Xylopolis — Center for Art and Science of Wood

A cultural center celebrating Podlasie's wooden heritage — an interactive timber envelope shaped by solar and airflow analysis.

role: Computational design, analysis, technical drawings, renders
location: Białystok, Poland
org: WXCA
tutors: Michał Czerwiński
tools: Rhino · Grasshopper · Ladybug · 3ds Max · Corona · Revit · Illustrator

Xylopolis — Center for Art and Science of Wood

Overview

Xylopolis is a modern cultural facility combining educational, exhibition and recreational functions — a strategic project for the region, creating a cultural center that integrates the local community while promoting Podlasie's traditions, nature and brand across Poland and Europe. The architectural concept stems from a reflection on the coexistence of humans and nature, the impact of humans on the ecosystem, and the resulting responsibility.

The design emphasizes the aesthetic qualities of wood — the primary structural and finishing material of the pavilion. Wooden cladding with diverse textures, together with movable façade elements, forms an interactive spatial installation driven by air movement and the changing play of light and shadow throughout different times of the day and year. The building expresses the multifaceted role of natural phenomena in evoking comfort and harmony.

My role on the WXCA sustainable development team covered computational design and environmental analysis, design development, technical drawings, and renders. The program spans a multifunctional workshop and exhibition zone, carpenter workshop, main hall, bistro, kids' area, shop and conference room across six levels (Poziom -1 at -5.00 m up to Poziom 4 at 20.90 m).

Xylopolis title spread — concept text, sketch by Zuzanna Wołkowska and Plankton Group visualisation of the finished building

Convection chimney — section with airflow overlay and three outlet variants (No. 1 top, No. 2 side, No. 3 combined)

Step 1 — input parameters for the airflow simulation: temperature delta, wind, chimney geometry, openings, environmental factors, with boundary conditions on the 3D model

Step 2 — comparing the results: mean outlet velocities and efficiency for the three chimney variants, with velocity field visualisations

Step 3 — tangent-angle comparison: tg(58°) vs. tg(55°) vs. tg(44.5°) plotted on the ventilated-volume / opening-surface graph

Step 4 — final result visualisation: airflow vectors for variants 1, 2 and 3 with volumes 1053, 1533 and 1627 m³/h; variant 2 marked as the best solution

Ground / 1st / 2nd floor diagrams, W1–W2 envelope axonometric section, and interior renders of the workshop and bistro

Function-shell sketch variants, W3/W4 roof axonometric detail, façade prototype photo, and renders of the auditorium, interior and main hall

Shading panel analysis — A to E, energy and UTCI

Function specification — exploded function axonometry with vertical communication, perspective section, four elevations, ground-floor plan and section B-B

Solar shading — five panel variants

Five wooden shading geometries (A–E) were tested against June 21 (longest day), March 21 (equinox) and December 21 (shortest day). Panel B — the diagonal variant — let in the most winter sun (December shading 22.98%) while blocking summer sun (June shading 63.81%). March sat at 52.03% shading. Against the 22% target drawn from the March / December extremes, panel B hit the goal and was selected for the façade.

Shading — energy performance

Against an unprotected façade, panel B saved 60% of solar energy in March, 70% in June, and 48% in December — the strongest overall balance of the five options. Maximum incident energy without a panel was 0.713 kWh/m² (March 21), 3.04 kWh/m² (June 21) and 0.54 kWh/m² (December 21). The panel therefore prevents summer overheating while preserving winter heat gains on south-facing glazing.

Convection-chimney ventilation study

Three chimney outlet geometries were compared via airflow simulation at a 32 °C interior / 24 °C exterior delta. The goal was the largest volume of ventilated air for the smallest opening surface. Variant 1: 1053 m³/h (+11% vs. baseline). Variant 2 — side outlets: 1533 m³/h. Variant 3: 1627 m³/h (+42%). Variant 2 was selected.

Tangent comparison — why variant 2 wins

Plotting ventilated volume against opening surface, the optimal solution is the point with the steepest angle (below 90°) from axis A — so efficiency can be ranked directly by the tangent. tg(58°) for variant 2 beat tg(55°) for variant 1 and tg(44.5°) for variant 3, with a ratio of 100% : 89% : 58%. Variant 2 is the clear optimum: maximum airflow for the minimum opening surface.

Envelope detailing — W1 to W4

W1 (ground floor): 6 cm granite cube over 7 cm reinforced cement screed, PE foil, 15 cm XPS 300, 2× hydroisolation, 2 cm acoustic mat, 10 cm RC slab, 30 cm compacted sand. W2 (suspended ceiling): 2 cm wooden finish, 2× 12.5 mm fibre-cement board, 8 cm rock mineral wool, 2.5 cm vibration mat, 30 cm air gap, 16 cm CLT, 14 cm wooden-lamella suspended ceiling. W3 / W4 (wooden flat-roof terrace): vegetation substrate, filter fleece, drainage, XPS slope panels up to 22 cm, CLT and mineral-wool layers.