MEPHAREDInterior, atrium, skylight.

Render of a long four-storey university building clad in pale vertical fins and glass, seen across a lawn with a path, trees and students walking towards it at dusk.

At a glance

Design thinking: In a building people pass through, the thing they actually read is the ceiling.

Problem: A university of 2500 students and 15 departments had to read as open and easy to navigate.
Approach: Four skylight options drawn to the same member sizes, so the choice was about light and glass, not about structure.
Outcome: The packages went into the design development and construction documentation set for a building that is now built.

Role: One of four Architects, in charge of the interior, atrium, skylight, floor plan and fit-out packages.
What we designed: Atrium and its skylight
Skylight details
Floor plans
Furniture fit-out
Revit model
Duration: September 2020 onward, as the 2021 portfolio states it
Platforms: Atrium
Skylight
Interior fit-out

The atrium skylight

One set of member sizes, so the argument is about light.

All four options carry one structure: primary members 480 × 80, secondary 200 × 80, a one-sided fall of 1000 mm at roughly 5°. Those figures are printed; holding them constant is the method, because the options then differ only in glass division and direction of fall.

A fall of 1000 at 10 % is a 10 000 span, so the atrium is 10 m across — derived, not invented.

The detail, re-drawn.

A section at the printed dimensions: primary 480 × 80, secondary 200 × 80, falling 1000 across a 10 000 span to a gutter at the low side. The 2400 and 800 centres, the glass build-up, the 1100 parapet and the 4200 down to the gallery are assumed. Under the soffit, an Armstrong clip-in metal ceiling at 16 % open area — brand mark 2.

Architectural detail sheet titled MEPHARED, Drawing 02, Skylight detail: a long shallow section through a sloping glazed roof on deep beams with a cobalt dimension reading 1000 fall across a 10000 span, a gutter at the low end, the gallery and perforated ceiling below, and a strip of four small option diagrams numbered 01 to 04 marked carried forward or set aside.

The stair is the point: a shared walk through the middle, wide enough to sit on.

An atrium void of 36 000 × 10 000, galleries 5400 deep either side, the skylight on 2400 primary centres, a timber amphitheatre stair 9000 wide of 10 risers at 150 with a 450 going. Only the 10 000 and the member sizes are the portfolio’s; the rest is assumed. The 1st-floor plan on p.111 is cited, not shown: no crop of it carries a readable dimension. Brand mark 3.

Architectural plan sheet titled MEPHARED, Drawing 01, Atrium plan: a long rectangular plan with a shaded atrium void crossed by regular skylight beams, a shaded timber amphitheatre stair at the west end, a café counter and four round tables with chairs at the east end, keyed zones A to F and dimension strings reading 36000 and 10000.

The interior package, as the portfolio specifies it.

Every item in these four columns is written on a portfolio page.

01Ceiling
Portfolio pp.115–116
- Clip-in system from Armstrong
- RAL 9007, 30 % gloss
- Standard perforation Rg 2516
- Hole Ø2.5 mm, open area 16 %
- Metal acoustic panels
- Option 2 ticked, option 4 crossed; p.114 says no why
- A cove ticked for diffused light, downlights crossed
02Floor
Portfolio pp.113–116
- Carpet from Breno, Extreme 74
- Polyfor Loft White
- Timber, continuing the parapet
03Surfaces
Portfolio pp.110, 114–115
- White plaster ceiling and walls
- Light concrete columns
- Wood, natural stone, concrete, glass
04Fit-out
Portfolio pp.114–115
- Timber kitchen
- Closed shelves
- Timber shelves
- Two big fridges
- Light fitting not namedOpen

An open mark means the portfolio shows the decision but names no product.

What this page does not know.

A re-drawing of someone else’s building, from a portfolio page, has gaps. The portfolio itself gives no completion date, so none is claimed here.

D01
Where does the practice name come from?
Context
Portfolio p.110 prints the project, the dates, the phase and the five-person team, but no practice name.
Decision
From her CV: BOGLE Architects, Prague, June 2019 – July 2021, describing a university and research centre for pharmacy and medicine.
Why
The CV never names MEPHARED, so the match is by description, dates and scope, as both sheets say.
D02
Which figures are real?
Context
Printed: 480 × 80, 200 × 80, 1000 of fall at ≈ 5°, Rg 2516, Ø2.5, 16 % open, RAL 9007, Breno Extreme 74.
Decision
Derived: the 10 000 span. Assumed: everything else, labelled as such on each sheet and repeated in this text.
Why
The printed figures are the whole point of the page; mixing them with the assumed ones would waste the only hard evidence in the archive.