park users than it actually covers. 
The façade design is rich and diverse nevertheless the volumes and spaces of exhibi-
tion areas have an inordinate visual impact. The unarrayed appearance is partly cove-
red by a membrane with a leaf venation design, hung over the façade. 
A special, outstanding characteristic feature of the building is the green roof with wild 
flowers, and the harmonic shaping of skylights, waterfall and roof terrace excised from 
the green roof, which all enhance the natural character of the building.
2564
The façade and shaping of the building is austere, the design omits fashionable solu-
tions and follows a strict pattern. 
The purpose of the design is to create a timeless and functional building, which simply 
provides the necessary spaces, but the enclosed and reserved style and the unplea-
santly enormous size of the building looks strange in the park environment. 
The design is modest and simple due to the chosen materials. The transparent glass 
ceramics and marble finishing is very aesthetic, a perfect choice for neutral museum 
spaces. 
3087
The design of the building focuses on the interaction of the freely shaped external 
shell, and the rational inner structure inspired by nature. The outline though is rec-
klessly made and the rectangular inner system fails to arrange the composition in 
proper order. 
The glazed and concrete façade is covered by an indefinable perforated screen, a 
drapery blown by the wind which creates a somewhat exciting visual effect and com-
pensates for the unfortunate shape of the building. 
3405
Character and volume of the towers are determined by their clear function. The north 
western block holds the exhibitions of the Hungarian National Gallery, while the 
31
LUMU is located in the diagonally opposite block. Offices and administrative functions 
and GAIA Laboratory are located in the two smaller towers. The cross-shaped space 
between the buildings has a pleasant atmosphere; the coffee-bars can perfectly utilize 
the area and have the potential for the establishment of inner terraces. 
The surrounding natural environment is playfully reflected on the façade. The exter-
nal surface is articulated by evenly spaced variable width aluminium lamellas. The 
wider stripes located in the lower part of the building resemble the thick drape of the 
underwood while the width of the lamellas is decreasing towards the top of the buil-
ding allowing for the glazed surfaces to appear, which clearly reflect the lights of the 
sky shining through the foliage. 
3759
The building character tries to be spectacular, but this can hardly be interpreted, the 
building is not composed well; unfortunately the design lacks the expressionism and 
character of the similar but higher-standard works of Deconstructivism. It is hard to 
find the order in the system of the confused play of ramps and vertical surfaces, which 
may seem scary to visitors. 
Selection of materials is moderate; the building utilizes simple and natural materi-
als. The visible concrete slabs and shells, the sparkling glazed surfaces and the finis-
hed aluminium surface of the coverage are all modestly prepared in a warm light grey 
colour, which emphasizes the character of the intensive form-toolset of the design.
Starting from the four corners of the building, moderately inclining ramps lead up to 
the upper level areas of the museum, providing an alternate access route to visitors. 
These external entrances are impossible to control. First time visitors would definitely 
be having a hard time understanding these routes, which are autotelic.
6418
The white glazed ceramic covering of the domes is supposed to emphasize the 
unobtrusive and neutral character of the building. However the domes look like as if 
they were made of plastic, which looks sadly out of place in the green landscape. It is 
hard to interpret the colours of the entrance side, which resembles a snake’s skin. It is 
unnecessary, and just simply disturbs the overall effect. 
The transparent glazing of the portal façade organically connects the public functions, 
which are accommodated in the building, to the external pathways of the park. The 
ratio and height of the perforated surfaces seem a bit compressed under the robust 
roof structure.
The orientation, shape and forming of the space in front of the entrance is well plan-
ned, it shows the location of the main entrance to visitors arriving from Zichy street. 
Due to the choice of materials and to the elaboration (or rather the lack of elabora-
tion) of the details the building fails to have an attractive and friendly effect. Due 
to the structure of the floor plan the building cannot have any direct connection to 
Napozórét. 
32
8210
The concept built upon the “Duality of permanence and change” is well represented 
by the design of the building in the structure and finishing and in the area of its space 
organization. 
The shell around the inner core is formed by the transparent and flexible acous-
tic veil limiting and at the same time joining the various spaces; the external shell is a 
semi-transparent ceramic glass. 
The vertical structure consists of hardened concrete shear walls, while the roof is made 
of rope-framed steel beams. The structure of Ludwig Museum is made up of diagonally 
placed, reinforced concrete beams and reinforced concrete wall consoles which provi-
de great flexibility in the arrangement of exhibitions. In the National Gallery arrange-
ment of spaces follows the classical enfilade which underlines the importance of per-
manent and lasting values. Here the structure is strict and traditional. 
8591
The building has no rear façade: it connects the park with the northern districts from 
the direction of Hermina street and it also integrates natural landscape into the built 
forms. 
Exhibition areas, seats, and skylights are placed smartly on the roof, in a well-thought-
out manner. Its selection of materials is “tectonic”; it utilizes glass and ceramic finishing 
in the areas accessible by the visitors. 
It has a determined concept: to emphasize the differences between the two museums, 
yet by bringing them into one building it also aims at unifying them. Ludwig Museum 
is more open, it has several terraces; the National Gallery follows a house-in-a-house 
arrangement, it has a more enclosed and introverted style. 
The spaces of GAIA are located on the highest point of the building; it is especially ele-
vated and esteemed by having a scenic terrace.
8603
The roof intends to be an integral part of the park; it has suitable finishing (concrete, 
and stone), which also makes it accessible by foot. 
It becomes an active public area due to the coffee-bars, and the terraces and it provi-
des an excellent view for visitors. 
The razor-like, reinforced concrete beams of the roof follow the main slope of the terra-
in; apart from creating an inclined surface they also function as a shade. Sustainability 
is highlighted by solar panels, which can perfectly utilize the possibilities arising from 
the shape of the building. 
The roof adapts well to the natural and soft differences of the terrain.
33
architecture aNd Mass forMatioN
space relatioNs of the buildiNg
lajos hartVig
0476
Underground access to the building is misadventurously planned from the direction 
of the City Park promenade, nevertheless visitor and service vehicle traffic is sensibly 
handled separately. Transportation of goods is possible through the access route, in a 
limited way though, the connection of the underground parking area to the space and 
corridors of the museum is optimal.
The underground entrance level works well together with the lobby. The spaces and 
the lighting of the entrance hall are spectacular and it provides open access to visitors 
arriving from both the direction of the field (park) and from Hermina Street. 
The exhibition areas are spacious, flexibly variable yet unified, while office space area 
is strictly arranged. 
The coffee bar on the ground floor has no possibility to expand out towards the park, 
which is a disadvantage of the plan. Despite this fact, the roof terrace provides a spec-
tacular view and experience of space. 
2564
In line with tender requirements the visitor and service access is provided through an 
underpass, possibly from Hermina Street. Transportation and loading/unloading of 
pieces of art, as well as visitor and staff traffic is mixed in a single underground space, 
which is an unfortunate solution. Logistics of cargo handling is not planned, and visi-
tors cannot access the museum directly from the garage, only from outside. 
The area of the museum is spread throughout the three main levels. The two lower 
levels may be accessed through the ground level entrances. Access of the building 
from Hermina Street is difficult. 
Following the archaic central pattern a three-storey high statue and atrium is positio-
ned in the centre of the building with glazing areas above that provide an infusion of 
natural light. Exhibition areas are organized around the central atrium. 
The main entrance of the third level may be accessed from one direction by a long 
ramp organized along the main axis, nevertheless there is no over emphasized lobby in 
it. The space of the third level is not definitely limited; it flows into the exhibition area. 
The shop, coffee-bar and restaurant are placed on the right spot, near the main entran-
ce, unfortunately though, their relationship with the park is still indirect. 
The museum spaces are wide and traversable but their arrangement and development 
is incidental; the service, office and educational areas are scattered to the edges of the 
building and are located in four different blocks. 
The layout of these four blocks is rational and clearly organized, but the access rou-
tes to the blocks are ambiguous, badly designed. In short, they are located only in 
34
the basement therefore circulation cores must be multiplied; there is no lobby in the 
blocks, and communication across the exhibition areas is very problematic. 
3087
As opposed to tender requirements, cargo transport, and visitor and staff traffic are 
directed under the building from the Városliget promenade. The long cargo underpass 
is undeveloped and the underground loading and unloading area is too extravagant. 
The building may be accessed from four directions, the secondary side-entrances are 
perpendicular to the main axis and they are oversized. It would have been better if the 
designer had focussed on the main axis. 
The vertical circulation cores are rationally placed; on the ground floor the access rou-
tes and corridors are large, and even wastefully wide and too branched at some places, 
some exhibition areas of the ground floor are detached and placed far away from the 
reception and the information desk and access to these areas are provided without any 
lobbies. 
Placing the coffee-bar and restaurant near the entrance at the south-western side is 
a good solution; it creates a direct link with the City Park, which is completely in line 
with the intention of the announcer.
The placement of the exhibition areas is inconsistent, regardless of the freely adjus-
table layout structures. Periodic exhibitions are located on the ground floor and on 
the first floor as well; the area of the National Gallery reaches into the wing of Ludwig 
Museum. Arrangement of exhibition areas is subjective, regular floor-plan and amorp-
hous space are interchanging; there are many dead ends, the route of visitors is erratic. 
Administrative offices, GAIA Lab and the roof terrace are located on the top floor. The 
roof terrace has exceptional potentials, which were unfortunately not developed.
3405
Visitor traffic is led into the underground guest hall by two elegant and wide flights of 
stairs along the main axis of the park. Despite the generous design of the Concept, this 
hall happens to be rather narrow. The two museum gift shops lost their direct external 
connections. 
The pair of stairways located in the two museum wings provides alternate routes 
through the exhibitions when going upwards or downwards. This is a clever solu-
tion for evading the trap hidden in the concept, namely that museum blocks and pat-
hways could become a bag-like dead end. The two loop-like routes converge in the 
underground foyer, thus the whole building may be accessed and walked through 
continuously. 
Education and meeting auditoriums are located on the top floor. This seemingly par-
ticular solution is justified by the spectacular view from above, which creates a much 
pleasant microclimate than an underground placement would. 
The only thing against the concept of the four standalone towers is the lack of a more 
direct relationship between offices and the exhibition areas. For example, museum 
employees working in the upstairs offices may only access GAIA Laboratory through 
the underground floor. 
35
Channelling passenger vehicles via Zichy Street deeply into the City Park is contrary 
to the tender, and a faulty solution. As opposed to this, the loading/unloading route for 
cargo traffic is clearly organized, and it is visually separated from the passenger visitor 
traffic on the ground floor of the GAIA building. 
3759
The central atrium can be accessed from three sides. The main entrances on the 
ground floor are retracted and are hard to find in the jungle of ramps and canopies. The 
vast, multi-storey space of the distribution hall is protruded by the cubes of the exhibi-
tion areas and their connecting set of ramps which form an unusual composition. 
The permanent exhibition halls may be accessed from two different routes. The first 
route leads through the exhibition areas, and follows a time based sequence as it leads 
through the objects of various ages. The second route leads through external, scenic 
terraces and resting areas. Visitors – just like in the park – can choose which path to fol-
low in the museum. Visitor pathways however are expressly confused, and do not faci-
litate continuous walk-through. At certain locations there are quite surprising solutions 
like Room No. 8., which is like a dead end and can be accessed through a 30 m long 
ascending corridor, or like the ramp leading to Room No. 11., which reaches the exhibi-
tion area by touching the corner of a coffee-bar upstairs and then leading through the 
kitchen. 
The event halls cannot be accessed directly, only through a terrace, from the exhibition 
area or from the library so they are practically useless. 
The area of the New National Gallery and LUMU can hardly be separated due to the 
messed-up visitor routes. 
Access of visitor parking area could not be identified from the drawings. Bicycle stora-
ge opens from the internal service corridor. The underground path for cargo vehicles is 
extremely narrow; it is questionable whether it could be suitable for use. 
6418
The inner, functional arrangement of the building is extremely clean, it is almost flaw-
lessly organized. The museum may be divided into three, well separable vertical blocks. 
The entrance block holds the shops and coffee-bars on the ground floor. These are 
open towards the square and require direct, active external connections as well. On 
the northern side the tower building of office workers is located, while GAIA Laborato-
ry is placed on the southern side. Both units are standalone, fit for their intended pur-
pose, well separated, and can be accessed directly. 
The middle block is the actual museum itself. Exhibition areas are organized around a 
stairway surrounded by an extremely spacious cloister. The atrium is airy, and well-ar-
ranged; the visitor’s route is logical and easy to be followed. The exhibition rooms are 
interconnected with each other and with the cloister as well. The exhibitions may be 
walked through in various ways, which is clearly indicated in the guideline. The ele-
ments of the National Gallery and LUMU are separated on different floors; they can be 
reached independently from the staircase or they can be accessed successively from 
the museums themselves. 
36
The rear block serves as a place for storing handling and treating of pieces. The servi-
ce and visitor access routes are functionally separated; the paths are not crossing each 
other. 
Accessing the parking area from Zichy street is contrary to the tender requirements, 
and it is a bad solution. Nevertheless the parking area is wide and well organized. Loa-
ding and unloading may be carried out perfectly through the northern side, hidden 
and separated from visitor traffic. 
8210
The designer places and orientates the building according to the existing promenades 
and roads and paths of the park. The aim is to allow park life to “flow” through the buil-
ding. A closed rear façade towards Hermina street however is created where reception, 
loading and unloading of pieces of art are handled, in a rather narrow space. 
Parking area is situated under Hermina street in an underground garage (810 parking 
spaces on three sub-levels). Widening of Hermina street is planned in the necessary 
measure. This solution narrows the necessity of placing other functions underground, 
but excludes the possibility of entering the museum directly from the garage. 
The building opens towards the Nagyrét with a spectacular entrance hall, however 
main entrances are located on the two sides. Coming from the direction of the park 
visitors may buy tickets on the ground floor and access the stairway of the National 
Gallery leading to the permanent exhibition without going through reception. 
Arrangement of spaces on the upper levels is in line with the concept: connections are 
fixed, there is little room for unique spatial relationships, but the area is perfectly sui-
table for the accommodation of the planned functions. 
8591
The Spatial Relationships of the Building are double sided. On one hand, the spa-
ce organization of Ludwig Museum is innovative, flexible and it communicates very 
actively with the roof area facing the park, accessible by visitors. On the other hand, 
arranging the National Gallery into a box structure is pointless; it creates a rambling 
inner space, and both functionality and aesthetics are harmed. 
The two buildings are joined along a strong axis, which wedges into the entrances from 
the park side and from Hermina street. When arriving from the park, visitors must walk 
down a corridor to the main entrance to buy tickets. This degrades the only entrance 
from the direction of the park to a secondary, “back-door”. 
Visitor parking area is placed under the entrance hall. Safety of the pieces of arts is 
ensured, but the ramp of the underground garage is misplaced to Városligeti boulevard, 
where visitor traffic should not be allowed. Cargo transport and loading/unloading of 
objects is arranged from the direction of Zichy Mihály street, entrance for staff mem-
bers is placed on the opposite side. 
The roof serves as an area of intensive communication between the building and the 
park.
37
8603
The main communicational tool of the building is the roof, which reaches onto the level 
of the park and serves as a natural amphitheatre, as an “eye” on Budapest. 
The shaping of inner space is not so successful. The elevators travelling from the under-
ground garage are placed on the external façade. The foyer of the auditoriums located 
on the ground floor is not large enough, and indirect access of the halls from the foyer 
is not ideal. Administrative rooms are located on the Hermina street wing of the buil-
ding, which may be accessed by corridors and pathways which are of the same width, 
and look the same as the design of the main corridors for visitors. 
Access of visitor and staff parking area is arranged from Hermina street in an under-
ground garage, which is situated below the main entrance of the building and spread 
through 3 sub terrain levels. The ramps connecting the levels of the parking area would 
be hard to utilize. 
38
architecture aNd Mass forMatioN
architectural quality of spaces
lajos hartVig
0476
The Overall Architectural Effect of the Building, Ratio of Volumes – The shaping of 
the building was inspired by the regular geometry of the former Iparcsarnok (Indust-
ry Hall) arranged along the historical axis and the organic flow of Városliget (City Park) 
interpenetrating the building. 
The building may be divided into three main horizontal parts: the service level, which 
is hidden underground and its area is rationally organized; the traversable, partly lowe-
red ground floor and partly elevated first floor; and the exhibition areas hidden in the 
floating volume. 
The entrance level and the almost completely open first floor – serving as a public 
space – provide direct connection to and interaction with the park. This Entry, due to 
its gentle forms and spaces, could express the transition of the volumes of the park 
and the museum at the ground level in the most beautiful and sophisticated way. The 
building seamlessly circulates and integrates the surrounding area, and sensitively 
interacts with it.
The geometric volume floating above the covered area reaches over the top of the tre-
es of the park, nevertheless, due to its form, it does not dominate the space rather it 
seeks interaction with it. 
Uniqueness, Innovative Building Character, Exterior and Interior Appearance – The 
plan focuses on maximizing the area of active surfaces (public spaces, green areas): the 
multi-storied entrance space, and the fully utilized roof terrace and green roof provide 
twice as much area to the park users than it actually covers. 
The façade design is rich and diverse nevertheless the volumes and spaces of exhibi-
tion areas have an inordinate visual impact. The unarrayed appearance is partly cove-
red by a membrane with a leaf venation design, hung over the façade. 
A special, outstanding characteristic feature of the building is the green roof with wild 
flowers, and the harmonic shaping of skylights, waterfall and roof terrace excised from 
the green roof, which all enhance the natural character of the building.
Spatial Relationships of the Building – Underground access to the building is misad-
venturously planned from the direction of the City Park promenade, nevertheless visi-
tor and service vehicle traffic is sensibly handled separately. Transportation of goods 
is possible through the access route, in a limited way though, the connection of the 
underground parking area to the space and corridors of the museum is optimal.
The underground entrance level works well together with the lobby. The spaces and 
the lighting of the entrance hall are spectacular and it provides open access to visitors 
arriving from both the direction of the field (park) and from Hermina Street. 
39
The exhibition areas are spacious, flexibly variable yet unified, while office space area 
is strictly arranged. 
The coffee bar on the ground floor has no possibility to expand out towards the park, 
which is a disadvantage of the plan. Despite this fact, the roof terrace provides a spec-
tacular view and experience of space. 
Architectural Quality of Building Spaces – The building captivates the visitors with 
numerous amounts of small tricks, it is an interesting and appealing object, which not 
only has the capacity of attracting the audience but it can also serve as a real meeting 
point due to its covered public space. 
“The City Park Veil” offers exciting, well elaborated spaces; its corridors and internal 
pathways are thoughtfully organized, and it is absolutely not exaggerated (the gross flo-
or area of this building is one of the smallest of all Entries). 
In summary, this is the strongest and the most well-thought-out concept, which by the 
development of a simpler façade may well be worthy of becoming a centre of the new 
museums of Budapest. 
2564
The character and spatial organization of the building is traditional; apart from 
the mere exhibition of objects it does not attempt to provide interactivity, to offer a 
“museum experience”, which is a basic requirement for museums in the 21st century.
Regardless of the seemingly clean perpendicular design the visitor will not see any 
generous architectural solutions apart from the central atrium; the choice of materials 
is undoubtedly stylish, yet one could easily be dwarfed by the high and stern spaces. It 
is very characteristic to the plan that people are seldom pictured on the perspective 
renderings. 
3087
Though the screen hides this mysterious object growing from the ground it also sepa-
rates it from its environment. Despite its organic façade-structure this building stands 
out in the middle of the park like an odd and alien formation. The narrow, crack-like 
entrances do not seem inviting, thus the museum will hardly be able to fulfil its visi-
tor-attracting role. 
Inside the exterior shell, the inner scheme and space structure is not well planned. 
3405
The building follows a simple geometrical system. The clear architectural structure 
creates unobstructed, airy spaces. The empty spaces spanning large distances may be 
arranged and furnished in line with the specific programme of the exhibition or functi-
onal requirements. The space of the multi-storey high sculpture exhibition hall estab-
lished under the office block is lit from above. This solution enhances the exhibition of 
objects and facilitates the proper illumination of work spaces. 
Placement of skylight tubes at the footing of the towers is a very useful solution, and 
suits the concept very well because it allows perfect daylighting of underground rooms, 
40
which in essence creates a much friendlier atmosphere and can ease the burden of 
museum staff working in the underground stores and restoring halls. 
Due to the nature of the 4 towers the specific area of access routes and corridors is lar-
ge. All wings have their own circulation cores. 
3759
Museum spaces are aligned along a rectangular but rotated-axis coordinate system. 
Terraces and ramps are connected to these masses of cubes in a playfully shifted way. 
Exhibition spaces have large floor area. Due to the structural raster of 12m x 16m the 
volumes can be spaced well, exhibition areas are suitable to host any type of exhibi-
tions. It is unfortunate that these exhibition areas cannot really work together as a who-
le, due to their random connections and the oddities of the access routes. 
Accessing the offices is hard. Segmentation of the office block can hardly be carried 
out due to the structure of the layout. Most of the area is poorly illuminated, and does 
not comply with the basic requirements of a 21st century work environment. 
6418
The cross-shaped internal pathway functionally and visually integrates and organizes 
the exhibition spaces. The designer integrated the wide cloister with the exhibition 
spaces. 
The symmetrical, joint entrance halls of the auditoriums on the basement level are nar-
row. Given the prospective number of visitors, they will only provide limited capability 
for hosting the audience. 
The domes have a very strong organizing effect on the upper levels, and thus indirectly 
to the lower ones as well. Artificial lighting is applied in the exhibition halls of the Gal-
lery, located on the ground floor, which require a more traditional background, while 
the exhibition area of the contemporary LUMU is illuminated by the sunlight through 
the domes. This natural light can enhance dramatically the effect of the exhibited 
pieces. 
Due to the structure of the roof and the geometric layout flexibility of large exhibition 
areas can only be provided in a limited way, aligned to the geometric arrangement of 
the building.
Technological (e.g. water proofing and drainage) issues arising from the special roof 
structure have been thoroughly detailed and planned for by the designer. 
8210
The concept has a strong character, and it is extremely strict, which results in clean 
architectural forms, yet it also incorporates a great deal of restrictions. The two ins-
titutions are joined: the National Gallery is classically suited on the outside, and it is 
placed in the crust-zone, while Ludwig Museum is located in the inner core of the buil-
ding and it is designed with contemporary structures and great flexibility, representing 
constant change. 
41
Independent access of the spaces of GAIA is not possible; the placement of GAIA in 
the external crust-zone is contrary to the tender requirement as this location does not 
reflect its sacral and innovative features.
The arrangement of the space of the National Gallery is very fixed. The external 
appearance of the building is quite strict; the simplicity of the form is not attractive. 
This rigid and stern look is loosed by the utilization of transparent finishing which can 
partly reflect the surrounding environment and by the emphasis placed on the under-
ground open spaces and on the large, stretching canopy, which reflects the inner core. 
8591
The design unites two different institutions by focusing on their similarities. A smart 
concept is devised for highlighting differences, which on the other hand unfortunately 
fails to create a successive space structure. 
The building sits atop of a rebuilt hill, and seamlessly blends into the natural 
environment. 
The applicant separates the two institutions along a historical axis, and builds them 
on the same foundation. The two main entrances are connected with a corridor on 
the ground floor, aligned along the main axis. The corridor is unfortunately narrowed 
down by the vertical circulation core coming from the underground garage, and it also 
has a level difference issue. 
The box-like arrangement of the National Gallery can hardly be integrated with the 
smooth, wavy external lining of the building and it creates segregated spaces. The 
event hall of the National Gallery has no foyer, and some offices in the upper room 
have no natural illumination. 
Service functions are packed in-between in an unorganized way. The relationship bet-
ween the boxes and between the corridors of the exhibition area creates an efflux of 
space, which on the other hand seems as if it were accidental and random. 
The strength and wit of the concept is not realized on the floorplans.
8603
The foyer on the ground floor is generous, but oversized. Orientation of the coffee-bar 
is good; it can serve both the external area of the terrace and the internal reception 
area as well. 
The large exhibition areas of the permanent exhibitions placed on level -2 can be fle-
xibly modified, but their arrangement is not well planned, visitors randomly find them-
selves in the middle of the square. The placement and number of planned restrooms 
are not logical.
The seasonal exhibition areas planned on level  2 may only be reached through the cir-
culation core of the respective museums; accessing the other museum on level  2 is not 
possible.
Spacious corridors surround the service areas on the upper levels due to the chopped 
volumes of the building, which is not utilized by the organization of space. Natural ligh-
ting of offices is provided by terraces leading onto the roof. 
42
techNology aNd fuNctioN
Visitor’s experieNce 
lord
0476
The project is structured around outdoor covered plazas giving access to the main ent-
rance hall and public spaces like NNG event areas and café.
Exhibition galleries are located on the upper levels (one for NNG galleries, one for LM 
galleries).
A double level rooftop is provided, including LM event areas and café, the Gaia Lab, 
and a spacious garden.
Thanks to the plaza, the building allows continuity of views from and towards the park; 
light wells offer spectacular view points from a level to another.
The entrance hall is well organized and gives easy orientation to the visitor. Exhibition 
spaces are also clearly structured.
Escalators allow reducing the use of elevators and contribute to keep the continuity of 
the visit experience.
All the other public areas are judiciously located and provide good interfaces with the 
surroundings (views from the rooftop, access to the park etc.).
For the visitor comfort, toilets are located on each floor.
2564
The project aims to develop a quite simple architecture, in order to put in foreground 
the collections housed within both museums. The main path (i.e. exhibition spaces and 
others public areas like event halls) is organized around a central courtyard housing 
the sculptures atrium, and making the connection between LM and NNG permanent 
exhibition. 
Public functions and offices are located on the sides of the building, like small pavilions.
Although globally efficient, the whole spaces are quite austere and rather monotonous. 
No particular views are provided on the park and the surroundings; outdoor spaces 
could be more developed.
We also note a lack of relax places along the visitor main path. 
No toilets are provided on the 2nd floor, within the exhibition area.
3087
The project aims to explore the limits between architecture and landscape, playing 
with the contrast between an organic shaped façade and more rational spaces inside.  
Both museums are organized around a common vertical central hall, which is quite 
impressive, and refers to Buda and Pest thus keeping a certain distinction between the 
two institutions.
43
Although attractive from the outdoor spaces, the façade becomes anecdotal within the 
exhibition galleries. The control of natural light being the main concern of the project, 
exhibition spaces don’t offer any strategic view on the park.
Only one toilets block is provided on each level.
However, a café and a terrace are provided on the rooftop; the location of the events 
areas and others publics spaces on the groundfloor level allows good interfaces with 
the park.
3405
The project proposes a split building made of four blocks, linked by a common base-
ment level. The outdoor spaces between the blocks aim to create a welcoming area, 
mixing architecture and landscape. The design follows the masterplan of the park, 
with a main axis coming from the great meadow.
Although the entrance hall main functions (ticketing, cloakrooms etc.) are clearly loca-
ted, the general organization of the visitor path is quite confusing: spaces are fragmen-
ted on different floors and /or split in several blocks. As a result, the visitor has to go 
through many staircases or elevators, which breaks the continuity of both the visit and 
the museum experience.
The underground floor provides some dead end spaces both within the galleries spa-
ces and the entrance hall. 
The outdoor spaces in between the four blocks are not enough designed and quite 
poor in terms of experience.
Toilets are provided only on second basement (entrance hall level), which is not 
enough.
No relax spaces are proposed along the visitor path.
3759
The project aims to propose a whole experience by offering a building accessible from 
all sides. This creates particular links between exhibition rooms, outside areas and the 
urban surroundings. The building is made of ‚boxes’ that house one or several functi-
ons and work independently. Each exhibition area is connected to an external terrace 
and sometimes to other public spaces like café, working as a rest place. 
Thus, two main routes are proposed to the visitor: one inside, through the galleries, fol-
lowing a chronological path; another one outside, along the external terraces. 
Most of the public spaces are strategically located to provide as much as possible inter-
faces with the park. Outdoor spaces are especially designed to ensure the best level of 
comfort regarding the wind, the sun etc. The building aims to become this way entirely 
accessible (indoor and outdoor spaces, roofs etc.), making visitors really active in the 
museum experience. 
For the visitor comfort, toilets are provided on each level.
Although interesting, the concept developed for the routes generates difficulties both 
for access control and orientation inside the galleries, particularly in the upper levels. 
Slopes aim to keep continuity for walking but may be physically rude for some people 
and non accessible for disabled visitors.
44
However, the architectural concept - system of independent ‚boxes’ linked by slopes or 
other vertical circulations - provides enough flexibility to improve those points (see the 
Functional contacts and Transport systems sections).
6418
The project proposes a very rational organization, spaces are displayed around a dra-
matic central staircase and patio, providing indirect natural light in the whole building.
Tiled colored façades reflect the surrounding landscape and create a target point for 
the visitor coming from the great meadow.
The regular and repetitive shapes of the roof, as architectural gesture, symbolize the 
unity of the institutions and, following the  canopy line, aim to create a landscape expe-
rience within the park.
The rational organization of spaces combined with the merging of some functional 
areas like event halls, learning areas etc. provide a very clear building, where visitor 
and staff can easily walk through.
However, the museum experience is quite poor:
- although impressive, both the central staircase and the long patio don’t offer so much 
experience;
- except the sculpture garden, outdoor spaces are not developed enough; 
- interior spaces offer few interfaces with the external environment;
- exhibition galleries provide repetitive rooms;
- most of the Museum learning areas and event areas are located on the underground 
levels, with no direct natural light and no view on the surroundings.
8210
The project offers a quite good visitor experience, developing an interesting interacti-
on between the two institutions: the NNG, as a ‚crust outer zone’, provides an historic 
frame, while the LM works as an ‚inner zone’. 
The visitor has this way the possibility to move freely between the permanent exhibi-
tion areas of the two institutions at each level, through the ‚filter zone’, working both as 
a connection and a separation area.
The main hall provides an impressive design: from the entrance, the visitor can enjoy 
the skylight and has an overview of the different levels of the building. 
Within the galleries, the use of wood for floor finishing conveys a natural feel and 
atmosphere.
However, toilets and cloakrooms are located on the basement, without direct access 
for disabled people.
More, no particular solution is provided for relax spaces within the exhibition areas.
Regarding the integration of the building in the city park, we note that the main acces-
ses are located on the north-eastern and north-western side of the building, without 
taking into account the pedestrian promenade on the historical axis. Stairs and lack of 
slopes reduce disabled people accessibility to the outdoor areas.
45
8591
The organic shape of the museum reacting with the park could be an interesting con-
cept, as well as the idea of splitting and connecting the building in two parts along 
the historical axis. In this sense, the reception area should be a continuation of the 
promenade of the park, giving access to both institutions. However, despite interest-
ing visual contacts and glimpses between interior and exterior environment, no clear 
orientation is provided in the whole building and the exhibition route is fragmented on 
several levels. There is a lack of hierarchy amongst the several accesses to the ‚central 
spine’, which results quite confusing.
The location of pedagogical spaces and event areas close to the façades, as a means of 
interaction between the museum and the community, could be a very interesting solu-
tion, but actually generates strange fit outs of these venues (i.e. unconvienient shape of 
event hall on the ground floor). 
The roof is accessible to visitors and equipped with seating and informal exhibition 
spaces, giving access to terraces with views on the park and the city. However, circula-
tions on the roof should be clarified, especially for disabled people.
Concerning comfort facilities, toilets are provided at each level. Break-out spaces are 
located within the corridors of the NNG exhibition area, but are not especially desig-
ned and developed in terms of visit experience.
8603
The building consists in a monolithic block of rammed earth, aiming to create an archi-
tectural landmark (rising up to 40 m height) and providing views on the city from its 
accessible roof. The historical axis is only considered for a shape issue (block split in 
two parts), while main entrances are located on the north-eastern and north-western 
sides of the building site. 
Although the rooftop concept is interesting, the building seems out of scale within the 
City Park and its surroundings. Its massive architecture makes the building appears 
more than a closed and ‚introvertive’ place rather than an open social place. 
Once passed the very impressive and suggestive entrance hall, the visitor goes through 
the exhibition galleries, with few interfaces with both outdoor spaces and other public 
areas (most of the galleries are located on the underground floors). 
The roof path is quite monotonous and reveals arduous in terms of visit experience 
(both for disabled and non-disabled people).
For the comfort of visitors, toilets are provided on each level, while breakout spaces 
are integrated only within NNG temporary galleries.
46
techNology aNd fuNctioN
Visitor’s experieNce 
MNg
0476
The building can be reached by visitors from several access points. The information 
counter and the ticket office can be immediately seen from each entry point.
It might be somewhat confusing for visitors that from a chronological perspective the 
permanent exhibition of the National Gallery should be followed by the exhibition of 
the Ludwig Museum, however, the levels are situated in the opposite order: the exhibi-
tion spaces of the Ludwig Museum occupy the second floor, and those of the National 
Gallery – which should come first both chronologically and in regard to the route map-
ped out for visitors – are on the third floor. This problem can be solved by appropriate 
visitor control. As regards the permanent exhibition spaces, it is problematic that after 
reaching the floor, either by lifts or escalators, visitors arrive in a rather narrow lobby, 
and in the case of a large crowd there is no space to accommodate the waiting visitors. 
There is a similar difficulty if visitors need to wait to get into the temporary exhibition, 
as the corridor connecting the atrium and the exhibition space is too narrow.
The permeable Elevated Plaza of the first floor is an exciting idea, also the oval sky-
lights and terraces (especially the roof terrace) add a great extent to the visitor experi-
ence. The waterfall inside the building and the UHTP cover light-shadow also empha-
size the unique character of the building.
2564
The building’s structure is not at all significant neither from the outside, nor from the 
inside. It does not provide any unique experience for the visitor.
3087
The building can be reached by visitors from four access points. The mass of the buil-
ding delineated by a metal covering is broken in the middle in a cross shape by a roof-
lit atrium. The incoming light will map out and accentuate the main visitor routes as 
well as the access to the service facilities. The information counter and the ticket offi-
ce are located at the centre of the building in a well-noticeable way. There is no con-
tact with the natural environment except for the central, naturally-lit hall, therefore 
the visitor will feel as if inside a closed shell.  An exception is the rooftop terrace café, 
however for example there is no possibility left for outside vending for the ground floor 
brasserie.
3405
It is a strong point of the design that the opportunity to set up catering units with an 
option to operate outdoors is provided both on the ground floor of the Gaia building 
and on the ground floor of the diagonally located office building.
47
3759
The entrance hall can be reached from several access points along paths fitted with 
ramps. Walking on sloping paths provides an exciting spatial experience but might 
pose problems in regard to visitor orientation. All in all, the playful design of the buil-
ding creates exciting spatial experiences, although it creates confusion for visitors as to 
the route they should follow.
6418
The only entrance for visitors to the building opens from Zichy Mihály út, which is not the 
most suitable solution. The building only connects (communicates) with the park on its 
ground level and thus visitors will only meet natural light on the first two floors. Hard to 
understand why the restaurant is not able to open towards the Park (Napozórét).
8210
The ground floor area of the building is bordered by a glass wall, thus making an exci-
ting connection with the natural environment. Both the restaurant and café has the 
possibility to operate outside the building which is favorable. However the visitor has 
no other visual contact with the park on any other level of the building.
8591
The architectural design concept does not distinguish between the front and the back 
of the building, as the museums can be accessed both from the park and the Városligeti 
körút. However, visitors arriving from the direction of the park might find it problema-
tic that all the service points (information counter, ticket office, cloakroom, audio guide, 
museum shops) open from the other side, so visitors entering the building from the park 
can only access them by walking along a long narrow corridor ending in a flight of stairs. 
Those reaching the building from the Városligeti körút step into a light, spacious entran-
ce hall and will find their way around the service points without any difficulty. However, 
they can only access both the temporary exhibition of the National Gallery and one of 
the permanent exhibitions of the Ludwig Museum along the long narrow corridor. 
Provided by the building’s design include the option provided for the catering units to 
move outdoors, offering an impressive panorama from the roof terrace, as well as the 
exciting spatial experiences created by the perforated roof.
8603
Visitors can reach the entrance hall from more than one direction. Thanks to the ope-
nings in the ceiling, which lend the building its unique character, the entrance hall is 
bathed in natural light. The separation of the two institutions i.e. the Ludwig Museum 
and the National Gallery – is very well structured. Visitor orientation is clearly facili-
tated by the entrance hall and the services being shared by the two institutions, while 
they each have their own entrance inside the building.
The geometric openings in the ceiling result in an exciting space-experience. The pos-
sibility to walk on its outside and the spectacular panoramic view are also unique.
At the same time, it is a great advantage that the cafe and the brassiere have a direct 
connection to the park, enabling their outdoor use.
48
techNology aNd fuNctioN
Visitor’s experieNce 
ludwig MuseuM
0476
Despite of the intention to connect the museum with the city park, the architectural 
form itself doesn’t carry this message. Ludwig Museum and National Gallery are not 
separated visually. The exhibition spaces are not much variable, and aren’t fascinating 
at all. 
2564
The rational, classical modernist style building with walls and calm gardens assure a 
balanced environment for visitors. Large-scale exhibition halls can be divided many 
ways. Using of daylight makes exhibition rooms pleasant. However, Ludwig Museum is 
situated in the lower story, which creates a submissive position. 
3087
The connection with the surroundings are very limited, but the light and spacious atri-
um gives a nice perspective for the visitors. Unfortunately, the organic-like shape of the 
museum creates a hardly usable walls (or windows) in exhibition rooms, as well as a 
solid and quite heavy block in the park, which can be depressing.  
3405
The four separated buildings are helping in orientation and try to reduce the huge 
volume of the architectural program. The space in between helps to connect the buil-
dings with the surrounding nature.  The foyer can accommodate well the visitors. 
The shape and the position of the exhibition rooms are not clear and are hardly under-
standable for the public (for example: permanent exhibition, surrounded by the tem-
porary exhibition room, big, L-shape temporary rooms, the position of the graphics 
cabinets etc.). 
The position of the library is not ideal (underground floor). 
3759
According to the architect’s intention, the building is works as the extension of the city 
park, and creates a constantly shifting relationship with the surrounding, which helps 
to connect people with the cultural matters of the museums. Using terraces creates a 
well-usable, but maybe a bit complicated architectural order, with alternate paths (gal-
leries, social, terraces). 
The separated permanent exhibition rooms help the public in reception (not too large 
modules, no disorientation). The public spaces in between reflect both the exhibitions 
inside and the nature outside. The building can be used after closing hours, too, as the-
re are more entries for special events and shopping from outside. 
49
6418
The building has a very unique form and structure, which can be interesting, but also 
surprising for the public, as well as the color façade. A clear structure inside the buil-
ding helps the visitors’ easy orientation. There are different types of exhibition rooms, 
which basically follow a classical museum order. The architectural program reflects on 
the didactic, educational function of a museum.  Temporary exhibitions people doesn’t 
feel comfortable, according to our experiences. 
The museum plaza and educational functions are located in the first zone, the exhibi-
tions in the second, vertically separated from the back of the house. 
8210
The design solution (placing Ludwig Museum inside the building of National Galle-
ry, a “house in the house”) is very unique, but  problematic for an “invisible” museum 
inside. The dual system (historical, traditional frame outside, contemporary, flexible 
rooms inside) is attractive, but brings also disadvantages at the so called “filter zones”, 
when the aim is to separate, not to connect exhibitions (noise, light etc.). Frequent use 
of acoustic veils can be problematic, too. 
According to the shape of the building, the different rooms are often too long (National 
Gallery). 
8591
The open, transparent, round-shape, dual building of the two institutions has a cont-
emporary message, and suggests a model of a “borderless” museum, which serves the 
public on a high level. People can follow the activities inside already from the park, 
they can orientate in the central zone, and can enjoy the exhibitions and other servi-
ces separately in the two institutions. The public roof provides a calm rest place and a 
good outlook on the park and the city. 
The diversity and flexibility of the gallery spaces helps curators in installing and the 
public to enjoy exhibitions, which works very well in the National Gallery wing. Howe-
ver, the “vineyard” system of Ludwig exhibitions is not ideal: diverse exhibitions and 
public programs can be hardly separated, if necessary (the collection contains a lot of 
traditional works as well, not only large scale installations). 
8603
The main attraction of the building is the large, open, public roof, “an open, democra-
tic agora”. The very special architecture can be attractive, but maybe also deterrent 
for people, who are get used to the more historical, traditional mood of the Liget.  The 
shape creates a special architectural order, where the bigger spaces in the lower levels, 
smaller on the top levels, and lot of rooms have beveled roof, which creates sometimes 
a problematic spatial situation inside. According to this determination, permanent 
exhibitions are located on -2 and -3 level, with a visual connection to the upper floors, 
which is not an ideal. Events are organized on the ground floor, education and learning 
on upper floors. The two institutions are spatially separated. 
50
techNology aNd fuNctioN
Visitor’s experieNce 
MártoN horN
0476
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
This building has a great connection with the park, and the public with its organic visi-
tor paths from both ways, which continues on in the park as promenades. It makes it 
strongly attracting, and transparent. It is interoperable with its inside plaza where we 
find many visitor functions (shops, information, cinematic etc.) opening from the big 
community place. This area is also very flexible to handle possible changes, and devel-
opment in this topic later.
The two museums are well integrated with each other, so it is easy to connect the func-
tions, and the exhibitions. The plans respect the park well thanks to the low coverage 
on the ground floor (more underground and above). The well organized entrances, and 
inside ways makes the routes for the visitors are simple, and easy to find. The idea of 
the rainfall can be attractive, but also can be too much, and makes the outside area not 
welcoming (noise, dirty water?).
The great roof terrace and the green rooftop a bit too detached from the public, and har-
der to reach, but all functions are quite well organized regarding the visitor point of view. 
The building is not a really good selling point with its style, visuals and probably would 
not be much of an iconic building for the new Museum Park project.  
2564
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor 
51
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
Not too well developed project, a lot of questions are unanswered.  It is a moderated, 
nature respected plan, but with many problems regarding visitor experiences. 
First, the building is very much devided from its surrounding, thanks to the wall and 
museum garden around it. The aim of the Liget Project is to built a new brand through 
integration of the different elements. Dividing the museum from the other parts of 
Liget, is not a good message, the museum programs should be the part of the daily lei-
sure time, and connect one to the other.  
The interior design with the marble facing raises problems regarding the public opi-
nion. The recent National Gallery in the castle has similar design elements arising 
many problems such as unpopular “socialist design” …etc.
The inside structure is quite conservative, there are not much of socializing possibiliti-
es, no open community places.  The shops and the coffee bar are not connected to the 
park.     
The museums are vertically devided not supporting the interoperability which might 
arise further problems regarding all the added services also; for example in case of the 
two bookstores and cafeterias. The community areas are not functional, too small, not 
flexible, nor transparent. These plans are not reflecting an emblematic, characteristic 
building which would find/attract a welcoming audience.
Overall the main problems of this plan are the lack of integrity and social aspects.
3087
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget), orientation
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
52
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
Not too well developed project, a lot of questions are unanswered.  It is a moderated, 
nature respected plan, but with many problems regarding visitor experiences. 
This museum concept can be well communicated, the public would like this project 
expectedly. However the question is that how much ‘future-proof’ it is.  The image of 
the building (Budapest from above, and the special metal cover) in a short time could 
loose its attractivity towards the audience. 
Concerning the social use possibilities, the path way through the building nicely con-
nects the museum to the outside; the new public “piazza” connects the different com-
munity activities (shop, ticketing, cafeteria etc.) with the museum exhibition places.  It 
creates a good in-between space to the two institutions.
While the main hall divides the two museums, at the same time it nicely connects them 
with the different public services.  I was wondering why the rooftop is not used for any 
visitor function, if it has been ‘cut’ to a plain surface.
Altogether this project is a user friendly idea, with a question of timelessness. 
3405
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget), orientation
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
This entry gives a feeling of a concept setting a Museum Quarter within a Museum 
Quarter. It is nicely grouping together the buildings underground, and gives a commu-
nity quarter on the top. The two museums are also connected, and can present exhibi-
tions linked together, or gives possibility to use the whole area on one topic.  Above the 
ground the orientation is still  manageable thanks to the important functions next to 
each other (eg. entrances, catering etc.).
The inner spaces finely brings together the park and the vision of museums in a non 
drastic way. The plans bring up the feeling of a cultural campus in a park, with its house 
like pavilions, which is good regarding integration.
Overall this project finds some good solutions regarding visitor experience, especialy-
ly in the idea of the linking the different entities together in a user friendly way. But 
altogether it still gives the feeling to build a small ‘city’ within the park without giving 
53
any good solution to the appearance as an attraction, especially for the foreign visitors, 
which is one of the essential questions of the Liget project. 
In addition it is also important to mention here, that the previous selected two cube 
like buildings didn’t find the way towards the heart of the local public either. 
3759
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, orientation, over-
lapping (in both services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, 
the different places of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
Flexible Building, brings together the park and the museum regarding visitor’s use. It might 
be the most open and interoperable building out of the entries. From every side, there is 
a possible way to enter, and the mall inside facilitates different functions as in a shopping 
area. While this is an advantage, at the same time, it is a disadvantage of the building too. 
The freedom of involvement makes hard to understand the building, and gives the feeling 
that it is not easy to find your way, and not sure why some of the spots needed for. 
Still some good ideas can attract the visitors and could create new and flexible usage 
for them, as the hanging roofs outside. The so-called slope path shows how much the 
plan is willing to integrate the different leisure activities to the museum. While the visi-
tor attending the exhibitions, they have several possibilities to enter or exit from/to 
these public programs.
The building overall is very transparent, and focuses on the strong connections with the 
surroundings. It gives good experiences to the visitors besides visiting the exhibition. It 
is kind of a community center, with some connection problems between some elements. 
6418
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, communication and interactions 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
54
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
The forms and shapes are well integrated into its surroundings, with their increasingly 
growing heights. The mixture of some aspects in design is trying to suit the old traditi-
on of the Liget, but it might give the feeling of the 70’s architectural forms of Hungary in 
the local opinions. 
The connections to the leisure activities are possible, but not perfect, especially not 
with the only one, main entrance, and the closed façade toward the main meadow. 
There is no real connection between the cultural and recreational activities. 
There are not any attractive but useful instruments which helps the visitor experience 
(terrace, open air event-exhibition place etc.) 
The two museums are strongly integrated in the one building, which in some ways hel-
ps the visitors (transparency, and the continuousness of the visitor experience),but is 
questioning the identity of the two museums on the other side.
The building looks airy, but with its 40m height and 150m width could reflect a monu-
mental feeling towards the park.
8210
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, orientation, over-
lapping (in both services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, 
the different places of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
The project creates an interesting connection within the two museum spaces (one wit-
hin the other), which helps the exhibitions to be connected, and creates a good orien-
tation for the visitors. The NNG with its classical arrangement frames, the new flexible 
spaces of LUMU, which is good for the visitors to able to find and understand the histo-
rical connections between the different artistic periods. It could raise questions regar-
ding operation, but for the visitors is not problematic.
55
The ground floor altogether is a hospitality area, which meant to be very transparent 
and flexible for the visitors, although some more functional integration would have 
been good here too as in the exhibition spaces. It could be a better connection of the 
coffee shops, caterings or bringing a common child area to the ground floor, connec-
ted to the park. The idea of using so-called filter zones to divide the different museum 
areas is a good choice to have the time for the visitor to relax; also, I really like the way 
of organizing special places to open discussion towards the public, as the exhibition 
boxes do on the ground floor.
The entry did focus on visitor’s experiences, and find some good, and interesting solu-
tion to connect the different tasks in, and around the building. It handles the peop-
le not only as direct museum visitors, but as the users of a social atmosphere. The 
building is willing to create communication between the museums and the Liget as a 
unity, which is an aim to be able to build up a complex visitor’s experience in this new 
museum park.  The application mentions, that the duty is not just creating a functi-
onally good building, but an architectural artifact having a special artistic merit. “To 
attract the attention of the people with a building stands out of the ordinary.”  I believe 
in that way this building is not ready in Hungary..
8591
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, overlapping (in both 
services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, the different pla-
ces of the new Museum Quarter (Liget)
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
The entry takes care of the surroundings; especially interesting how it wishes to gat-
her the people, and helps them to find their way to the plinth running around the buil-
ding, also the concept trying to connect itself with the whole Museum Park. The idea 
of the plan is to have a strong relation with the park as many ways as possible. On the 
ground floor, all the functions are situated to have a possibility to interact with the out-
side (event halls, catering possibilities, shops, kids learning); in that way the building 
gets special arms to attract people from the park.  The orientation is also well organi-
zed in the entire building.
The switch alike building creates a great terrace with a great view over the city, and 
a possibility to have a view into the museum to entice the possible new visitors.  The 
56
multifunctional roof with its different possibilities (views, seatings, exhibition spots) 
also a good idea to increase visitor interests. 
The two museums have its own autonomous side in the building, but the connection 
possibilities still exist to get great exhibitions together.  They connect primary through 
the non-gallery functions as the hospitality, retail or the arcade and passage which can 
brings the people through the building.
 Altogether I can say that the building is strongly respecting the mentioned visitor 
experiences, especially regarding the social use, and user friendly environment, or the 
routes of the visitors. Only a few problem could be mentioned (e.g. the shops are too 
devided from the public).  
8603
I set 5 main visitor experience principles  and compare the different entries regarding that.
1. Personal & social Individual involvement, personality of the institution, customisa-
tion, personal use, communal and social use possibilities, user friendly atmosphere, 
contact with the visitor, interaction and communication 
2. Integration 
Grouping together of service functions, linking different entities, orientation, over-
lapping (in both services and content). How much it reflects, links the two museums, 
the different places of the new Museum Quarter (Liget), orientation
3. Interoperability 
In-between spaces, contact with the park, interior spaces, accessibility programs, 
transparency, purposes, inspiration 
4. Brand factor- public opinion, acceptability from the public, new image for the city, 
creating new values
5. Functionality- regarding the social possibilities
The  main message and attraction of the building towards the visitors are the viable 
roofs, which opens a new area for all park visitors. It is an extension of the big meadow, 
and also the setting back of it to the original size. It is a great gesture, and opens good 
visitor’s experiences. It is also a message that everyone welcomed around the museum, 
they are not  just the temple of arts anymore. You can use it as a community meeting 
point, and the museum building can help to bring art closer to the people.
The mass of the building is quite extensive, at the same time it is possible to create a 
new meeting and viewing point with that, a spectacle which kind of places have been 
the part of the history of the park at the last century.  It would still reases  the question 
how the public will react, but I believe for the visitors this would be a great experience 
to be involved in.
The building is quite open-minded with the inside and outside public and hospitality 
spaces too. The so-called Museum plaza is nicely connected to the park,  but would 
be good to see some artistic, or community possibilities here too (installation, seats or 
café).  The orientation are also well figured with the entrances, but should be a direct 
contact from the park too (there is a dead end direction inside to that way..), and that is 
missing. Also the catering’s connection with the parks should be stronger.
57
The inner plaza helps to solve the arrivers from different directions, and gives a nice 
hospitality functions with its shops, and seatings. It is interoperable, and connects the 
two museums together visually and functionally too, with keeping their autonomy. This 
project also helps to functions not only as a museum but a community place, although 
it would need to solve some functionality problems.
At least I need to mention that this building could stand  as an emblematic building of 
the new museum quarter, and in that way touristically also would help the project, and 
the city too.
58
techNology aNd fuNctioN
MuseuM techNology solutioNs 
lord
0476
CH can’t be checked in the design drawings; however, the note indicates 5,5 m in the 
main galleries, 4,5 m in the Shrine and the Graphic Cabinets, thus complying with the 
brief requirements.
Exhibition galleries are designed with a large span structure (for instance 20 m for the 
LM), providing spaces which are largely free of columns, thus allowing flexibility as 
well as many type of exhibition displays.
Flexibility is also guaranteed by multiple accesses to the temporary galleries that 
allows easy partitions of the spaces.
Reinforced concrete slabs and engineered steel trusses at cantilever location are used 
to deal with load bearing issues.
Both the Shrine and the Graphic Cabinets are equipped with light lock to control 
natural light. 
The façades are made with high solar performance glazing; within the galleries spaces, 
there are only few openings. This helps control natural light. However, the project pro-
vides some strategic views on the park.
Solar shading has been incorporated to control glare, excess solar gains and peak coo-
ling demand, as well as to protect the transparent elements from direct solar incidence.
LED technology is proposed for the artificial lighting.
Buffer zones are located around the exhibition galleries in order to reduce the impact 
of air movement within all the public areas.
Dedicated MEP, AV, IT, electrical & security closets are included within each core to 
serve the respective galleries.
However, those two points should be detailed in the design drawings.
2564
The project provides standard but efficient solutions regarding museum technology:
- free-of-columns spaces allowing various types of exhibition displays;
- modular systems that facilitate gallery rehangs;
- LED technology for artificial lighting;
- heating and cooling systems through the ceiling voids within the galleries spaces;
- power boxes grid on the galleries floor.
59
However, some of the exhibition spaces located at the second floor (ie: oval shape 
rooms) are not easily usable for exhibition displays, particularly for paintings.
Solutions for load bearing solution and control of natural light should be precised.
3087
If the general organization of the galleries guarantees flexibility for exhibition displays, 
no details are provided regarding museum technology solutions, except the façade 
solid panels to eliminate natural light within the exhibition spaces. 
For this criterion, design documents are unsatisfactory. 
We also note that:
- the artefacts handling corridor is only 4 m high, instead of 4.5 m as required in the 
brief;
- Photo studios (LM and NNG), Research spaces in storage rooms (LM and NNG) and 
Graphics research areas have no natural light.
3405
If the general organization of the galleries guarantees flexibility for exhibition displays, 
no details are provided regarding museum technology solutions, except the façade 
solid panels to eliminate natural light within the exhibition spaces. 
For this criterion, design documents are unsatisfactory. 
We also note that:
- the artefacts handling corridor is only 4 m high, instead of 4.5 m as required in the 
brief;
- Photo studios (LM and NNG), Research spaces in storage rooms (LM and NNG) and 
Graphics research areas have no natural light.
3759
Within the exhibition galleries, the large span structure (12x16 m) provides enough free 
of column spaces to ensure flexibility of use and potential for further exhibition design 
developments.
Galleries CH meet the brief requirements: either 5.5 or 8 m, except in the gallery 8 
(NNG permanent exhibition gallery), which is only 4.5 m height.
Some spaces located below slopes are not easily usable and / or convenient: for ins-
tance the LM lecture hall which has very low ceiling or some support spaces to event 
areas, with narrow and long volumes, or the Research Space.
However, those points could be dealt with by moving vertically some of the ‚boxes’, 
and thus modifying the slopes and other vertical circulations. Although tricky, it seems 
that the architecture of the building is flexible enough to allow improvements.
60
Galleries interior walls, as well as the ceilings, are clad with plasterboard for easy main-
tenance. The note proposes concrete flooring that could be interesting in terms of 
resistance to art movements or maintenance.
Climate control within the galleries is ensured by both wall and ceiling plenum (hea-
ting, cooling and air supply).
Control of natural light and artificial lighting system should be precised.
6418
Regarding the lighting, the project meets the brief requirements: 
- controlled natural lighting for both the NGG and LM permanent exhibition spaces;
- no natural light for the temporary exhibition spaces of both museums;
- controlled LED light sources;
- indirect natural light is also provided from the main central staircase.
However, the skylight devices should be detailed especially about the possible para-
metrical adjustments of the sides and the slopes of the ‘sky domes’.
The note mentions movable partition walls for the exhibition galleries, but no detail is 
provided. Indeed, the current organization combined to the structural grid generates 
fragmented spaces which is quite an issue for further exhibition design developments. 
Furthermore, it doesn’t allow a good distribution of areas within the temporary exhibi-
tion galleries.
Some of the galleries floors can be partially removed in order to create double height 
volumes. We have hesitation on this point, which should be precised for the next steps 
(lack of drawings showing the flexibility of volumes). 
Standard reinforced concrete flat slabs are provided for the galleries located on the 
underground level but precisions should be given about the load-bearing capacity of 
those floors, especially for the sculptures atrium.
Regarding the climate control, an underfloor heating is provided, as well as a ventila-
tion through the opened skylights (operating at night during the warm weather).This 
point should be precised, especially concerning artworks conservation.
8210
The choice of textile veils as a partitioning system for the exhibition areas, although 
poetic and aesthetic is quite an issue for climate control, fire safety, acoustic perfor-
mance and maintenance.
The double layered façades aim to work as a buffer zone to ensure the climate and the 
lighting control; however, this device should be precised, particularly for the south 
façade (possible issue for artefacts conservation). 
Skylight is controlled through a double layer shading system on the roof.
The NNG permanent exhibition area is organized as a sequence of rooms (enfilade) 
reminding the atmosphere of classical museums; but those fixed ‚white boxes’ actually 
61
represent more of a constraint rather than a resource to development variety of exhibi-
tion displays.
Nevertheless, the cabinets located within the hollow RC wall structure, that can open 
towards both sides (NNG exhibition rooms or filter zones) and equipped with mul-
timedia solutions and film boxes, constitute an interesting solution to provide more 
intimate exhibition spaces.
Regarding the LM exhibition areas, only the 4th floor provides free of column space 
(temporary exhibition gallery). Other levels are organized around a 12 per 6 meters grid 
structure, that is not so much flexible, even though it ensures a performing efficient 
load bearing solution.
No information about artificial lighting is provided.
Flexibility of floors and ceiling is quite good, with raised floor for the LM permanent 
exhibition areas, and parquet and false ceiling for the NNG permanent exhibition 
areas. However, this point should be developed for the next stages.
8591
In the NNG galleries ‚black boxes’ overlap each other on three different levels, with no 
natural light, as required. However, no detailed information is provided about artificial 
lighting. 
The LM galleries are organized on three levels, like ‚flowing terraces’. Climate control 
could be there an issue, because those open exhibition spaces constitute one single 
big volume. Again, no information is provided about artificial lighting. Furthermore, no 
precise solution is developed for natural lighting through wide glazing surfaces of the 
façades (sidelighting), whose control is actually an issue. 
A lack of optimisation of structures within the galleries should be noticed: the use of 
several structural systems generates narrow spaces constraining a flexible fit-out of the 
galleries (i.e. concrete columns and other boxes/rooms - video room, artefact elevators, 
etc. - in LM exhibition areas).
The slope roof seems to generate several spaces with CH under 5,5 m within the exhi-
bition galleries, even though this point couldn’t be precisely checked with the provi-
ded drawing documents.
8603
Thanks to the large span structural grid (12 m), the exhibition spaces provide good flexi-
bility. However, some residual spaces are to be noticed and no detailed information is 
provided about partition devices within the galleries. 
As required, there is no natural light within the galleries.
62
LED technologies are used for artificial lighting.
Nevertheless, we are concerned about the use of tensile fabric for the ceilings: even if 
it could solve acoustic issues within the galleries, this device could be itself an issue to 
integrate artificial lighting system. No detail is given regarding this point.
The idea of locating the galleries and archives in less climatically sensitive spaces is 
quite good, even though standard solutions are provided for AC mechanical systems 
for artefacts care and the exhibition spaces offer no views on the park.
Concerning floor finishes, solid wood is employed for permanent exhibition and NNG 
temporary exhibition, while polished concrete is employed in LM temporary exhibi-
tion. Concrete flooring could be an issue for flexibility: details should be given regar-
ding power supply grids within the galleries.
63
techNology aNd fuNctioN
MuseuM techNology solutioNs 
MNg
0476
The architectural form of the building and preliminary sketches of the mechanical engi-
neering- and building electricity leave possibility for a  subsequent specification of defi-
nite solutions of museum-technology. Definition of these will become relevant at a latter 
phase of planning. According to these, e.g. the inner height of the exhibition spaces is 
adequate and also filtering out natural light from the exhibitions is well thought after.
2564
The architectural form of the building and preliminary sketches of the mechanical 
engineering- and building electricity leave possibility for a  subsequent specification of 
definite solutions of museum-technology. Definition of these will become relevant at a 
latter phase of planning. 
3087
Technical description is superficial, thus neither the mechanical engineering-, nor 
electrical, nor other proposed solutions of museum technology are to be found. There-
fore merely the architectural set-up of the building can serve to provide some basis for 
future technological systems of the Museum building. 
The amorphous lines of the walls of the exhibition area create a captivating spatial 
experience; however, it is highly problematic from the perspective of exhibition orga-
nisation. Natural light is filtered out due to the covering metal wall In the case of exhi-
bition spaces. 
3405
The architectural form of the building and preliminary sketches of the mechanical 
engineering- and building electricity leave possibility for a  subsequent specification 
of definite solutions of museum-technology. Definition of these will become relevant 
at a latter phase of planning. However in the case of the exhibition spaces, filtering of 
natural light by the outer vertical aluminium structure is not accommodating. 
3759
The architectural form of the building and preliminary sketches of the mechanical 
engineering- and building electricity leave possibility for a  subsequent specification of 
definite solutions of museum-technology. Definition of these will become relevant at a 
latter phase of planning.
The proportional set-up of the building’s spaces and solid parts make it possible for 
the resulting blocks to control their natural light according to their functions’ necessity. 
64
Natural light can be excluded from the exhibition spaces, at the same time it can be 
assured to the right level on  corridors, at offices and museum education spaces.
6418
The special roof lighting system which regulates the incoming natural light in the per-
manent exhibition space of the Ludwig Museum on the first level is an interesting 
museum technological solution. The layout of the exhibition spaces is clear, flexible 
and ideal for exhibition organisation.
8210
The ‘filter zone’ between the outer and inner exhibition zones has major disadvantages: 
the ‘acoustic veil’ separating  the core from the outer zone takes up useful wall surfa-
ces;  it provides no protection against the inconvenience caused by the dust and noi-
se during the reinstallation of exhibitions, which is also detrimental from the point of 
view of artefact protection. Another significant disadvantage is due to the fact that the 
big open air spaces make it impossible to control climate and humidity according to 
artifact security standards.
8591
The proposed temperature control system of exhibition spaces is not favourable neit-
her from the viewpoint of artefact security nor from that of exhibition organization as 
the ventilation spots of the system are placed on walls or the floors. Neither artefacts, 
nor certain kind of installations are to be placed near these spots, thus use of the space 
becomes too limited. Control of light and filtering of natural light seems thought after 
in the case of the National Gallery, however it does not seem to be ensured in the case 
of the Ludwig Museum.
8603
The compact form of the building ensures that the exterior surfaces (envelope) is kept 
to a minimum.
Well orientated glazed surfaces act as a passive solar design solution, the external sha-
ding can prevent unnecessary solar gains.
The proposal includes on-site renewable energy (integrated PVs), partly well orienta-
ted, i.e. south facing.
The thermal mass of rammed earth an concrete as primary materials together with the 
optmisied glazing contribute to the adapting to climate change (avoid overheating).
The proposal is considered exceptional from energy perspective.
65
techNology aNd fuNctioN
MuseuM techNology solutioNs 
ludwig MuseuM
0476
The rooms for artifact handling are planned like they are open from the artifact storage, 
which is an absolute mistake. 
2564
The coffered ceiling, the ventilation system, the lighting conform the standards. Hand-
ling of artifacts is well separated from other background activities. 
3087
Museum technology details are not explained in the plan. 
3405
The planned technologies serve the conservation of the artworks and match the 
requirements. 
The artifact and other storages also match the requirements, but are not separated for 
the two institutions. The position of the workshops isn’t good (too close to the artifact 
handling). 
3759
The exhibition rooms are equipped with the necessary lighting and climate systems. 
The grid system helps the curators to plan different exhibition displays. 
The artifact storage next to the heating machinery is not a good position (common wall). 
6418
The grand central staircase (with artifacts) can cause climatic and security problems. 
Using of controlled daylight and artificial LED light matches the requirements. 
8210
The solutions are not specified in the plan in detail, but it refers to the requested 
standards. 
The light courts (filter zones) can cause climatic and security problems in the building. 
8591
The big glass surfaces and open spaces can create problematic climatic and safety 
situations. 
66
8603
The architectural form of the building and preliminary sketches of the mechanical engi-
neering- and building electricity leave possibility for a  subsequent specification of defi-
nite solutions of museum-technology. Definition of these will become relevant at a latter 
phase of planning. According to these, e.g. the inner height of the exhibition spaces is 
adequate and also filtering out natural light from the exhibitions is well thought after.
The openings between different levels make it possible to look down onto under-
ground spaces from above, thus creating an exciting visitor’s (and architectural) 
experience. The visually brave solutions lift visitor-experience, however it raises 
museum-technological concerns making it impossible to separate air blocks (air condi-
tioning will be ineffective). On the other hand the installation works of new exhibitions 
will result in hardly separable dust- and noise pollution of other areas. The problem 
however can be solved by installing glass layers between the different areas.
67
techNology aNd fuNctioN
fuNctioNal coNtacts
lord
0476
The organization of exhibition galleries is quite satisfactory. Dedicated stairs are provi-
ded to ensure direct connexion between the NNG and the LM permanent exhibition 
spaces.
Events areas, Museum Learning areas, Cafés are located in such a way that they can 
work independently from the other spaces of the building.
However, the NNG shop access should be improved: no direct access from outside is 
planned today.
The artefacts handling areas should be reviewed: all venues are accessible exclusively 
through the temporary storage department, for both museums. This generates impor-
tant issues for artefacts transport (see the transport systems section).
LM research room has no natural light.
The project provides an extra of 730-sqm exhibition surface ( 400 sqm for NNG per-
manent exhibition,  200 sqm for NNG temporary exhibition,  100 sqm for LM perman-
ent exhibition).
2564
Despite the simplicity of the plan, we underscore several issues regarding the functio-
nal adjacencies:
- the limits of the exhibition galleries are not clear and should be precised;
- the ‚sculptures visual store’ (sculptures visible storage) is only accessible through the 
NNG temporary exhibition galleries, and have no direct connection with the entrance 
area, as requested;
- the Cinematheque is only accessible through the permanent exhibition galleries;
- the Video room, combined with the IT multimedia room, has no clear fit out;
- the NNG research rooms are only accessible through the temporary exhibition areas, 
complexifying artefacts deliveries;
- both museum learning spaces are accessible via secondary accesses, not clearly visib-
le from the main entrance;
- for both museums, events areas can easily work independently, but a ticketing or at 
least a welcoming / information space will be needed;
- LM café is accessible only through the LM museum shop;
- NNG shops are not accessible from the reception area.
68
An important lack of surface areas has to be noticed for the NNG: -717 sqm for the per-
manent exhibition, while 126 sqm extra surfaces areas are provided for the temporary 
exhibition.
3087
The connexion between the LM and the NNG permanent exhibition is possible on 
both the first and the second floors. However, this solution does not create a clear loop 
circuit and this way may be confusing for the visitors.
The location of both the Videoroom and the Cinematheque doesn’t meet the brief 
requirements: the Video room should be located between the temporary and the per-
manent LM exhibition galleries, while the Cinematheque should be accessed directly 
from the main entrance hall.
Only one toilets block is directly accessible from the main entrance hall.
Cafés and event areas are well located, for both museums, and this way, those spaces 
can work independently from other publics areas, with their own opening time. Howe-
ver, event support spaces and storages are located on the basement level, and can’t be 
directly accessed through dedicated lifts and stairs.
We note a lack of exhibition surface areas for both NNG permanent (-500 sqm) and 
temporary galleries (-300 sqm), while the LM offers an extra area of 350 sqm for the 
permanent exhibition.
In general terms, the distribution of spaces within the artefacts handling zone is not 
optimal: the global surface area is quite correct, but a detailed analysis reveals a lack 
for some strategic rooms of both NNG and LM (NNG temporary storage department 
-100 sqm, LM research room -50 sqm).
We also note a lack of surface areas for the other shops to let and relative storage (-65 
sqm), as well as for the Gaia Lab (-68 sqm)
3405
The split organization of the building combined to an underground main entrance is 
quite constraining:
- the connexion between NNG and LM permanent exhibition spaces is possible only 
via the main entrance hall or the sculpture  gallery, which is separated from the rest of 
the NNG permanent exhibition;
- Cafés have independent accesses, from outside, but shops and event areas can only 
be accessed from the main entrance hall;
- direct interfaces between the different public areas are limited.
The NNG library (separated from the Learning area), the Cinematheque as well as the 
Video room location don’t meet the brief requirements.
69
The project provides extra surface areas of 271 sqm for the NNG permanent exhibition, 
395 sqm for the NNG temporary exhibition, as well as 323 sqm for the LM temporary 
exhibition.
However, we emphasize the lack of surfaces areas for the other shops to let (-65 sqm), 
the NNG Even hall (-102 sqm), the LM Lecture hall (-82 sqm) and cloakrooms (-50 sqm).
3759
The general organization of public spaces makes the functioning of both museums 
complicated. 
Connections between exhibition areas and others public spaces should be particularly 
improved in order to make the architectural concept working; several locations should 
be revised:
- shops are only accessible through the reception area, not from outside; 
- some of the cafés support spaces (kitchen etc.) have no direct connexion to deliveries 
and are strangely located;
- the Cinematheque is not connected to the reception area, although accessible from 
outside, with its own foyer and toilets;
- the Video room is located within a permanent exhibition hall, not directly accessible 
from temporary exhibition;
- the GAIA hall is only accessible from outside while there is no direct access to the 
GAIA lab, except passing through GAIA offices; GAIA storage in located within the 
GAIA hall, with no direct connection to the working space;
- LM photo studio has no natural lighting;
- NNG photo studio location on 1st floor is not ideal.
We emphasize the lack of exhibition surface areas: 324 sqm for the NNG permanent 
exhibition; 250 sqm for the LM permanent exhibition, 150 sqm for the LM temporary 
exhibition.
6418
All the exhibition spaces are organized around the central stairs - called ‚Articulation 
gallery’ - that ensures the continuity of the museum experience as well as the conne-
xion between LM and NNG permanent exhibition.
Both temporary exhibition galleries are located on the same level, allowing to organize 
one single big exhibition.
Other public spaces such as cafés, shops, event halls, are easily accessible, from the 
main entrance hall and /or from outside, thus allowing public access after museum 
openings hours.
However, access to temporary galleries should be improved: the galleries are mainly 
accessed through the central stairs which also houses the NNG permanent exhibition. 
Secondary accesses are provided but should be detailed in order to create a comple-
tely independent access to the temporary areas.
70
The Cinematheque is quite far from the reception area, the Video Room has no direct 
connection with the exhibition areas, as well as the NNG Research spaces.
The Photo Studio, located on level 1, has no direct access to the artefact handling zone. 
Some spaces of the NGG and LM are combined (for instance event halls) or sometimes 
shared (for instance some storages). This is a good option to optimize and rationalize 
the spaces, on the other hand it reduces the independence of each institutions.
The main issue is about the exhibitions areas; surfaces areas indicated in the drawings 
don’t match the space list, and there is an important lack of surface: -2039 sqm for the 
NNG permanent exhibition, -754 sqm for the NNG temporary exhibition.
Nevertheless, the  project provides extra areas of 402 sqm for LM temporary 
exhibitions.
8210
The concept of the ‚inner’ and the ‚outer’ zones is quite constraining for both the LM 
and NNG event areas: 
- the location of the Event halls in the core of the building reduces the possibility to 
access those spaces beyond the normal opening Museums hours;
- the Event support spaces (i.e. storages, changing rooms, water blocks) are located in 
the basement, not close to the event and lecture halls, which is not convenient;
- the cloakrooms are located within permanent exhibition areas, while catering faciliti-
es are not directly connected with the kitchen of the F&B areas.
Both the Cinematheque and Video room locations don’t meet the brief requirements 
(located on the basement close to visitor facilities ie: toilets and cloakrooms).
The fit out of Gaia Lab spaces should be clarified: particularly, the connection between 
the Gaia hall and the other spaces.
If the ‚filter area’ provides a good interface between the two institutions on exhibi-
tion levels, there are problems in terms of functional adjacencies on the ground floor 
(reception, event and exhibition) and on the 4th floor (Gaia Lab):
- the Gaia Lab access is not clearly separated from the other public spaces; 
- No separated access for staff is provided for the research exhibition space (actually 
located within the permanent exhibition on the ground floor), with difficult connecti-
ons to temporary and permanent exhibitions. 
Within the reception area, the F&B and shops areas are quite well organized, with 
direct access from outside.
The project provides extra surface areas for both LM and NNG exhibition galleries: 
281 sqm for NNG permanent exhibition,  360 sqm for the NNG temporary exhibition, 
510 sqm for the LM temporary exhibition.
Gaia Lab offices lack of 66 sqm.
71
8591
Generally, an incoherent and chaotic disposition of functions within the building can 
be noticed, with weak functional contacts between the different spatial units:  
- Exhibition areas are split on several levels, with difficulties in controlling accesses 
(min. 6 checkpoints should be provided on ground floor). No good functional contacts 
between some key venues (i.e. the research exhibition space is not well connected to 
all exhibition areas of NNG, no natural lighting is provided and it has not a dedicated 
access for experts and researchers);
- No good fit out of the artefact handling areas, mixing staff service premises and artefa-
ct handling rooms and integrating some exhibition areas (i.e. graphics cabinet of NNG 
temporary exhibition);
- Shops have no independent entrances from outside and their storages are located on 
the basement with artefact handling premises (i.e. NNG and other shops to let);
- Event areas could not work beyond from Museum opening hours; their venues are 
located on several levels and are not directly accessible from outside (i.e. lecture halls 
and other rooms of LM within the exhibition galleries); 
- NNG Museum learning has a strange fit out and service rooms are not close to its main 
venues (i.e. toilets and storages). 
The connection between LM and NNG permanent exhibitions is assured at each level 
through relax spaces. 
We note a lack of 100 sqm within GAIA premises.
8603
Despite a quite good organization of the entrance hall with separated foyers for the 
event areas, there are several functioning issues:
- the accessibility to event areas should be improved and clarified, both for visitor ori-
entation and uses outside Museum opening hours. The fit out of its service rooms 
should be significantly improved (i.e. catering, storages, etc.);
- shops are not directly accessible from outside and can be delivered only through the 
reception hall;  
- the Research space is not connected with the permanent exhibition NNG and could 
be delivered only through NNG temporary halls;     
- the Shrine is only accessible through the Research space; 
- the Video Room is located within LM temporary exhibition, not directly accessible 
from the LM permanent exhibition; 
- artefact handling venues are split on three levels. As a result, the LM photo studio 
(level  7.00m) is not ideally located, while the NNG photo studio is not provided with 
natural lighting (level -14.00m).
 At this stage, there is no connection between the NNG and the LM permanent 
exhibition.
The project provides extra areas of 1000 sqm for the reception hall (the double of the 
required surface), while the exhibition area lacks  200 sqm.
72
techNology aNd fuNctioN
fuNctioNal coNtacts
MNg
0476
The museum shops, the cloakroom, the other service points (audio guide, storage 
boxes) and the elevators taking visitors up to the upper levels open from the entrance 
hall and they are easily noticeable. However one of the most spectacular attractions of 
the building – the roof terrace – remains unused without any specified function.
The lift used for the delivery of artefacts arrives directly at the exhibition area, which is 
far from being ideal from the point of view of security and exhibition organisation. 
On a positive note, artefact delivery is separate from other deliveries; however, the 
design of spaces used for artefact handling is not suitable for this function in its current 
form. The artefact storage situated at the centre of the artefact handling section, and 
all the service areas open from there. It is entirely impossible to reach the other areas 
by passing through the artefact storage space, but this problem can be probably solved 
by changing the design.
The design of the office area is completely impractical. An open office layout is not sui-
table for staff members conducting research work. Office rooms accommodating 2-3 
persons and receiving natural light would be needed for each department.
2564
Visitors arrive in the entrance hall on the first floor through the main entrance. The 
service points are lined up on the right of the entrance hall. The position of the infor-
mation counter, the ticket office and the cloakroom allow these services to be acces-
sed only from one direction, creating a difficulty in appropriately accommodating large 
crowds of queuing visitors.
The temporary exhibition space of the National Gallery opens from the entrance hall, 
on the first floor. It can be flexibly divided into several sections, but it is problematic 
that the contemplative shrine, the graphics cabinets and the visual store for sculptu-
res can only be accessed from the temporary exhibition space. The permanent exhibi-
tions of the National Gallery can be found on the second floor, and can be easily rea-
ched by visitors either by the main staircase starting from the middle of the entrance 
hall, or by the lifts. In the case of large numbers of visitors, it might cause a problem 
that the staircase and the lift lead directly into the exhibition space. The architect pro-
vided complete flexibility in altering the interior structure of the exhibition space in 
this case, too. The exhibition spaces of the Ludwig Museum are located on the ground 
floor, thus the chronologically uninterrupted presentation of the permanent exhibi-
tions of the National Gallery and the Ludwig Museum is not possible. The architect 
gave a free hand to the Ludwig Mseum to shape the interior structure, and also to divi-
de the temporary and the permanent exhibition spaces of the museum.
73
The artefact delivery routes are thought through, but remain unplanned; the artefacts 
are moved between the levels by an artefact delivery lift. However, the artefact delive-
ry lift directly leads into the exhibition space, which is not ideal either from the point of 
view of security, or the organisation of an exhibition.
A positive feature of the design is the separate visitor entrances providing entry for the 
events of the two institutions.
The offices have a good design, although their sporadic location across the building 
makes it difficult for staff members to work together.
3087
The museum shops and visitor lifts open from the entrance hall and are therefore easy 
to see, while the boksz-like layout of the other services and service facilities (audio gui-
de, lockers for valuables, volunteers’ room, etc.) in the centre is unfortunate.
The temporary exhibitions are easily accessible, and there is a large enough space avai-
lable to handle visitors queuing up at the entrance to the exhibitions. It is a disadvanta-
ge in the temporary exhibition spaces of the National Gallery that the exhibition space 
is located on three levels, thus making it unsuitable to host “blockbuster” exhibitions, 
which would require a large uninterrupted space. The lift used for moving artifacts arri-
ves directly at the exhibition area, which is far from being ideal from the point of view 
of security and exhibition organisation. Similar security concerns are raised by the par-
king lot being positioned underneath the exhibition area.
The artifact handling functions are designed with consideration to practicality. The 
artifact delivery and general delivery are separated in the delivery space.
As regards the design of the office area, no adequate answer is provided as to how 
natural light will be provided in the areas behind the walls fitted with metal covering.
3405
The four buildings in the plans represent four autonomous units in a visual sense too. 
The National Gallery, the Ludwig Museum, the Gaia Lab and the administrative facility 
are allocated separate building. The four buildings are placed along the historic access 
of the Városliget (City Park), with a set of steps each leading down to the underground 
level, where the central entrance hall can be found, from the direction of the Napozó-
rét (sunbathing lawns) and the Városligeti körút. The four buildings are united on this 
level, yet the Ludwig Museum and the National Gallery both have an entirely separa-
te entrance, ticket office and information counter. The temporary exhibition spaces of 
these two institutions are located on this level too. They provide easy access and are 
suitable to handle large crowds queuing up; however, the L-shaped plan of the Lud-
wig Museum’s temporary exhibition is unsuitable from the point of view of exhibition 
organisation. 
3759
It is also not ideal that the various service points are on different levels, which might be 
particularly problematic in the case of the ticket office and the cloakroom not being on 
the same floor. In order to break up the monotony of the permanent exhibition spaces, 
74
the architect separated them, thus eliminating the option of connecting these spaces. 
On the one hand, this solution disrupts the thematic order of the exhibition, and on 
the other hand, it diverts visitors’ attention from the exhibition experience and results 
in a route that is difficult for visitors to follow.
It might cause problems in regard to organisation that the events hall located on the 
fourth floor can be only reached from the temporary exhibition space; thus, it cannot 
be accessed when new exhibitions are being installed. 
The artefact delivery lift directly arriving in the exhibition space is questionable both 
from the point of view of security and exhibition organisation. The location of the end-
point of other delivery is satisfactory, although moving goods between the building’s 
levels either overlaps with the route of artefact delivery, or can only be done by cove-
ring great distances and using several lifts. 
There is only one staff entrance, which starts from the parking lot.
The offices are ideally positioned and provided with ample natural light.
6418
The entrance hall directly opens into the main staircase, which serves as the main tho-
roughfare between the levels of the building. To the left is the ticket office, which is unsu-
itable for managing large crowds because of its location. The permanent exhibitions of 
each of the two institutions are allocated on a different level, thus spaces of the two insti-
tutions are separated from each other. The areas in front of the temporary exhibition spa-
ces are sufficiently large to accommodate bigger crowds of visitors queuing up.
Guests arriving to museum education classes or events will have to be underground on 
the basement level, excluding natural light (to be approached by the main stairs or ele-
vators). Artefact handling spaces are separated on two different levels, that are linked 
by one artefact elevator. The artefact elevator’s placement in front of the staff entrance 
is not favourable due to artefact security and reasons of transportation. 
The offices are ideally located in the dome, where they receive plenty of natural light.
8210
The two ground floor visitor entrances of the building are positioned at a right angle 
with the historic axis of the Városliget (City Park). The main entrance opens from Zichy 
Mihály út, the information counter, the ticket office and the audio guide counter are all 
on the left side. Unfortunately, the cloakroom is located on the next level. 
The design of the two institutions is based on a “house within a house” concept. The 
outer zone is the area of the National Gallery, while the inner zone is occupied by that 
of the Ludwig Museum. The permanent exhibition spaces are on the second and third 
floors, while the fourth floor wing of the National Gallery overlooking the Napozó-
rét (sunbathing lawns) also provides a venue for permanent exhibitions. The Ludwig 
Museum’s temporary exhibition space is located on the fourth floor, at the core of the 
building, while that of the National Gallery is on level –2,  also at the core of the ins-
titution. Visitors are able to walk around each level of the permanent exhibition spa-
ces of the  outer zone, but these spaces have significant limitations from the exhibition 
75
organizers’ point of view. The permanent exhibition space at the core of Ludwig 
Museum is lent great flexibility from the point of view of exhibition organisation.
The narrow corridor that can be used by visitors to access the temporary exhibition spa-
ce on level –2 of the National Gallery cannot accommodate large crowds queuing up.
8591
Temporary exhibition spaces of the National Gallery as well as the permanent exhi-
bitions of the Ludwig Museum can only be approached via a narrow corridor.The 
permanent exhibition of the Ludwig Museum continues on the first and second flo-
ors, from where there is direct access to the permanent exhibition spaces of the Natio-
nal Gallery. Exciting teaser exhibition spaces heralding the on-going exhibitions have 
been set up on both sides, along the main axis of the building. The exhibition space of 
the Ludwig Museum on the basement level is difficult to access, and since the staircase 
that leads there takes visitors directly to the exhibition space, it does not accommoda-
te large crowds of visitors.
Artefact handling spaces are separated from artefact delivery areas, but they are con-
nected by two elevators.
Lifts arriving directly in the exhibition space raises concerns in regard to security and 
organisation exhibition.
The offices are ideally designed. 
8603
Functions are orientated according to daylight needs. However, office spaces have limi-
ted solar access and external views. The sloping facade can reflect high-angle summer 
sun along the walkable roof resulting in unwanted glare in exterior surfaces.
The ventilation strategy of the building is energy- and comfort optimised, reflects the 
needs of the several internal functions. Natural ventilation can be utilised. The buil-
ding orientation ensures the limited occur of downdraught.
The proposed radiant heating and cooling (TABS), displacement ventilation provide 
high thermal comfort levels.
The proposal is considered good regarding health and wellbeing issues.
76
techNology aNd fuNctioN
fuNctioNal coNtacts
ludwig MuseuM
0476
The functions of the house are separated according to the 6 level of the building. This 
is a clear system, but the curatorial functions of the two different museums are not 
divided. 
2564
The functions are generally well separated, but the public functions on the ground floor 
are partly mixed with the temporary exhibition, which can cause disorder. 
3087
The two museums are well separated, as well as the curatorial and public functions 
of the building. The permanent exhibitions are spatially connected, as it was requi-
red. Some rooms with public functions (dining room, workshop for museum learning) 
are connected with the permanent exhibition (the path goes through the exhibition 
rooms), which is a mistake. 
3405
The didactic functions and event areas are organized on the upper levels. Shops, cafes 
and other plaza functions are together, at the entrance level. 
However, the exhibition rooms are not very well organized, the visitors’ route seems to 
be too complicated. 
3759
The two museums are connected by one design strategy and are separated softly. The 
modular system of the exhibition and public spaces creates a non-hierarchical, trans-
parent  architectural form, with the possibility of free entering to the different spaces. 
The high-security  art environments are separated from the public zones.  
6418
The whole building has a clear, transparent structure, where the functions are very well 
organized. 
8210
The functions of the two museums are well separated, but again, the shape of the buil-
ding creates sometimes multiple rooms of the same function (for example lecture 
rooms).  
77
8591
Functions for the two institutions are well separated, the contacts of the rooms are 
logical. 
8603
The service points of the entrance hall are clearly laid out, but the main orientation 
unit has no bathrooms for visitors. 
The permanent exhibition spaces are allocated a place on the basement level. They 
can be flexibly divided, and the spaces of the two institutions can be joined together at 
preferable points. Handling visitors might be problematic in the case of the temporary 
exhibitions too, although a minor alteration in the design can provide a solution.
Artefacts can be delivered to the exhibition spaces and to the artefact handling spaces 
(the latter being located on the basement level) by lifts starting from the artifact delive-
ry dock on the ground floor. Problems might arise if the lift is out of order, since there 
is no temporary artefact storage space on this level that is connected to the dock. This 
difficulty can be solved by altering the design or by making the other artefact lift acces-
sible from the dock. On a positive note, other goods delivery can be separated from 
artefact delivery.
The design of the offices and the spaces to be used for museum education and various 
events is well thought through, sensible and practical.
78
techNology aNd fuNctioN
traNsportatioN systeMs 
(iN the buildiNg)
lord
0476
Outdoor accesses as well as Visitor’s path inside the building is well structured and 
clear.
Delivery accesses for cultural areas should be improved: lifts are quite far from both 
event halls and/or open on narrow circulations, crossing the visitor path. This is parti-
cularly true for the LM events spaces, located on the lower rooftop (level 4).
Artworks circulations within the galleries spaces are quite clear for both museums.
Nevertheless, the artefacts handling areas should be rethought: for both museums, 
artefacts handling / caring spaces such as transit storages, workshops etc. are only 
accessible through the artefacts storage rooms. This point represents a big issue: corri-
dors should be provided to serve the different spaces, that in the current proposal are 
more circulation spaces rather than real dedicated rooms. 
The corridors linking lifts to galleries should be improved: artefacts handling could be 
difficult in bent spaces.
2564
LM temporary exhibition spaces are accessible for deliveries through the permanent 
exhibition galleries.
Event halls are not easily accessible for deliveries, as well as shops, cafés etc.; at least 
one lift dedicated to goods deliveries is lacking.
Public accesses to the Museum Learning areas as conceived as secondary accesses 
and are not enough visible.
Staff entrance is not clearly located, generating issues regarding the LM event area 
backstage: rooms can be accessed only through the exhibition areas.
3087
The organization of the basement, dedicated to deliveries and technical areas, doesn’t 
allow artefacts de livery to the whole exhibition spaces of both museums: there is no 
elevator for artefacts leading directly to the NNG temporary exhibition spaces.
79
In the deliveries areas some spaces are not directly accessible such as the NNG 
unpackage / package rooms; some others provide unusable volumes such as the NNG 
carpenter workshop. 
Artefacts deliveries and goods deliveries should be clearly distinguished.
Learning areas can’t be accessed directly from the main entrance hall: visitors are sup-
posed to pass through the exhibition spaces.
Access to the museum shops should be improved in order to provide direct entrance 
from outside.
Gaia Lab dedicated elevator is missing.
3405
The split organization of spaces multiplies stairs and lifts, and makes both the visitor 
and staff route complex and quite confusing. This is quite relevant for disabled people. 
Furthermore, access for disabled people to the main entrance hall is not satisfactory: 
there is only one elevator, quite ‚hidden’ and difficult to find.
Learning areas can’t be accessed directly from the main entrance hall: visitors should 
walk through the exhibition spaces.
Research spaces, located within the temporary exhibition, have no independent  and 
easy access for neither staff nor artworks.
Artefacts transportation should be improved: the use of two successive elevators to 
reach the artefacts handling spaces is quite complicated, and movements along the 
narrow corridors is unconvenient.
Goods deliveries have to be clarified, especially for museum shops and café. Dedica-
ted lifts are not clearly identified.
Gaia Lab dedicated elevator is not clearly defined.
3759
Many circulations should be improved or rethought. Particularly:
- circulation through the exhibition spaces and connexion with the cafés, designed as 
rest places within the main route;
- outdoor path and access control to the exhibition spaces from the external terraces;
- goods deliveries for shops, cafés, event halls;
- route to event halls from the main entrance hall (no direct access);
- route to museum learning areas;
- disabled access to the slopes.
However, the architecture made of independent boxes is flexible enough to allow imp-
rovements, even though significant changes should be made.
Artworks route is satisfactory.
80
6418
All the accesses are well organized: visitors (disabled or not), staff, goods and artworks 
deliveries. 
All routes are quite clear and provide separated paths for each type of transportation.
However, the width of the artworks corridor should be increased: current width 
around 2.7 m is too narrow.
The NNG Research space can’t be easily delivered (here the artefact route crosses the 
visitor path).
One of the two secondary stairs leading from the main entrance to the first ground 
level doesn’t appear in the ground floor plan.
8210
A strong signage would be required for a clear orientation of visitors: though a main 
access to exhibition areas is provided through two stairs under the info-ticketing and 
audioguide desk, there are several vertical circulations leading to the galleries (enclo-
sed staircases and lifts).
Despite dedicated staircases and lifts, staff’s route crosses the visitors’ one in several 
points.
The artefacts route should be improved:  
- the elevator bringing trucks to level -2 could be complicated and expensive in terms of 
maintenance;
- the organization of the delivery dock and the arriving/handling area is not functional;
- the organization of the artefact storages is not convenient; many surfaces are dedica-
ted to circulations while there is only one artefact elevator to deliver the whole exhibi-
tion galleries.
This last point constitutes the main hindrance to the Museum functioning: due to the 
‚inner’ and ‚outer’ organization concept, artefacts route crosses in many places the visitors 
one, that is particularly an issue for the LM temporary exhibition gallery everyday life.
The Event areas can be delivered only through sculptures exhibition hall, that is not 
optimal.
8591
Due to the organization of exhibition areas on several levels, the visitors route is quite 
complicated, particularly for disabled people. 
Staff path crosses the visitors’ one in several parts of the Museum. Conflicts could also 
be noticed between artefacts and visitors routes (i.e. delivery of exhibition areas on 
ground floor). 
81
The organization of the delivery dock and artefact arriving/handling is quite good, 
however the access to the storages and the handling areas (i.e. (un)packaging, photo 
studios) is difficult. Artefact elevators are located either in the middle of exhibition 
spaces (LM) or opening on public corridors (NNG), which is not optimal for deliveries.
8603
The route of visitors through the exhibition areas is quite tricky; connections between 
the different galleries are assured mainly by lifts.  
The artefacts route is very complicated: elevators should be used several times to 
access key support rooms of artefact handling (i.e. photo studios, research in storage 
and documentary research) and the delivery of exhibition areas requires to go through 
a very long ring underground corridor. Artefacts elevator opens on narrow spaces whi-
ch is not convenient for artefacts handling.
A separated access for staff is provided at each level, without crossing visitors routes. 
But again, staff should go through the very long underground corridor all around the 
building to access to the different spaces.
82
techNology aNd fuNctioN
traNsportatioN systeMs 
(iN the buildiNg)
MNg
0476
Certain services and exhibition spaces are well approachable for visitors and guests 
arriving to events. Artefact handling route between different levels is ensured by two 
artefact elevators, thus art handling is ensured if by accident one of the elevators is 
disabled. Artefact delivery is also transparent, however other service spaces opening 
from the afore mentioned artefact storages are not appropriate. 
2564
See “functional contacts”.
3087
Certain services and exhibition spaces are well approachable for visitors and guests 
arriving to events. Main stairs and elevators starting from the Atrium Routes conduct 
the routes for them. Artefact Handling Routes are transparent between artefact hand-
ling spaces of the basement and the delivery spaces and Artefact elevators placed at 
the two different wings of the building ensure the moving of artworks between diffe-
rent levels.
3405
It might be problematic for visitors to be able to approach the buildings from underg-
round levels and being able to view the permanent exhibitions making one’s way from 
the -1 level to the top. The design does not make it possible for the permanent exhibi-
tions of the two institutions to be presented in a chronologically uninterrupted way.
Trucks doing the artefact delivery can load and unload in the dock located on the 
ground floor of the Gaia building, from where artefacts can be moved into exhibition 
spaces and artefact handling areas by artefact delivery lifts. In order for artefacts to be 
moved to the artefact handling areas, they first need to be taken down to level –2, and 
from there to the handling areas. The two other goods delivery lifts, leading into the 
exhibition spaces, can also only be accessed in this way. A serious problem arises if the 
lifts are out of order, since there is no temporary storage facility accessible from the 
artefact delivery dock. There is no solution provided for the delivery of other goods.
Circulation between the office building and the other parts is difficult as it is only pos-
sible through the basement level.
83
3759
The building has a logically designed system of movement/transport however visitors 
will find it hard to find their way due to the building’s many corners and playful set-up. 
Regarding artefact handling spaces, the design includes rooms that are inaccessible; 
access to the artefact lift is also left unresolved. This problem can be solved by soft alte-
ring the design. 
6418
Visitors will approach exhibition spaces by the main stairs or elevators from the Ent-
rance Hall, whereas different services (ticketing, cloakroom, audio guide etc.) are next 
to each other on the ground floor. 
The artefact delivery routes are well thought through. All the artefact handling and 
exhibition areas can be easily accessed from the artefact delivery dock. Location of the 
artefact elevator is not favourable.  Delivery of other goods can be done through the 
underground car park on a route not overlapping with that of artefact delivery.
8210
Visitors arrive to the main hall from both of the entrances. Exhibition spaces of above 
and below levels are to be approached via main stairs and elevators. Guests arriving to 
events will find all relevant services and spaces on the ground floor. Museum educa-
tion spaces are placed on the fourth floor, making it difficult for bigger groups to appro-
ach these locations. Artefact delivery and artefact handling is done on the -2 level. 
Places are easily approachable but exhibition spaces only reachable by one Artefact 
elevator, thus the failure of the elevator might cause problems.   
8591
Visitors arriving from Napozórét will find a complicated narrow entrance hall, as all ser-
vice points of the area are to be found at the other end of the corridor (with a stairway on 
the way). Visitors arriving through the main entrance find a clearer system, however tem-
porary exhibitions of the National Gallery and main-floor permanent exhibitions of the 
Ludwig Museum are hard to approach. Visitors arriving to event will find their way easily.
Artefact delivery is done from Zichy Mihály út; the lorries can load and unload in the 
ground floor delivery dock. The artefacts can be moved between the levels of the buil-
ding by two artifact lifts, both of which start from the dock; however, the artefact lift of 
the National Gallery can be accessed either through the temporary exhibition space, 
or by taking the lift of the Ludwig Museum to the basement level and following a long, 
winding path to the lift of the National Gallery. 
8603
From the visitor’s point of view it is favourable that the approach two the two institu-
tions is well separated, thus making it clear that each of the museums is autonomous. 
Common service spaces can be reached from the Main Hall, whereas each museum has 
their own event space well separated. Exhibition spaces can be approached through 
elevators and stairs in both of the institutions however they are restricted by a narrow 
entrance hall on both sides. See “Functional contact” for artefact handling route.
84
techNology aNd fuNctioN
traNsportatioN systeMs 
(iN the buildiNg)
ludwig MuseuM
0476
Transportation of artifacts happens at back of the house, which is separated from the 
public functions, which is a good system. However, moving of items inside the building 
(see especially: storage – restoration etc.) seems very complicated. 
2564
The transportation of artifacts and goods is solved on the first basement. The vertical 
circulation is solved by elevators and stairs – it is not clear, how the individual institu-
tions and exhibitions can be separated from each other. 
3087
Transport and circulation of artifacts is solved for both institutions. 
3405
Transportation of artifacts is solved on the ground floor, crates can be delivered to the 
common second basement, not directly to the exhibition rooms. Each museum has its 
own transport lift, connecting this level with the exhibition rooms. 
3759
The public and non-public transport systems are well separated. The art handling 
doesn’t cross with goods, trash or visitor circulation. 
6418
Circulation of visitors is well organized via the entrance hall and the central staircase. 
Transporting of artifacts, as well as staff circulation is logical and safe. 
8210
The way of delivery and artifact handling inside the building is not explained properly. 
Parking is not solved on the spot, according the architects decision. This can make 
troubles not only for the institutions, but for example for disabled visitors, too. 
8591
Loading of artifacts take place in a covered indoor garage, separated from other trans-
ports, but the path itself is crosses other circulations, as the art handling happens on 
other levels. The crates and artworks can be shipped via elevators and bridges. 
85
8603
The art delivery dock has an access from Hermina street, separated from other delive-
ries – but the type of the route is not clear on the plans. The artworks are transported 
from here to the -3 level by elevator. The exhibition rooms can be reached by two furt-
her elevators from -3. 
Parking and small delivery is located under the museum plaza part. 
There’s a dedicated staff entrance, too. 
86
sustaiNability
eNergy efficieNcy 
NáNdor koVács
0476
The proposal includes higher U-values than the requirement. However, due to the 
building form (large cantilevers) the building has larger exposed surface than other 
proposals.
The concept does not account for on-site renewables, although the building form 
would be (partly) suitable for that.
Low eaves and shading incorporated in glass façade adequately limit unwanted solar 
gains. The building is partly orientated according to the solar exposure.
The use of RC slabs and core thermal mass can be utilised, also promoting adaptation 
to climate change.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered average regarding energy efficiency.
2564
Although the building has an average U-value weighted external surface, a set of 
energy efficiency measures were proposed to reduce energy demand (such as use of 
free cooling, interlocking and CO2 sensors, etc.).
Low eaves can limit unwanted solar gains, while the need for artificial lighting is kept to 
a minimum.
The roof is prepared for PV installations.
The thermal mass of composite slabs can be moderately utilised (however, they are 
recognised at the materials section).
Based on the above, the concept is considered good regarding energy efficiency.
3087
Although the envelope solution of the building is unclear, the building form results in a 
limited amount of envelope surface. The proposed ventilated façade can also contribu-
te to energy efficiency due to reducing surface temperature of walls and cooling loads.
It is not marked on the designs, but the roof is suitable for the proposed on-site 
renewable energy sources (PV/solar collectors).
Most of the offices are well orientated, the amount of glazed surfaces are kept to a mini-
mum. Together with the efficient use of thermal mass, these contribute to adapting to 
climate change.
The proposal is considered good from energy perspective, based on the above.
87
3405
The building form results in high external surface area, which is partly balanced by 
locating several functions underground. The size, location and orientation of glazed 
surfaces are merely optimised by purpose. The current shading strategy (fixed vertical 
shading) is not suitable for south facing façades, additional measures would be desi-
rable, and for some of the skylights as well.
Although it is not marked on the drawings, the roofs are suitable for PVs/solar 
collectors.
The building orientation is not optimised, downdraught might occur in the walkt-
hroughs due to their width/height ratio.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered average from energy perspective.
3759
The articulated building form results in a large amount of exposed envelope surface. 
However, it is balanced through the use of a set of energy efficient measure such as the 
climatic design, low velocity and low temperature internal comfort conditioning, the 
use of daylight without increasing the overheating risks.
External solar protection is proposed for the east, west and south facing, triple glazing 
façades. However, skylight shading would be desirable for this concept.
The roofs are suitable for the proposed on-site renewables (PV and solar collectors), 
although no details were provided.
According to the climatic analysis, the building accounts for the climate change 
through the use of thermal mass and limiting overheating risk.
The proposal is considered good from energy perspective.
6418
The proposal incorporates underground spaces, the glazed surfaces and envelope area 
are kept to a minimum. Based on that, the building concept is considered energy effici-
ent. Further energy use reduction can be achieved with overnight cooling through the 
skylights acting as windcatchers. However, the shading of skylights would be essential 
for this concept – to limit unwanted solar gains in summer –, and the design does not 
account for it.
The use of PCM in the interior spaces contributes to the optimal utilisation of thermal 
mass.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered good from energy perspective.
8210
The proposal has a compact building form with glazed openings kept to a minimum 
except of the skylight provision. Due to this fact, the benefits of this concept cannot be 
enjoyed, the U-value weighted surface area is the largest among the entrants. This type 
of skylight provision raises shading issues as well.
88
The building has a symmetric form, but not optimised for orientation. An innovative 
climate control solution (spraywater to external surfaces) is proposed. Underground air 
ducts also improve the efficiency of the ventilation system.
No on-site renewable energy is proposed except of GSHP, and the building form is not 
optimal for solar-based systems).
Due to the overheating risk resulting from the skylight and the water-hungry solution, 
the concept has limited adaptation to climate change.
From energy perspective the proposal is considered average.
8591
The shape and orientation of the building ensures the energy efficient operation. The 
reduction of artificial lighting demand with adaptive shading and the passive solar 
design are recognised within this aspect. However, the amount of glazed surfaces 
might be a subject of review in some cases.
The location and orientation of the on-site renewables i.e. PVs are excellent. It needs 
to be noted however, that the ‘pixelated’ distribution might increase the capital and 
maintenance cost of this solution.
The proposal accounts for climate change with the utilisation of thermal mass, redu-
cing overheating risk with external shading and orientation (functions based on solar 
exposure).
The proposal is considered exceptional from energy perspective.
8603
The compact form of the building ensures that the exterior surfaces (envelope) is kept 
to a minimum.
Well orientated glazed surfaces act as a passive solar design solution, the external sha-
ding can prevent unnecessary solar gains.
The proposal includes on-site renewable energy (integrated PVs), partly well orienta-
ted, i.e. south facing.
The thermal mass of rammed earth an concrete as primary materials together with the 
optmisied glazing contribute to the adapting to climate change (avoid overheating).
The proposal is considered exceptional from energy perspective.
89
sustaiNability
health aNd coMfort 
NáNdor koVács
0476
Use of skylights combined with dimmable lights provide appropriate visual comfort 
for most of the spaces where it is deemed desirable. Air wells can contribute to mixed 
mode ventilation, the underfloor air distribution is optimal for this function, ensuring 
lower air velocities and higher thermal comfort levels.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered good regarding health and wellbeing.
2564
The window ratio is optimised according to the functions, adequate visual comfort 
levels can be achieved at the workstations. Windcatchers provide two-sided natural 
ventilation for the office spaces.
Chilled beams provide higher thermal comfort levels, fan-coils (proposed for other 
spaces) are considered suboptimal for this building type.
The proposal is considered good from health and wellbeing perspective according to 
its optimised layout.
3087
Daylight penetration is ensured in less than 50% of the spaces where it would be use-
ful. The shallow patios at the office level do not provide acceptable visual comfort and 
negatively impact privacy.
Natural or hybrid ventilation might be possible through the foyer and in some office 
spaces (one-sided). No further details were provided regarding thermal comfort levels.
Downdraught may occur due to the shallow cuts in the building form.
The proposal is considered average from health and wellbeing perspective.
3405
The proposed fixed vertical shading cannot provide appropriate glare control for offi-
ce spaces. Although the location of workstations are excellent (around the perimeter 
of the administrative building), the visual comfort levels might be below acceptable for 
spaces facing the walkthroughs.
The space depths for the offices are suitable for one-sided natural ventilation as well.
No details were provided regarding solutions affecting thermal comfort levels.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered average from health and wellbeing 
perspective.
90
3759
Due to the use of low eaves, daylight penetration and good visual comfort can be pro-
vided for most of the non-exhibition spaces. The proposed displacement ventilation 
and radiant cooling ensure high thermal comfort levels, in some parts of the building 
natural ventilation strategies would be also applicable, as stated in the proposal. Hen-
ce it is considered excellent from health and wellbeing perspective.
6418
The skylight distribution ensures the daylight penetration in most of the spa-
ces where it is deemed useful. However, the proposed height of office windows (1m) 
does not ensure appropriate visual comfort for this spaces, it might be a subject to 
reconsideration.
There is a potential for natural ventilation through the ‘windcatchers’, however the air 
supply (intake) for that should be ensured in deeper spaces as well.
The proposed underfloor radiant heating provides good thermal comfort levels, alt-
hough the cooling concept is unclear.
Based on the potential in these solutions, the proposal is considered excellent from 
health and wellbeing perspective.
8210
The concept is capable for enhanced daylight penetration, the office spaces and circu-
lation is located accordingly. The atrium has a potential for natural ventilation but the 
fresh air supply for it is not validated based on the design.
No details are provided to evaluate the thermal comfort concept.
From health and wellbeing perspective the proposal is considered average.
8591
The building has excellent daylight possibilities due to the building form and skylight 
distribution. Daylight penetration can be ensured in most of the non-exhibition spaces 
appropriate view out is also provided for workstations.
The proposed displacement ventilation system is an optimal choice for this function, 
due to the high openable glazed surfaces, natural ventilation can also be utilised. The 
building form contributes to better outdoor climatic conditions.
The proposed heating-cooling system (radiant cooling, thermal reflection) ensures high 
comfort levels and lower energy consumption than conventional systems.
The proposal is considered exceptional from health and wellbeing perspective.
8603
Functions are orientated according to daylight needs. However, office spaces have limi-
ted solar access and external views. The sloping facade can reflect high-angle summer 
sun along the walkable roof resulting in unwanted glare in exterior surfaces.
91
The ventilation strategy of the building is energy- and comfort optimised, reflects the 
needs of the several internal functions. Natural ventilation can be utilised. The buil-
ding orientation ensures the limited occur of downdraught.
The proposed radiant heating and cooling (TABS), displacement ventilation provide 
high thermal comfort levels.
The proposal is considered good regarding health and wellbeing issues.
92
sustaiNability
water MaNageMeNt 
NáNdor koVács
0476
The building includes water saving measures justified by calculations against an 
appropriate baseline. According to water hierarchy, the demand is reduced and reclai-
med water is also utilised – however, green roofs provide limited usability of harvested 
rainwater. The roof concept is considered as an SUD reducing rainwater run-off and 
discharge and accounting for climate change. Hence the proposal is considered excel-
lent from water management perspective.
2564
The concept incorporates water demand reduction features, but no details of any 
water reclaiming system are provided (including space allotment). However, a signifi-
cant greenery is designed promoting rainwater filtration and adaptation to climate 
change.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered good from water management 
perspective.
3087
The site layouts provides higher green area ratio than other proposals, contributing to 
run-off attenuation. A greywater collection and utilisation systems is provided, howe-
ver there are no details of further water demand reduction or rainwater harvesting. 
Hence the proposal is considered average from water management perspective.
3405
No details provided for water demand reduction solutions, except the rainwater har-
vesting. There would be a great potential for incorporating green roof which could 
limit rainwater run-off and discharge and also contribute to the adaptation to climate 
change.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered average from water perspective in its 
current form.
3759
The concept accounts for flood risk mitigation, reducing rainwater discharge from site 
with the utilisation of SUDs. Water saving features and rainwater harvesting are also 
implemented, according to water hierarchy. Based on the above, the proposal is consi-
dered excellent from water management perspective.
6418
No details were provided for water management.
93
8210
No details provided for water demand reduction solutions, except the utilisation of 
captured rainwater. It also contributes to run-off reduction, and a moderate amount of 
greenery is provided – but no green roof.
8591
Although the proposal does not account for the water hierarchy, the rainwater collecti-
on and reuse for sanitary flushing is recognised within this issue.
Rainwater is harvested, but no green roofs or other flood risk mitigation measures are 
incorporated. 
The proposal is considered good from water management perspective.
8603
The proposal is designed according to water hierarchy: several water demand reduc-
tion measures are implemented, the building is suitable for rainwater collection. The 
recycled rainwater will be used for toilet flushing purposes.
Rainwater run-off is considered. However, the only SUD for run-off attenuation is the 
proposed rainwater collection systems, the design does not incorporate green roofs.
The proposal is deemed excellent from water management perspective.
94
sustaiNability
eNViroNMeNtal iMpact 
of buildiNg Materials 
NáNdor koVács
0476
Although steel structures have limited life-cycle impact, extreme spans (40-80m) are 
proposed with floor-high trusses resulting in large material quantities. The limestone 
façade is not considered as a favourable option from environmental perspective.
Based on the above the proposal is considered poor regarding the environmental 
impact of materials.
2564
The selected structure – rational steel plate girder with thin reinforced concrete slabs – 
can only partly balance the effect of large (30m) spans on the environmental impact of 
materials. The use of recycled materials on the façade (glassceramic) is excellent from 
LCA perspective. The proposal is considered good regarding the material use.
3087
The building form and structure (normal spans) ensures limited material usage. Howe-
ver, only in-situ concrete structures are proposed (even for wall constructions) with 
high LCA value. Therefore the proposal is considered average regarding material use.
3405
The building form and structure (normal spans) ensures limited material usage. Howe-
ver, only in-situ concrete structures are proposed (even for wall constructions) with 
high LCA value. Therefore the proposal is considered average regarding material use.
3759
Due to the articulated building form, high amount of material is required. However, 
twin-tee slabs and smaller spans would result in efficient structures and limited mate-
rial impact. From environmental perspective, the precast concrete walls cannot be jus-
tified, this type of envelope has much higher LCA value than other possible solutions.
The proposal is considered average from material usage perspective.
6418
The building has an optimised material use. The sandwich panels for the skylights 
ensure precise construction and low LCA values for the envelope. The use of PCM 
makes up for the loss in thermal mass due to this material selection. The structure has 
normal spans, the quantity of material usage is kept to a minimum.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered excellent from material perspective.
95
8210
Although the structural concept imposes large spans, the structure rationality and the 
material selection – recycled aggregate use, steel roof structure, ribbed slabs –cont-
ributes to a limited environmental impact of building materials. The requirement for 
in-situ concrete walls should be validated, it might have a potential to reduce the conc-
rete use. 
From material perspective the proposal is considered good.
8591
The building has a compact form, normal spans. Although the material use is merely 
conventional, ribbed/waffle slabs ensure better structure efficiency and limited mate-
rial quantities. Hence the proposal is considered good from material usage perspective.
8603
Due to the compact form and structural concept, the material quantity needs of the 
building is kept to a minimum, incorporates normal spans.
The chosen external wall material (rammed earth) represents an exceptionally 
environmental friendly solution.
96
sustaiNability
iNNoVatioN 
NáNdor koVács
0476
The utilisation of green roof to this degree is exceptional among the proposals, hence 
it is recognised within this section, together with approach to energy- and water design 
representing a good practice.
2564
The enhanced natural ventilation of the offices may contribute to higher comfort levels 
and reduced energy demand as well. The use of ‘smart building’ techniques might also 
increase energy efficiency.
3087
No significant environmental innovation could have been identified; the details of the 
concept are unclear.
3405
The proposal incorporates a very innovative energy storage system to reduce and flat-
ten peak loads. Locating several functions underground can also reduce heating and 
cooling demands.
3759
The analysis of local climate factors which has influenced the design is considered as 
an exceptional design approach. Accounting for outdoor comfort conditions (terraces) 
are also recognised within this section.
6418
Underground building, parametric design and the use of passive solutions (windcat-
chers and skylights) are considered as exceptional energy innovations and recognised 
within this section.
8210
The water-spray system, underground air ducts are recognised as energy innovation. 
The use of cable net system for roof support can dramatically reduce the structural 
needs, it is considered as innovation with an environmental impact.
8591
The proposed active daylight control, solar exposure as a basis of design resulting in 
maximised daylight penetration are considered innovative for this function. The venti-
lation concept can also contribute to energy demand reduction.
97
8603
Several innovative features are incorporated in the concept which are recognised wit-
hin this section.
The material use is exceptional, daylight penetration for non-exhibition spaces, passi-
ve solar design, the throughout ventilation strategy are considered innovative.
98
sustaiNability
ecology 
kalMárNé fejes ZsuZsaNNa
0476
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. The protection 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is also in question along the acces road leading to the building. According to 
the plans of the application, the geodesy plan and the regulations another 58 trees pro-
bably needed to be felled (within the borders of the construction place).
The lack of survey of a possible protection method of trees of significant value is a 
shortcoming of the application.
Significant and strong element of the application is creation of extensive green roof 
surfaces (with 15-30 cm substrate depth) on the roof surface and on the walkable ter-
races of  4 level. This represents many advantages to the building itself and also to the 
environmental planning. The vanishing green spaces occupied by the new building 
would be partly compensated by green roof surfaces. Even though a green roof could 
not represent the same ecological value as a three-storeyed, high foliage covered green 
surface, with good plant application a self-sustaining, biodiverse habitat could be crea-
ted to provide living place even for smaller sized mammals.
Planting Prunus serrulata varieties (ornamental cherry trees) would represent fresh 
vision, but the integration of them to the existing trees has to be examined. The newly 
planted trees around the new building should harmonize with the whole park surface.
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
99
Partitioning with green areas of the planned pavement surfaces could be a good solu-
tion to reduce the rate of pavement areas. With this the integration of the building into 
the park (to green surface) colud be realized in a better way.
2564
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. According to the plans of the application, the geodesy plan 
and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled (within the borders 
of the construction place).
The lack of survey of a possible protection method of trees of significant value is a 
shortcoming of the application.
Important element of the application is creating small gardens („pocket gardens”) 
of high standard next to the building. The application of planned garden wall sys-
tem should has to be taken into consideration, while further trees could be felled out 
during the construction.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations). By this application the-
re are several vertical wall surfaces, also the system of garden walls to develop vertical 
habitat.
The new building is planned with an enormous area of flat roof structure. The Entrant 
should consider to cover the building with an extensive green roof, thus creating a sig-
nificant (possibly biodiverse) habitat.
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
3087
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. The protection 7 further trees of significant value (according 
100
to VÉSZ) is also in question along the acces road leading to the building. According to 
the plans of the application, the geodesy plan and the regulations another 58 trees pro-
bably needed to be felled (within the borders of the construction place).
The lack of survey of a possible protection method of trees of significant value is a 
shortcoming of the application, although the Entrant tried to reach an optimal rate of 
planned pavements and green surfaces.
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
The possibility of covering roof surface with green roof system is traceable in the 
application.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
3405
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. According to the plans of the application, the geodesy plan 
and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled (within the borders 
of the construction place).
With tiered landscaping design outlined in the proposal a rich and spectacular vegeta-
tion could be created. At the same time the high-volume excavations would endanger 
the protection of further trees of significant value (according to VÉSZ).
The lack of survey of a possible protection method of trees of significant value is a 
shortcoming of the application.
Ratio of pavement surfaces is high, only a very little green surface remains, but special 
attention is given to the integration of the building into the park in this application.
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
101
The integration of ferns and Taxodium distichum species (bald cyprusses), as an exo-
tic landscape element to the existing trees would need some further examination. The 
newly planted trees around the new building should harmonize with the whole park.
The new building is planned with an enormous area of flat roof structure. The Entrant 
should consider to cover the building with an extensive green roof, thus creating a sig-
nificant (possible biodiverse) habitat.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
3759
From ecological view the key element of the application is the protection of existing 
greenery, mostly of trees. Replanting of 25 and protection of all the other existing tre-
es within and next to the borders of the construction place is planned by the Entrant. 
However similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below 
the surface leve las well. In most cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This could result that 3 trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) have to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the 
borders of the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value 
(according to VÉSZ) could be in question. According to the plans of the application, 
the geodesy plan and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled 
(within the borders of the construction place).
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
The Entrant should consider reducing the ratio of pavement surfaces, but at the same 
time it is an advatage that the storm water run-off is led directly into green surfaces.
Important element of the application is creating green areas of high standard next to 
the building, and increasing the area of green surface.
The possibility of planting walkable terraces and roof surfaces is not excluded by the 
Entrant. Besides this there are several roof surfaces of which the cover with an extensi-
ve green roof should be taken into consideration. With this a significant (possible biodi-
verse) habitat could be created.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
102
6418
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. According to the plans of the application, the geodesy plan 
and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled (within the borders 
of the construction place).
The lack of survey of possible protection methods of trees of significant value, and the 
possibility of usage rainwater for irrigation are shortcomings of the application. 
Partitioning with green areas of the planned pavement surfaces could be a good solu-
tion to reduce the rate of pavement areas. With this the integration of the building into 
the park (to green surface) colud be realized in a better way.
There are several roof surfaces of which the covering with an extensive green roof 
should be taken into consideration. With this a significant (possible biodiverse) habitat 
could be created.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
8210
From an ecological view the key element of the application is to create some significant 
green surfaces in the boundaries of the new building. By doing this the Entrant aims 
to protect the existing greenery, mostly the trees also within and next to the borders 
of the construction place. However similarly to the other applications in this case large 
structures are built below the surface leve las well. In most cases this means high-volu-
me excavations, so protecting the existing trees could become impossible. During the 
excavations all of the existing trees next to the present building (Petõfi Csarnok) could 
be felled out, minimum 25 trees.
Another advantage of the application is the utilization of rainwater, so the irrigation of 
green surfaces could be supported.
Partitioning with green areas of the planned pavement surfaces could be a good solu-
tion to reduce the rate of pavement areas. With this the integration of the building into 
the park (to green surface) colud be realized in a better way.
103
There are several roof surfaces of which the covering with an extensive green roof 
should be taken into consideration. With this a significant (possible biodiverse) habitat 
could be created.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
8591
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face leve las well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. According to the plans of the application, the geodesy plan 
and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled (within the borders 
of the construction place).
The lack of survey of the possible protection methods of trees of significant value, and 
the possibility of usage rainwater for irrigation are shortcomings of the application. 
A strong element of the application is integrating the building into the park by making 
the most part of the roof surfaces walkable for visitors. The application does not make 
clear whether the roof surfaces will be covered by vegetation or not.
Although not contained within the design criteria it would be worth considering the 
possibilities of planting the vertical facades (application of climbers, not artificial green 
wall systems – according to the BREEAM recommendations).
8603
Similarly to the other applications in this case large structures are built below the sur-
face level as well. In most of the cases this means high-volume excavations, so the pos-
sibility of vanishing of the exsisting green surface with trees of significant value (accor-
ding to VÉSZ) is most likely. This resulted 3 trees of significant value (according to 
VÉSZ) to be felled within the borders of the construction place. Next to the borders of 
the construction place the protection of 7 further trees of significant value (according 
to VÉSZ) is in question. According to the plans of the application, the geodesy plan 
and the regulations another 58 trees probably needed to be felled (within the borders 
of the construction place).
The lack of survey of the possible protection methods of trees of significant value is a 
shortcoming of the application.
104
I have not found in the application a specific reference to the possibility of using 
rainwater for irrigation.
A strong element of the application is integrating the building into the park by making 
the most part of the roof surfaces walkable for visitors. The application does not make 
clear whether the roof surfaces will be covered by plantation or not.
Partitioning with green areas of the planned pavement surfaces could be a good solu-
tion to reduce the rate of pavement areas. With this the integration of the building into 
the park (to green surface) colud be realized in a better way.
The calculated value of green area is missing from the application.
105
cost
predicted cost of buildiNg
iMpleMeNtatioN 
sáNdor Márk
0476
S size, one mass,significantly floats above terrain, very segmented shape, plain vertical 
facade, double bent roof, H=appr 30, large voids, medium size subterrain penetration, 
wide spans, large overhangs, shroud on limestone facae, roof under roof, walkable sky-
light, terrace roof, wildflower meadow with crushed blue glass, large size exterior cei-
lings, marble floor, open air atrium, waterfall, observation terrace.  
2564
L size, one mass, stemms from terrain, box on quadrangular contour, plain vertical 
facade, plain horizontal roof, H= 20, small void, medium size subterrain penetration, 
wide spans (30), small cantilever, translucent facade with 
marble
and white recycled glass ceramic (structural), skylights and solid roof, medium size ext-
erior ceilings, lights behind acoustic interior ceiling membrane, pocket garden walls 
with travertine.
3087
M size, one mass, stemms from terrain, double bent facade on wavy contour (95%) and 
plane facade (5%), plain horizontal roof, H=appr  25-30, significant voids, light subter-
rain penetration, normal spans, concrete inner skin, perforated and solid panel outer 
skin, walkable roof.
3405
XL size, four separate masses, stemms from terrain, boxes on quadrangular contour, 
plain vertical facade, plain horizontal roof, H= 27,8,  23,8,  23,6,  17,6, small void, deep 
subterrain penetration, wide spans.
3759
M size, one mass, moderately floats above terrain, very segmented shape, plain vertical 
facade, criss-cross- segmented inclined plain roofs, H= 25,0, large voids, deep subterra-
in penetration, short spans, exposed prefabricated concrete joist slab on facade
with painted steel columns and glass handrail, anodized alumínium plate roof and
exposed concrete terrace, exterior ceilings.
106
6418
M size, one mass, stemms from terrain, tower and „bas-relief” on quadrangular con-
tour, plain vertical facade, structured-segmented inclined plain roofs, H= 12,  12-25,  40, 
moderate voids, medium size subterrain penetration, wide and normal spans, skylight
and sandwich panels with hexagonal colour ceramic tiling roof, glazed facade with 
wooden mullios.
8210
M size, one mass, stemms from terrain, box on quadrangular contour, plain vertical 
facade, parabolic roof, H= 25-29, moderate voids, light subterrain penetration, short 
and wide spans, erched cable-beam-glass roof, translucent fine porcelain coated glas-
sed panels, veils.
8591
M size, one mass, stemms from terrain, semi counter-wedges on round contour, s-plain 
vertical facade, inclined roof, H=appr  26, large voids, light subterrain penetration, wide 
spans, concrete waffle slab, facade with glass panels, adaptive shading, ceramic tiles, 
roof with  coloured tile and seating and skylights and informal exhibition and photovol-
taic panels.
8603
L size, one mass, stemms from terrain, full counter-wedges on quadrangular contour, 
plain vertical facade, inclined roof, 20-0,  40-0, large voids, deep subterrain penetra-
tion, wide spans expected (regular grid: 12 m) with in-situ-cast concrete, bi-axial hol-
low core slabs, thermal activation building system, facade with rammed earth and core 
insulation, roof is public staircase with concrete and stone stairs and terraces, local 
openings, vast Tilted glass wall with reinforced concrete fins, photovoltaic panels, solar 
panels, shading.
107
cost
predicted cost of buildiNg 
MaiNteNaNce
jáNos kocsáNy
0476
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
2
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
3
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
2
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
4
Opening light (window) 
3
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
3
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
3
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
2
Evaluation 3
2564
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
5
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
4
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
5
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
5
Opening light (window) 
4
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
5
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
5
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
5
Evaluation 5
3087
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
2
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
3
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
2
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
2
Opening light (window) 
3
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
2
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
1
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
2
Evaluation 2
108
3405
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
3
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
2
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
4
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
5
Opening light (window) 
5
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
4
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
3
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
3
Evaluation 4
3759
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
1
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
2
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
3
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
3
Opening light (window) 
2
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
1
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
2
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
1
Evaluation 2
6418
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
2
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
3
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
2
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
3
Opening light (window) 
2
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
1
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
2
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
1
Evaluation 2
8210
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
3
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
2
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
3
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
2
Opening light (window) 
4
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
3
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
3
109
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
4
Evaluation 3
8591
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
3
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
2
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
3
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
2
Opening light (window) 
4
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
3
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
3
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
4
Evaluation 3
8603
Evaluation Categories 
Building shape&siting (outside walls quantity, material) 
2
Green solutions (green roof, solar cell, rain water collection)  
1
Outside walls/windows (isolation, sunless or sunlit) 
1
The proportion of natural&artificial light, shading solution 
2
Opening light (window) 
3
Roof insulation, rooflight, maintenance need/cost 
2
Maintainable surface (quantity, material, accessibility) 
3
Building cleaning; inside&outside 
2
Evaluation 2
2. sz. Melléklet
a bírálati 
sorszámokhoz tartozó 
egyedi alfanumerikus 
azonosítószámok 
listája
111
0476
GV9QUJRY
2564
Y7MBCPQA
3087
H4JFQCSZ
3405
LUA9SMHF
3759
VGKWQJX2
6418
2LMURNGP
8210
XMDSJ8CB
8591
2YESFKDZ
8603
HWLNDCGQ
9764
LXF4PWKE