INDEX OF ARCHIVED ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RESULTS
• Booker T. Washington Performing Arts High School Results
• Federal Courthouse – Mobile, Alabama
• Queens Museum of Art – New York City
• Pedestrian Bridge Project
• BMW Factory Main Administration Building in Leipzig
• Little Haiti Housing Competition
• Architecture/Student Competitions
• Copenhagen Concert Hall
• Shinkenchiku Residential Design Competition 2001
• Izmir International Ideas Competition
• Queens Museum of Art Competition
• Berkeley Montessori School
• West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition
• Accomodating Change Circle 33 Innovation Housing
• Queens Museum of Art Expansion/Update
• Cusco Rehabilitation
• The Noise Pilot Project Competition
• ³Bahnstadt Heidelberg³
• Patriots Peace Memorial Competition
• Performing Arts Center
• International Competition for Regeneration of Prags Boulevard
• N.E.B. Biolab Research/Production Facility
• Chicago Public Schools
• 13 Acres International Competition
• Flemington Jewish Community Center
• Turner Centre, Margate
• Booker T. Washington High School
• New Nato HQ
• Nevada State College Competition
• Chicago Mixed-Income Housing
• Metro Plaza Design Competition
• Saluda Shoals International Design Competition
• 12th Takiron International
• Musée des Confluences in Lyon
• Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Richmond, Virginia
• On-site Briefing Notice/Architecture/Planning— Isla Vista
• New Performance Venue in Doncaster
• Results: Monument to the Third Millennium San Juan, Puerto Rico
• Green Homes for Chicago
• The San Francisco Prize
• 13-acres International Design Competition
• New School of Business
• City and County Museum, Lincoln
• Institurte for the Blind, Regensgurg, Germany
• Monument of the Third Millennium
• New Government Center Contra Costa County, Martizez, California
• Architecture/Finalists: University of Mew Mexica School of Architecture
• Anglia University Polytechnic – Centre for Business…
• St. Francis School: New Gymnasium and Arts Center Addition
• Helsinki Music Center Competitiion Results
• Architecture in Perspective
• Visitors Center in Bavarian National Park (Bayerischer Wald)
• HQ Bldg & Residential Accommodation, Stoke-on-Trent
• Helsinki Music Center Competition
• Shinkenchiku Residential Design 1999
• Finalists: Aftican Burial Ground Interpretive Center
• Results: Dundas Square Competition
• Results: School of Architecture Competition, Florida International University
• New Aomori Prefectural Athletic Park “General Gymnasium”
• School of Architecture Competition, Florida International University
• Results of Pittsburgh Convention Center Competition
• Conversion of the Keroman Submarine Base, Lorient (France)
• U.S. Courthouse, Springfield, MA
• Corcoran Gallery of Art Competition,Washington, D.C.
• OISTAT Prague Theater Competition
• Foster City (California) Government Center
• City Gateway Competition
• Florida International University• Bridgehaven 40th Anniversary National Design Competition
• Nahuel Huapi National Park Hotel (please note new deadlines)
• Beaux Arts Competition
____________
Booker T. Washington Performing Arts High School Results
Winner
Allied Works
Portland , Oregon
Finalists
Charles Rose Architects
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Scogin Elam Architects
Atlanta, Georgia
Carlos Jimenez
Houston, Texas
____________
Federal Courthouse – Mobile, Alabama
CBD Announcement for Three Phase A/E Selection Process
Architect Engineer Services Solicitation # _____________for Mobile, Alabama Courthouse
Due Date: 3:00 PM local time on October 26, 2001
The General Services Administration (GSA) announces an opportunity for Design Excellence in public architecture for performance of Architectural-Engineering Design for a new United States Federal Courthouse in accordance with General Services Administration (GSA) quality standards and requirements. The building is approximately 28,277 gross square meters (305,452 gross square feet) without parking, and approximately 30,235 gross square meters (325,452 gross square feet) including the fifty (50) interior secure parking spaces and fifty (50) exterior spaces. The proposed courthouse will provide a total of ten (10) courtrooms, six (6) district and four (4) magistrate courtrooms. The building will be occupied by: the District and Magistrate Courts, The U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. Probation, U.S. Pretrial Service, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal Service, Public Defender, Senate Offices, and GSA. The proposed facility will be constructed in Mobile, Alabama and the exact site is still to be determined. The Estimated Construction Cost range is $60,000,000 to $70,000,000. The facility will be designed in metric units. The scope of work will require at a minimum: metric construction drawings, specifications, cost estimates, computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) and post construction contract services (PCCS option to be exercised at a later date) for a facility that includes the construction of a new building and related systems, parking, site development, client program requirements, and sustainable features. The facility must be designed to meet the energy goal established by GSA. The building is also to include the GSA design standards for secure facilities, the Courts Design Guide requirements, the United States Marshals design requirements, the United States Attorneys Office design requirements, and any other agency specific guidelines as part of the design. This is a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of A/E Firms/Lead Designers interested in contracting of this work. The A/E firm as used in this RFQ is a firm association, joint venture partnership or other entity that will have contractual responsibility for the project design. The Lead Designer is the individual or design studio that will have primary responsibility to conceive the design concept and the buildings architecture. The A/E Firm must address the contractual relationship with the Lead Designer and its ability to manage the design and production of construction documents. In developing the project team, the A/E Firms are advised that at least 35% of the level of contract effort must be performed within the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, or Mississippi. The office/s meeting this 35% requirement must have an active production office/s within one of the states listed above established at least 90 days prior to the date of this announcement. For Stage II, as a member of the A/E team, the Architect of Record must be licensed in the state where the facility is to be located. The required license must be in place at all times during the selection process. The government will not allow payment for travel, living expense, computer time or hookups for the prime or the consultants. The A/E selection will be completed in three stages as follows: In Stage I, interested firms will submit portfolios of accomplishment that establish the design capabilities of the A/E Firm and its Lead Designer. All documentation will be in an 8 1/2 x 11 format. The portfolio should include the following: a cover letter referencing the CBD announcement and briefly describing the firm and its location, organizational makeup, and noteworthy accomplishments; and modified Standard Form 254 (Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire) and Standard Form 255 (Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project). Identification of consultants is not required at this stage. Submission requirements and evaluation criteria:
- For Stage 1, Past Performance on Design (35%): The A/E Firm will submit graphics (maximum of three pages per project) of not more than five new construction projects completed in the last ten years. The narrative (maximum of two pages per project) shall address the design approach with salient features for each project and discuss how the clients program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence where possible such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc., demonstrating design excellence. Provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address, phone, and fax numbers. A portion of one page presented for each project must include a representative floor plan and either a site plan or a building section. (2) Philosophy and Design Intent (20%): In the Lead Designers words, (maximum of two typewritten pages) state his/her overall design philosophy and approach to the challenge of public architecture, issues, and parameters that may apply in creating a state-of-the-art courthouse. (3) Lead Designer Profile (15%): Submit a biographical sketch (maximum of three pages) including education, professional experience, recognition for design efforts inclusive of examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project. (4) Lead Designer Portfolio (30%): Submit a portfolio representative of the Lead Designers ability to provide design excellence. Submit graphics (maximum of three pages per project) and a typewritten description (maximum of two pages per project) of up to three new construction projects completed in the last ten years. The narrative shall address the design philosophy with salient features for each project and discuss how the clients program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence where possible such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc., demonstrating design excellence. Where there is duplication with criteria (1), the Lead Designer will address his/her participation in the project. An A/E Evaluation Board consisting of private-sector peers, and representatives of the client and GSA will evaluate the submissions. The Board will establish a short-list of three to six firms.
- For Stage II, the short-listed firms will be notified and asked to submit more detailed information indicating each member of the design team, including all outside consultants. The firms will be required to complete Standard Forms 254 and 255 that reflect the entire design team. The Government will establish the detailed evaluation criteria and the date these submittals are due and provide the selection criteria for the interviews along with the Stage I short-list announcement. Sufficient time will be provided for the A/E Firm/Lead Designer to establish its team. The panel will interview each team. Candidates should be prepared to discuss all aspects of the criteria indicated above and to demonstrate their ability to fulfill all project requirements. Emphasis will be placed on the unique aspects of the project, design philosophy, possible approaches in carrying out the project, and project management. The Stage II evaluations will culminate with an interview with the A/E Evaluation Board. Stage II rankings will be used in conjunction with Stage I rankings to determine the firms that will be invited to participate in Stage III.
- For Stage III, a minimum of three firms will be invited to participate in Stage III, and will be further evaluated by an anonymous design competition, judged by a jury of independent design professionals. The purpose of the design competition is to further evaluate the A/Es qualifications for this project by evaluating the design merits of each designers Òvision for this specific project. The design competition proposals will be used in conjunction with Stage I and Stage II rankings in the final evaluation of the A/E Firms. The designers Òvision will weigh substantially in the final A/E Team selection by the GSA. A/E teams participating in Stage III will be issued a small purchase contract with GSA and be paid a fee for design services. The submitted design concepts become the property of the Government and may or may not be the basis, whole or in part, for the development of the final building design.
For Stage I Submittals: Firms having the capabilities to perform the services described in this announcement are invited to respond by submitting a SF-254 (for the A/E Design Firm), which must be dated not more than twelve (12) months before the date of this synopsis, and a SF-255 (for the ÒA/E Design Firm) along with letter of interest TO: General Services Administration, 401 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2500, by 3:00 PM local time on October 26, 2001. Please address submission to the attention of Ms. Jean Clark, 404-331-5484, Contracting Officer. The following information MUST be on the outside of the sealed envelope
Solicitation Number/Title, Due Date, Closing Time. Late responses are subject to F.A.R. Provision 52.214-7. In Block 8 of the SF-254 specify only current W-2 payroll (non-contract) personnel of each firm. In Block 10 of the SF-255, the A/E Design Firm MUST respond to the FOUR EVALUATION CRITERIA stated in the CBD announcement for this STAGE I Solicitation. In Block 11 of the SF-255, the A/E Design Firm MUST sign, name, title and date the submittal. This procurement is open to small and large business concerns. Before award of the contract, the A/E (if not a small business of $2,500,000 gross average over three years) shall be required to present an acceptable Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Public Law 95-507. Small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned firms are strongly encouraged to participate as prime contractors or as members of joint ventures with other small businesses. All interested large business firms are reminded that the successful firm will be expected to place subcontracts to the maximum practical extent with small and disadvantaged firms as part of their ORIGINAL SUBMITTED TEAMS. Contract will be procured under the Brooks Act and F.A.R. 36. This is not a Request for Proposal.
____________
Queens Museum of Art – New York City
On September 10, 2001, the Jury met and reviewed 199 Stage I submissions. The following Stage II Competitors and Alternates were selected:
STAGE II COMPETITORS
Eric Owen Moss Architects
Eric O. Moss
Culver City, California
Evidence Design
Jonathan C. B. Pascarosa
Brooklyn, New York
Fox & Fowle Architects
Bruce Fowle
New York, New York
Hanrahan Meyers Architects
Thomas Hanrahan
New York, New York
Salazar Davis Architects
Mauricio Salazar
New York, New York
ALTERNATES
First Alternate:
Studio BAUTON
Peter Grueneisen
Los Angeles, California
Second Alternate:
Allied Works Architecture
Brad T. Cloepfil
Portland, Oregon
Third Alternate:
Colab Architecture
Felecia Davis
Ithaca, New York
____________
Pedestrian Bridge Project
Sponsor: City of Wildwood, Missouri
Type: open, national, 2-stage
Eligibility: (artists, architects, engineers, etc. with residence in the United States
Timetable:
25 Sept 01 Q&A period closes (5pm)
9 Oct 01 Last date questions and answers posted
12 Oct 01 Deadline for submissions
9 Nov 01 Short List announced with up to 5 Finalists notified
8 Dec 01 Site Visit and Briefing with Finalists
Budget: $800,000
Design challenge: To design a new bicycle and pedestrian overpass, which will serve as a functional connection between the City’s most populated residential area and the Town Center. The winning entry will create a landmark for the residents and trail users.
Background
From its earliest settlers to today’s newest residents, the area of Wildwood has been admired and valued for its unique natural beauty and character. Located approximately twenty-five miles west of Metropolitan St. Louis, the City of Wildwood was incorporated in 1995 with the intent to protect the natural environment; assure the integrity of the greenbelt created by its four regional parks; and establish a framework for residential, institutional, and commercial development that is consistent with community-based, long-range planning goals and prudent land utilization practices.Ê
Near the center of the community, an area designated as the Town Center was established to serve as its core. As the City’s main activity center, it has been a goal to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Town Center, surrounding residential areas, and the four regional parks within the City. Great attention is being given to the aesthetics of this system of multiple-use trails by providing substantial landscaping and properly designed and inviting open space areas for the public.
Questions:
Questions related to the project and process shall be submitted through e-mail to:
Mary McElwain
e-mail: mcfinearts@earthlink.net,
by fax to 636-458-6969, or by mail to:
Pedestrian Bridge Project
City of Wildwood
16962 Manchester Road
Wildwood, MO 63040
For the complete program, application and submission procedures, go to the City of Wildwood website at:
www.cityofwildwood.com
____________
BMW Factory Main Administration Building in Leipzig
Type: RfQ, open, 2-stage (20 firms to be shortlisted)
Languages: German and English
Submission date: 24 September 2001
For information go to the BMW website (English version)
____________
Little Haiti Housing Competition
Type; Open, anonymous
Eigibility: Open, International
(The winner may be required to collaborate with a licensed south-Florida architect if not from the state of Florida.)
Fee: Registration fee of US$35 postmarked by August 15th.
Timetable:
1 August 01 Programs mailed
15 Aug 01 Registration closes
1 Sept 2001 Q& A period closes
15 Sept 01 Final submissions due
Awards
Up to 10 teams will be awarded $200 as ³Finalists².
From the finalist a winner(s) will be chosen as well as $5,000 credited toward the production of full working drawings and the commission will be awarded. Once the commission has been awarded the architect enters into negotiation with LHHA and a normal building process will begin.
Jury:
A group of judges comprised of financial, design, construction and community peer representatives.
form of a check or money order should be received/postmarked by August 15, 2001
The Scattered Housing Project (SHP) is a housing competition for the design of Œaffordable¹ scattered housing in the Little Haiti Neighborhood of Miami City. This project will serve as part of an ongoing initiative to improve housing conditions in our urban areas. This project is spearheaded by Little Haiti Housing Association (LHHA), A Not-for-profit Community Development Corporation, in collaboration with the Florida International University School of Architecture. Most important this project engages the people that comprise the community of Little Haiti.
Challenge:
The aim of the SHP Housing Competition is to improve knowledge of the different options for cost effective housing construction with emphasis on:
- the enviromental setting of South Florida and the micro climate of Little Haiti ;
- the Cultural setting of Little Haiti;
- the goals and aspirations of the residents of Little Haiti;
- the design implications and suggestions for non- conforming Lots
- design flexibility
- value engineering
- environmental impact, energy efficiency and Œgreen¹ building technologies
- design invation and ³smart growth²
The designs submitted to the competition should offer a wide range of construction options, regulatory variances and living styles, with each design being estimated to cost under $65.00 per. sq. ft.. vertical cost. Community initiatives, innovative building materials and processes, use of existing resources, and expansion potential suggestions should characterize the entries received. The architect can submit an adaptable prototype or a site specific design (based on typical lot size and block location) The winning entries will offer a variety of solutions to the competition brief. All will share a commitment to resolving issues of design, simplicity of construction, and cost in a way that would create living environments beyond average expectation. The commission for the first eight houses will be awarded to 1 (or more) architect(s) wthl the final approval of the Executive Director of the Little Haiti Housing Association.
Opportunities for owner input will be considered as an important parameter for judging. Entrants will be encouraged to discuss the potential of owner involvement in construction, and design development as an important means of building self esteem and developing useful skills which would have value in the community at large. In most instances, the owner would be contributing labor, as contract management is another cost saving consideration.
Houses
Houses had to be designed for one of the following two Scenarios:
1. Three Bedrooms house with two the- matic variations
2. Four Bedrooms house with two thematic variations
Buildings had to be able to be constructed for less than $80,000 or under $65.00 per. sq. ft.. inclusive of all base building finishes and labor. This price ceiling is for construction of an individual dwelling including all vertical constrcution cost excluding any site related infrastructural costs such as water and sewage impact costs. Entries need to comply with the South Florida Building Code, as well as minimum housing standards of the City of Miami home program and the Miami-Dade County housing agency surtax program.
The floor area, internal and external planning, etc, are at the discretion of the competitors, as long as zoning, code and fiscal prudence are observed and all plausible variances are indicated. The design must to provide acceptable living, sleeping, cooking, bathroom, and laundry facilities.
Submission Criteria
Each team must consist of at least one liscenced architect. The final boards should consist of at the most three faomcore boards of 24² x 36² and one presentation quality model. The boards must have incorporated 1 set of 1/4²=1¹-0² Plan(s), Section(s), Elevation(s) and three-dimensional drawing (axonometric/ perspective). A plain envelope should be afixed to the rear of each board with the identity of each team member. Fee in the form of a check or Money order is to be made out to Little Haiti Housing Association – Scattered Housing Project (LHHA-SHP). Cash will NOT be accepted.
Send to:
Little Haiti Scattered Housing Project
Attn: N. Belcher
School of Architecture
Florida International University
University Park
Miami, FL 33199
Information is also available at the Bienal website: www.bienalmiami.com
____________
Architecture/Student Competitions
Miami Lifeguard Station Competition
Sponsors: City of Miami Beach; Miami Bienal 2001
Type: Open, student, one-stage
Languages: English and Spanish
Fee: $10 ($20 for late registration after September 12)
Prizes: $1,000 for winning design
Honorable mentions at the discretion of the jury.
Timetable:
5 June 01 Program available on website
1 Oct 01 Entries due by 4 pm
12 Oct 01 Announcement of winners
Budget: $12,000 (includes labor & materials)
Jury: Neil Frankel, FAIA
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill
Michael Kerwin
Spillis Candela and Partners
Nicholas Chaparos, Former Chair
School of Design, Univ. of Cincinnati
Professional Adviser: G. Stanley Collyer, Ph.D.
Presentation requirements:
All designs are to be presented on one (1) 24 x 36 foamcore board. Students residing outside of the U.S. will be permitted to submit their designs on a 24 x 36 sheet rolled in a tube for shipment. Since the competition is anonymous, drawings are to be accompanied by a sealed envelope containing the name, address, e-mail address, etc. of the participant.. Use of metric scale is permitted.
Site and location: The lifeguard tower, the object of this competition, is to be located adjacent to the internationally famous South Beach in the city of Miami Beach, Florida. In relation to the city grid, the site aligns with Collins Avenue anywhere between 2nd and 30th streets. The generous dimensions of the beach at that location allows for ample circulation around the tower, which, for the purpose of the competition, can be considered a Òfree-standing object in the sand.
To register, a check made out to Bienal 2001/FIU should be sent to:
Bienal 2001
School of Architecture
Florida International University
Attn: Jaime Canaves FAIA
Miami, FL 33199
Tel: (305) 348-1867; Fax: (305) 348 6716
Email: bienal@fiu.edu
Website: bienalmiami.com
____________
Copenhagen Concert Hall
Sponsor: Danish Radio
Type: RfQ, open (5-8 teams to be selected)
Three teams have already been selected:
- Jean Nouvel
- Rafael Moneo
- Snohetta
(A list of 8 acoustical engineers will be made available)
Timetable:
7 August 2001 Deadline for RfQs
August-September Interviews
Languages: Danish and English
All teams who submit a complete proposal will, in addition to the prize for the winners, receive a fee of DKK 1,300,000 (approx. $150,000)
DR (Danish Radio) has prepared a master-plan for a new headquarters of approximately 100,000m2 gross floor area in restad near Copenhagen. The project includes office and editorial areas, workshops, TV and radio technical areas and a concert hall. All four segments are being tendered separately.
The competition covers the overall consultancy (architecture, acoustics and engineering services) for an arena-shaped concert hall with an approximate capacity of 1,600 seats, an orchestral hall with approx. 250 seats, studios and music editorial areas of approx. 21,000m2 gross floor area including basement.
Application procedure (for details of supplementary information, contact Jan Sorensen at COWI.)
For additional information:
COWI
Parallelvej 2
DK-2800 Lyngby
Att: Jan Bering Sorensen
Tel: +4545972420
E-mail: jbs@cowi.dk
Contracting authority:
DR (Danish Radio)
TV-Byen
DK-2860 Soborg
Tel: +45 35203542
Fax: +45 35203540
____________
Shinkenchiku Residential Design
Competition 2001
Type: Open, international
Date by which time submissions must be received:
3 September 2001(Monday)
Jury: MVRD
Challenge:
In order to activate a possible further meeting for this possibly naive “ideas competition,” merely based on poetics, this competition will be positioned within MVRD’s research into the dense 3 dimensional city: KM3. This research program wants to investigate the reaction of the city and the individual with the upcoming demand for densified mixed use zones on the globe-to be published in 2002.
How does, in the case of this competition, the house play a role on city planning? How does city planning influence the planning of the small house? What ‘data’ interfere?
This ambition reacts on the classical western position and the very definition of the house: its position of solitude in the landscape-the ultimate dream for many families, architects and magazines-has brought designs that are derived only from highly private and exclusive parameters.
What happens now as these spaces become unpayable and unreachable? What houses, or homes will be made under superdense circumstances?
What demands does the private domain claim in an overwhelming dense and endless surrounding?
What intimacy does it require?
How does one survive within this endless world?
At what moment does the house start to react, to resist?
What happens to the house when it is directly surrounded by others?
What data intrude on the domestic? For instance, the house could be surrounded by a water plant on top, a highway on the right, a cemetery underneath, a neighbor on the left, an electricity line in front, an Ikea at the back. What homes can we expect when it becomes a ‘niche’ in a wider format? How should we include “life” within those, from a classical perspective, with seemingly characterless conditions?
Can it make an alliance with this surrounding world and thus include character?
What alliances can then be found between the domestic and the outer world? Does the water plant give a new meaning and maybe new usage for the house for instance? How can other professionals (hydrology engineers, sewage designers, civil engineers for roads, demographers) become part of the operation? What benefits can be expected from these new alliances? Is it really impossible to live next to a nuclear power plant?
Construct (or find) therefore a dense mixed use surrounding.
Analyze the intruding data. Define the house, including demographical applications (This is not a house for an artist. It is for an ‘average,’ even generic occupancy). Define its mixed use surrounding, based on systemized data.
Can it formulate a new idealism under these circumstances?
Application and entry: Contents: Site plan, floor plan, elevation, section, projections, or perspective drawings, and an axonometric drawing. If you like, you may add a brief verbal explanation of your intentions; but this must fit on the specified pieces of paper. Representational scales are left to the discretion of the entrant.
Paper: Two sheets of any kind of paper, each measuring 594 X 841 millimeters. Do not use panels!
Media: Pencil, ink, blueprints, photostats, photographs, colored drawings, and so forth are acceptable; but electronic media such as videotapes, CD-Roms, etc. are not acceptable.
Identification: The rear side of each of the two sheets of paper must show the entrant’s name, occupation, age, address (or business address) and telephone number (home or office). All of these should be typed for the sake of legibility. Cover this information with a strip of opaque paper that may be be removed later.
Deadlines: Entries must reach address no later than September 3, 2001. Send entries by mail only. Do not use air cargo.
Mail to following address:
Entries Committee
Shinkenchiku Residential Design Competition 2001
Shinkenchiku-sha Co. Ltd.
31-2 Yushima 2-chrome
Bunkyo-ku
Tokyo 113-8501
Japan
____________
Izmir International Ideas Competition
Design Challenge: In developing the Aslancak-Turan district in Izmir, Turkey, the municipality wishes to enhance the contemporary image of the city allow it to affirm its status as an international city by facilitating its urban, economic and cultural expansion. The municipal authorities would like to give this former industrial area a strong urban boost, in harmony with the subtility and charm of its evironment. The competition focusses on commercial, administrative, cultural and leisure development. (Download the website.)
Eligibility: World architects, urban planners, etc.
Competition languages: Turkish and English
Entry fee: US $150
For information on payment of fee and registration, visit the UIA website.
July:
Charles Correa (India)
Ismail Serageldin (Egypt)
Ahmet Gulgone (France/Turkey)
Kok Leong Chia (Singapore)
Dogan Kuban (Turkey)
Hande Suher (Turkey)
Prizes:1st prize(1): US$80,000/ 2nd prize(1): US$55,000/ 3rd prize(1):
US$30,000/ Honorable mentions(6): US$25,000 each
Timetable:
June 30, 2001 (registration)
Nov. 20–Dec. 8, 2001 (submisstion)
Address:
Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi (Municipality of Greater Izmir),
Planlama Mudurlugu, Konak
Izmir, Turkey
Tel: 90-232-483-1953/ Fax: 90-232-425-9768
E-mail:cturksoy@izmir-bld.gov.tr
http://www.uia-architectes.org/
____________
Queens Museum of Art Competition –
Jury and Revised
Timetable/Entry Fee
Type: Open, two-stage
Eligibility: The competition is open to individuals licensed to practice architecture in the U.S. Participants in the Second Stage must have a New York State-licensed architect on their team.
Entry fee: $75
Jury
BEN VAN BERKEL, Architect
UN Studio, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
LAURENE BUCKLEY, PH.D.
Queens Museum of Art, Queens, New York
DAVID CHILDS, FAIA
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, New York, NY
SUSAN CHIN, FAIA
New York City Department of Cultural Affairs
MERRILL ELAM, AIA
Scogin, Elam and Bray Architects, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia
ENRIQUE NORTEN, HON. FAIA
TEN Arquitectos, Mexico City, Mexico, and Brooklyn, NY
ANNE PAPAGEORGE, RLA
New York City Department of Design and Construction
PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR:
RALPH LERNER, FAIA
Ralph Lerner Architect PC, Princeton, New Jersey
Timetable
Registration Deadline: 16 July 2001
Materials Available to Registered Competitors: 2 July 2001
Stage I Questions Deadline: 31 July 2001
Stage I Answers Posted: 6 August 2001
Stage I Submission Deadline: 31 August 2001
Stage II Competitors Announced: 11 September 2001
Stage II Site Visit & Briefing: 24 September 2001
Stage II Questions Deadline: 19 October 2001
Stage II Answers Posted: 26 October 2001
Stage II Submission Deadline: 30 November 2001
Awards Announced: 10 December 2001
Exhibition: January 2002
Registration
To register for this competition, and receive a copy of the Competition Conditions, Drawings, and Photos,
submit a completed Registration Form, along with a cashier’s or certified check in the amount of $75
payable to the NYC Department of Design and Construction. Please mail the completed Registration Form
and check to:
Queens Museum of Art Design Competition
c/o Ralph Lerner Architect PC
306 Alexander Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
The registration form is available on the Competition Website: www.nyc.gov/buildnyc
____________
Berkeley Montessori School
Type: RfQ, open (5 finalists to be chosen)
Timetable:
16 July 2001 – RfQ deadline
Nov 2001 – Submissions due
Budget: $3.2M
Compensation: $5,000 for each team
Design challenge: The Berkeley Montessori School has recently purchased the old Santa Fe railroad station in Berkeley, CA to reuse it for their Elementary and Middle School. In order to apply the best quality design talent to the reuse of this historic structure, the School is sponsoring an invited one-stage competition to select a winning Master Plan for this new campus, and thereby, to select the team to implement the first elements of this Plan.
The Master Plan will address the long-term facilities needs of the Elementary and Middle School, with particular emphasis on the initial Plan elements that include new classrooms, teaching labs, administrative and support spaces, and outdoor areas. These initial elements are estimated to have a total project cost of approximately $3.2 million and will include approximately 9,000 ASF of new construction and 5,700 ASF of remodeling work in the existing building. Construction of these elements is scheduled to begin in 2002, subject to funding.
The School is seeking Statements of Qualifications from architectural teams who are interested in participating in this competition. The School intends to select five architectural teams to participate in this competition based on their qualifications to implement their designs. Each team selected as a Finalist will receive an honorarium of $5,000 to help defray their competition costs.
The competition will be conducted in Oct.-Nov. 2001 following community workshops with the selected finalists at the beginning of the School year to develop design objectives for the competition.
For the Request for Qualifications, for information regarding Berkeley Montessori School and for notices regarding this competition, visit the school website: BMSonline.org
Please address all questions concerning this competition to:
Bill Liskamm, FAIA
Competition Adviser
e-mail: BklyMontessori@aol.com
West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition
Type: International, open
Eligibility : The Competition is open to all qualified planners and architects.
Registration deadline : 8 June 2001 (5:00 p.m. Hong Kong time)
Submission deadline : 29 September 2001 (12:00 noon Hong Kong time)
First Prize : HK$3.0 million
Second Prize : HK$1.5 million
Honourable Mentions (3) : HK$0.8 million each
Design Challenge: To invite conceptual proposals for the development of a prominent waterfront area at the West Kowloon Reclamation in Hong Kong into an integrated arts, cultural and entertainment district.
Objective : Through the development, to enhance Hong Kong¹s position as Asia¹s premiere centre of arts, culture and entertainment and create a new look for Victoria Harbour.
Scheme Area : A newly reclaimed site of 40 hectares at the southern tip of the West Kowloon Reclamation in Kowloon Peninsula, Hong Kong. It is in close proximity to Tsim Sha Tsui which is a vibrant tourist, shopping and entertainment district with a wide range of leisure, entertainment as well as arts and cultural facilities.
The Proposals : The concept plan proposals should provide vision and innovative and viable
ideas that will shape the future development of this waterfront area as a unique attraction for both local people and visitors. The proposals should be aesthetically attractive, functional, broadly feasible and in compliance with the policy objectives of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the HKSARG) in promoting arts and culture.
Development Right : There is no linkage between the Competition and the eventual development right of the Scheme Area.
Development of Scheme Area
It is the intention of the HKSARG that following the Competition, a team will be appointed through the normal consultants selection process, to finalize a detailed masterplan for the Scheme Area on the basis of the winning conceptual proposals, if appropriate. Winners of the Competition will be automatically pre-qualified for inclusion in the list of consultants to be invited for bidding for the masterplanning work.
Based on the detailed masterplan, the HKSARG will then decide on how the Scheme Area will be developed. Packages within the Scheme Area suitable for private sector development will be decided by public tender, which will be open to all. Subsequent architectural design competitions may be conducted for selected individual buildings/facilities. Winners of the Competition will also be invited to take part in bids for development and informed of the subsequent architectural design competitions for individual buildings/facilities in the Scheme Area.
For further information, contact
Coordinator for the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition
Room 723, 7/F, North Point Government Offices,
333 Java Road, North Point,
Hong Kong
Fax : (852) 2117 0772
Email : wkrcpc@pland.gov.hk
Website : http://www.plb.gov.hk/competition
____________
Accomodating Change Circle 33 Innovation Housing Competition
Competition organizer: The Architecture Foundation
Type: Open, 2-stage
Eligibility: Open to British and foreign architects. All candidates must be professionally certified according to the laws of their country and therefore authorised to practice their profession and to participate in architectural design competitions at the time of this announcement. Applications will be accepted from single inividuals, incorporated firms or design teams; in the latter cases, a team leader must be designated who complies with the above conditions.
Registration fee: £25
Timetable:
Deadline for registration – 18th May 2001
Deadline for submission (stage 1) – 8 June 2001 (5 pm)
Deadline for submission (stage 2) – 21 September 2001
The jury is to include: Frank Duffy, Ian Ritchie, Anne Lacatone, Roger Zogolovitch and Ed Soja.
Challenge: Accomodating Change, Circle 33´s innovation in housing competition aims to explore the possibility for development of new house-plan typologies. It has been argued that current housing in general does not adequately reflect the needs of the heterogeneous range of lifestyles that are actually lived in the post-modern and multi-cultural age. The competition brief asks: Is it possible to identify `core´ or immutable elements in a dwelling as separate from those that can change over time, over generations? How does the design and layout of individual spaces in a dwelling accomodate diversity of use and change over time? Do designs to the current standards adequately fulfil the functional and emotional needs of diverse occupants in the 21st Century? What ideas govern internal spatial organisation? Is it possible to provide more space in houses and is there a new way to measure it? What layouts are dictated by current space standards, building regulations and the financial demands of subsidies and lending institutions an to what extent should they be challenged? Does the open plan afford greater or lesser flexibility than a series of separate rooms? It is hoped that the challenges of this competition, which is intended to be the first of a biennial initiative, will not only generate innovative design ideas but will also look further into the use of urban space and improving environmental quality more generally. It is intended that the winning design will actually be built on a site in Bow, in East London.
Selection procedure: A maximum of 6 entries will be selected by a jury as finalists. The jury may also select other entries for special mention. Selection of finalists will be made anonymously. Stage 2 Invited Competition The selected finalists will be publicly announced. All Stage 2 design teams will receive an honorarium of £ 6,000 (including VAT) to produce detailed design proposals.
Any practice considering entering the Accommodating Change competition should contact:
Eve Chung at The Architecture Foundation for a competition brief.
e-mail: mail@architecturefoundation.org.uk or
telephone 020 7253 3334.
____________
Queens Museum of Art Expansion/Update
Sponsors: New York City Department of Design and Construction/Department of Cultural Affairs/Queens Museum of Art
Type: Open, two-stage
Eligibility: The competition is open to individ- uals licensed to practice architec ture in New York State, or teams led by an architect licensed to practice architecture in the state.
14 May 2001 Competition brief may be downloaded from website
15 June 2001 Registration Deadline
29 June 2001 Submission Deadline
Entry Fee: None
Awards: Design commission
All Stage I entries will be included in an exhibition at the Queens Museum of Art. Five finalists will be chosen, each receiving a stipend to further develop his/her designs. It is the sponsor¹s intent to award the project to the competition winner.
Jury:
4 Design professionals;
3 Administration jurors
NYC’s Department of Design and Construction, in partnership with the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Queens Museum of Art, is pleased to announce a two-stage, architectural design competition for an expansion of the Queens Museum of Art. The museum is dedicated to presenting the highest quality contemporary art and educational programming for people in the New York City metropolitan area and particularly for the residents of Queens, a uniquely diverse ethnic, cultural, international community. Founded in 1972, the museum is home to the world’s largest architectural scale model, called the Panorama of the City of New York, and occupies a historic building that served as the New York City Pavilion for the 1939 and 1964 world’s fairs.
Program: The goal of this competition is to select an architect to design an expansion of approximately 50,000 square feet to the Queens Museum of Art. This expansion will double the museum’s existing space and provide additional exhibition, educational, office, storage, and other areas. To assist the Queens Museum of Art in determining its future by critical examination of a multitude of different concepts, Stage I of the competition will be idea-based and will focus on innovative approaches to the museum’s
expansion.
For more information, visit:
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/ddc/html/qma/compete.html
____________
Cusco Rehabilitation
Type: International, open
Theme: Rehabilitation of the Urban Space of the Square San Francisco de Asis
of Cusco, Peru
Eligibility: World architects.
Prizes: 1st prize(1) – $15,000/2nd prize(1) – $8,000/3rd prize(1) – $4,000/
Some honorable mentions.
Timetable
May 5, 2001 (registration)
July 6, 2001 (submission)
Address: International Competition of Ideas: Rehabilitation of the Urban
Space of San Francisco de Asis Square, Calle Pumacurco No. 470, Cusco, Peru
Fax: 51-84-243291
E-mail: chcusco@aeci.org.pe
http://www.aecicusco.com.pe/basesi.htm
____________
The Noise Pilot Project Competition
Theme: Noise has various dimensions: there is a source, the noise is
transferred, and it is perceived. Measures and concepts submitted may relate
to any of three dimensions. A distinction is made between concrete measures
that can be demonstrated in the spring of 2002 in a 1:1 scale
situation(Category 1), and concepts which, given their stage of
development, can only be visualised( Category 2).
Eligibility: No limitations
Prize money: Public prize: NLG10,000(=EUR4,537.80)
Deadline: June 5, 2001(submission)
Address: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Roads to
the Future, Noise Pilot Project Entry, c/o Directorate-General of Public
Works and Water Management, Civil Engineering Division
Griffioenlaan 2,
P.O. Box 20000
3502 LA Utrecht, The Netherlands
http://www.minvenw.nl/rws/wnt/wa/geluid /en/
____________
³Bahnstadt Heidelberg³ – A planning competition for an area in Heidelberg, Germany encompassing 114 hectars located to the southwest of the present main railroad station
Type: Open, RfQ (Up to 24 participants to be chosen + 6 invited firms)
Competition language: German
Deadline for RfQs: 8 June 2001
Städtebaulicher Realisierungswettbewerb “Bahnstadt Heidelberg³
Auslober: Stadt Heidelberg, Stadtplanungsamt, Palais Graimberg, Kornmarkt 5, 69045 Heidelberg, und Deutsche Bahn AG, vertreten durch die Deutsche Bahn Immobiliengesellschaft mbH, Niederlassung Karlsruhe, Bahnhofstraße 5, 76137 Karlsruhe
Wettbewerbsmanagement: ANP Bergholter/Ettinger-Brinckmann, Hessenallee 2, 34130 Kassel, Tel.: 0561/707750, Fax: 0561/7077523, email: anp-ks@t-online.de
Wettbewerbsaufgabe: Die Stadt Heidelberg beabsichtigt gemeinsam mit der Deutschen Bahn AG, eine rd. 114 ha große Fläche südwestlich des Hauptbahnhofs als gemischt genutztes, zukunftsorientiertes Stadtquartier mit eigener Identität und hoher Lebensqualität zu entwickeln. Das Plangebiet umfasst Flächen der DB AG Rangierbahnhof, Güterbahnhof, ehem. Betriebswerk wie auch städtische Grundstücke und Grundstücke Dritter. Wettbewerbsaufgabe ist, hierfür ein Planungskonzept zu erarbeiten, das eine Verknüpfung mit den angrenzenden Stadt- und Landschaftsräumen, insbesondere der Heidelberger Innenstadt ermöglicht, und dabei den unmittelbar benachbarten Hauptbahnhof als Bindeglied einbezieht. Gefragt ist eine Gesamtkonzeption, die hohe städtebauliche Qualitäten aufweist, eine Realisierung in Schritten erlaubt und an veränderte Markt- und Bedarfssituationen anpassbar ist. Übergeordnetes Planungsprinzip soll die Orientierung am Ziel einer nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung sein, die sich durch ökologische Tragfähigkeit, soziale Stabilität und ökonomische Funktionsfähigkeit auszeichnet. Der Wettbewerb soll die Grundlage für die anschließende Erarbeitung einer städtebaulichen Rahmenplanung bilden und Aussagen zu Bau-, Nutzungs-, Erschließungs- und Freiraumstrukturen liefern.
Wettbewerbsart und Anzahl der Teilnehmer: Begrenzt offener 1-stufiger städtebaulicher Realisierungswettbewerb mit vorgeschaltetem offenem Bewerbungsverfahren gemäß GRW 1995. Die Wettbewerbssprache ist deutsch. Eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft zwischen freischaffenden Architekten bzw. Städtebauarchitekten/Stadt-planern mit Landschaftsarchitekten und Ingenieuren der Fachrichtung Verkehrsplanung ist erwünscht. Absicht ist, bis zu 24 Büros bzw. Arbeitsgemeinschaften für die Bearbeitung der Wettbewerbsaufgabe auszuwählen. Die tatsächliche Anzahl richtet sich nach der Anzahl qualifizierter Bewerbungen.
Folgende 6 Büros sind als Teilnehmer vorab genannt (invited firms): Mario Campi, Lugano; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Prof. Günter Telian, Karlsruhe, Lehmann Architekten, Offenburg; AS&P, Frankfurt/Main; Prof. arch. Augusto Burelli, Udine; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Nicolai und Reichl Sassenscheidt und Partner, Stuttgart; Trojan, Trojan + Neu, Darmstadt
Zulassungsbereich: Vertragsstaaten des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraums (EWR).
Teilnahmeberechtigung: Zur Bewerbung um die Teilnahme am Wettbewerb sind nur freischaffende Architekten bzw. Städtebauarchitekten/Stadtplaner, Landschaftsarchitekten und Verkehrsplaner zugelassen. Landschaftsarchitekten und Ingenieure der Fachrichtung Verkehrsplanung sind nur in Arbeitsgemeinschaft mit Architekten bzw. Städtebauarchitekten/Stadtplanern zugelassen. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaften müssen sich zusammensetzen aus natürlichen Personen, die am Tage der Auslobung im Zulassungsbereich ansässig sind und entsprechend den Regelungen ihres Heimatstaates berechtigt sind, die jeweiligen Berufsbezeichnungen zu führen. Ist in dem jeweiligen Heimatstaat die Berufsbezeichnung gesetzlich nicht geregelt, so erfüllt die fachliche Voraussetzung als Architekt bzw. Städtebauarchitekt oder Stadtplaner, als Landschaftsarchitekt sowie als Ingenieur der Fachrichtung Verkehrsplanung, wer über ein Diplom, Prüfungszeug-nis oder sonstigen Befähigungsnachweis verfügt, dessen Anerkennung nach der Richtlinie 85/384/ EWG gewährleistet ist. Juristische Personen sind teilnahmeberechtigt, sofern ihr satzungsgemäßer Geschäftszweck auf Planungsleistungen ausgerichtet ist, die der gestellten Aufgabe entsprechen. Bei juristischen Personen muss mindestens einer der Gesellschafter und der Verfasser der Wettbewerbsarbeit die Anforderungen erfüllen, die an natürliche Personen gestellt sind. Bei Arbeitsgemeinschaften muss jedes Mitglied teilnahmeberechtigt sein. Doppel- bzw. Mehrfachbewerbungen, d.h. Bewerbungen von Städtebauarchitekten bzw. Stadtplanern, Landschaftsarchitekten und Ingenieuren bzw. deren Büros in unterschiedlicher Konstellation sind nicht zulässig und führen zum Ausschluss sämtlicher Bewerbungen.
Bewerbungsunterlagen: Als Bewerbungsunterlagen sind in deutscher Sprache einzureichen: Eine Beschreibung jedes Büros (personenbezogene Daten, berufliche Qualifikation, personelle Ausstattung des Büros etc.). Die hierzu erforderlichen Angaben sind in ein Formblatt einzutragen. Das Formblatt kann beim Büro ANP per Fax – 0561/7077523 oder per e-mail bahnstadt@anp-ks.de angefordert werden. Gleiches Formblatt kann auch per Internet unter http://www.anp-ks/www.anp-ks/formblatt.html heruntergeladen werden. Das Formblatt ist ausgefüllt zurückzusenden und zu ergänzen um Arbeitsproben von für die Arbeitsweise jedes Büros typischen und für die Lösung der vorliegenden Wettbewerbsaufgabe vergleichbaren Projekten; die Unterlagen sind je Büro auf max. zwei DIN A4 Overhead-Folien zu begrenzen. Sonstige Unterlagen werden nicht berücksichtigt. Die Bewerbungsunterlagen werden nach Abschluss des Verfahrens nicht zurückgesandt.
Auswahlkriterien/Auswahl: Die Auslober werden mit beratender Unterstützung von Prof. Heinz Nagler, Cottbus, aus dem Kreis der Bewerber diejenigen zur Teilnahme am Realisierungswettbewerb auswählen, die aufgrund der aus ihren Bewerbungsunterlagen ersichtlichen gestalterischen, wirtschaftlichen und technischen Qualitäten sowie ihrer Erfahrung, Leistungsfähigkeit und Zuverlässigkeit für die Lösung der anstehenden Planungsaufgabe am geeignetsten erscheinen. Bei gleicher Qualifikation entscheidet das Los. Die Auslober behalten sich vor, bis zu fünf Teilnehmer auszuwählen, die dem beruflichen Nachwuchs angehören (zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung nicht länger als 5 Jahre nach Diplom berufstätig Nachweis über Diplomurkunde). Ihre Arbeitsproben können sich auf nicht vergleichbare Projekte beschränken. Die ausgewählten Teilnehmer werden verpflichtet, ihre Teilnahme am Verfahren (in angemessener Frist auf einem Formblatt) verbindlich zu erklären. Liegen bis zur gesetzten Frist diese Erklärungen nicht vor, treten an ihre Stelle Nachrücker. Die Nachrücker werden durch das Auswahlgremium festgelegt. Alle Bewerber werden über das Ergebnis der Auswahl unterrichtet. Die Entscheidungen des Auswahlgremiums sind endgültig. Einsprüche gegen die Auswahl der Wettbewerbsteilnehmer sind nicht zulässig. Der Rechtsweg ist ausgeschlossen.
Abgabe der Bewerbung: Die Bewerbungsunterlagen sind spätestens bis zum 8. Juni 2001 (Datum des Poststempels) zu richten an: Büro ANP Bergholter/Ettinger-Brinckmann, Hessenallee 2, 34130 Kassel.
Fachpreisrichter: Prof. Cornelia Bott, Korntal-Münching; Prof. Michael Braum, Berlin/Hannover; Kees Christiaanse, Rotterdam; Prof. Franz Pesch, Stuttgart; Gisela Stete, Darmstadt Stellvertreter: Prof. Martin Schirmer, Würzburg
Sachpreisrichter: Bernhard H. Hansen, DB AG, Frankfurt am Main; Prof. Dr. Raban von der Malsburg, Erster Bürgermeister, Stadt Heidelberg; Dr. Peter Schnell, DB AG, Stuttgart; Beate Weber, Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Heidelberg Stellvertreter: Diethelm Fichtner, Leiter Stadtplanungsamt, Stadt Heidelberg; Roland Gehrlein, DB AG, Frankfurt am Main; Roland Jerusalem, Stellv. Leiter Stadtplanungsamt, Stadt Heidelberg; Bernd Sahrbacher, DB AG, Karlsruhe
Termine: Bewerbungsschluss: 8. Juni 2001 Laufzeit: 7 – 9/2001
Bindung des Auftraggebers: Die Auslober werden unter Würdigung der Empfehlungen des Preisgerichts, einen oder mehrere Preisträger unter den in der GRW unter 7.1 genannten Voraussetzungen mit der anschließenden Erarbeitung einer städtebaulichen Rahmenplanung beauftragen.
Höhe und Anzahl der Preise: 200.000 DM (netto)
Patriots Peace Memorial Competition
Sponsor: Patriots Peace Memorial Committee under the auspices of the office of the County Judge-Executive, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
Type: Open, anonymous, one-stage.
Design Challenge: Design of a Memorial to those who gave their lives in the line of duty for the United States at times other than those of declared hostile action. The most successful design concept, as defined by the Sponsor, will be the submittal that evokes the strongest emotional response, the deepest sense of contemplation, and the most respectful mood of remembrance from the visitor. Key to these results is a monument environment which is dramatic yet timeless; has a symbolic connection to land, sea, and air thus reflecting the environment in which service personnel serve; and has a strong thematic impact to reinforce the reality that the ultimate price is extremely high for those who serve in uniform to defend our country and its ideals. The design program is very flexible to allow maximum creative freedom.
Site: One acre site near the banks of the Ohio River, adjacent to a city park, three and one-half miles east of downtown Louisville.
Eligibility: The Memorial can take many forms and the genesis of the design concept can come from the experience of diverse creative backgrounds. Anyone is welcome to submit an entry. Artists, sculptors, architects, landscape architects, graphic designers, and memorialists are all encouraged to submit either individually or as a multi-disciplinary team.
Entry Fee: US $35.00 (professionals and others); US $20.00 (students).
Project Construction Budget: $350,000.
Awards:
A minimum of $8000 (total).
1st Prize: $4000, and right to negotiate for a commission to realize the project.
Timetable:
March 9, 2001 – Competition Program documents available. Registrations Accepted
May 11, 2001 – Registration Closes
May 17, 2001 – Entries due at Professional advisor’s address by 5:00 PM (EST)
May 28, 20001 – Memorial Day. Public Announcement of Winner
Jury:
· Mr. Grady Clay, Consulting Editor, Louisville, Kentucky
· A noted landscape architect (to be announced)
· A noted architect (to be announced)
· A noted curator/critic of sculpture (to be announced)
· Lt Col Charles A. McLaurine, USMC (Ret) Design Co-Chair, PPMC
Materials Provided: Registrants will receive a packet which clearly explains the program, objectives, practical considerations, and provides maps, plans, and color photo documentation. Provided in hard copy and on CD for easy use and reference by the competitors.
Registration: To register for the competition request a Registration Form from the Professional Advisor below. Please indicate how you would like the Form to be delivered to you: mail, fax, or e-mail.
James J. Walters, Architect; Professional Advisor
Patriots Peace Memorial Competition
c/o BRAVURA
111 W. Washington Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Tel: 502.584.9900; Fax: 502.584.0829; e-mail: jwalters@bravura-arch.com
Performing Arts Center
Sponsor: Stanislaus County Capital Projects Office
Type: RfQ, limited
Deadline: 3 May 2001
The Board of Supervisors, Stanislaus County in association with the Central Valley Center for the Arts intends to select a Design Architect who will
contract with the County¹s Executive Architect to provide the concept, planning and preliminary design services for the construction of a new 82,000 gross square foot Performing Arts Center in Modesto, California. The successful offeror will be selected through an open solicitation and selection process that includes a design competition. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to terminate this selection at any time. Firms interested in receiving a Request for Qualifications shall contact the Stanislaus County Capital Projects Office:
Stanislaus County Chief Executive Office
Capital Projects
Gallo Performing Arts Center
850 Tenth Street
Modesto, CA 95354
For information:
Patricia Hill Thomas at (209)525-6333 or
Rob Robinson at (209)525-7689
International Competition for Regeneration of Prags Boulevard
Eligibility: World architects, urban planners
Deadline: May 17, 2001(submission)
Program:TRegeneration of Prags Boulevard which runs through a densely built-up old quarter of that part of Copenhagen which lies on the island of Amager. The aim of the competition is to procure realisticideas for a forward-looking regeneration of Prags Boulevard, catering both for the desire to incorporate new leisure and cultural activities in and around the boulevard and for the aim of improving the appearance of the boulevard.
Prizes:
Total prizes: DKK750,000
1st prize: a minimum of DKK150,000.
Address: Competition Secretariat: Architect MAA Bent Kolind
Strandgade 27
DK-1401 Copenhagen K,
Denmark
Fax: 45-3283-6901
E-mail: konkurrencer@dal-aa.dk
http://www.dal-aa.dk/konkurrencer
____________
N.E.B. Biolab Research/Production Facility
Sponsor: New England Biolabs Inc.
Type: Two-stage, open First stage open, anonymous; 5 finalists selected for second stage
Site: Former Proctor Estate, Ipswich, MA
Prizes:
- 1st Stage; Five(5) awards of $7,500 (and Stage Two participation); Five Honorable Mentions of $5,000
- Second Stage
- 1st – $50,000
- 2nd – $40,000
- 3rd – $30,000
- 4th and 5th – $20,000 each.
Project: $30M Contemporary Biological Research and Production Laboratory Building with a construction budget of $200 per square foot.
Fee: None, for those who download program
Timetable:
- 1 Feb. 2001 Competition program available
- 16 March 4:00 p.m. Q/A period closes(Written questions only)
- 4 May 2001 4:00 p.m. – Stage One due;
- 29 June 2001 4:00 p.m.- Stage Two due;
- Sept 2001 Approximate date of publication Design Challenge: The design of a modern 150,000 s. f. Molecular Biology Laboratory Building that blends with the existing Victorian buildings on the site and is appropriate to the rural 126 acre New England site.
Owners Statement:
In this Open First Stage, we are searching for five outstanding design concepts for a modern Molecular Biology Laboratory that softly melds into the Victorian architecture of the existing estate buildings. The design must be pragmatic and functional but not necessarily a reproduction of existing architecture. The challenge is to gracefully integrate a new laboratory between the two historic buildings and, at the same time, create a structure that will stand on it’s ownas a monument to the emerging field of molecular biology. This is a formidable challenge, and we want to give architects the freedom to explore a wide range of concepts for integrating the old with the new. We look for First Stage submissions to emphasize design concept, general form and choice of materials. Details of the interior arrangement and other technical considerations will be reserved for Stage Two. Stage One designs must accommodate underground parking for 180-190 cars, a 400 seat lecture room and a southern-exposed winter garden for tropical vegetation. It is extremely important that the old copper beech tree, just east of the main house, be preserved. In addition, the proposed designs must fit within our construction budget. Designs that clearly exceed the cost limit will, of necessity, be excluded before jury selection.
Jury:
- Donlyn Lyndon, FAIA Lyndon/Buchanan Associates Berkeley, California
- Jane Weinzapfel, FAIA Leers/Weinzapfel Associates Boston, Massachusetts
- Michael Van Valkenburgh. FASLA Harvard Graduate School of Design
- President, New England Biolabs representing the 250 Employees of NEB, Inc.
Contact and Communication:
It is essential that all communication about this competition is with the Competition Advisor and not the Officers or Employees of New England Biolabs. Breach of this condition will be cause for elimination from the competition. All information required to compete in this competition will be available in downloadable form at the website, www.dfta.com/competition, after 1 Feb 01 For questions, in writing only, contact the Competition Advisor:
Douglas Trees, Architect, DFTA
557 Bay Road,
Hamilton, MA 01936
Fax: 978-468-4345
E-mail: competition@DFTA.com
____________
Chicago Public Schools Competition
Big Shoulders, Small Schools
1st Stage open competition results
(North Side Site)
Jack L. Gordon Architects
New York, New YorkLubrano Ciavarra Design, LLC
New York, New York
1st Stage open competition results
(South Side Site)
Marble-Fairbanks Architects
New York, New YorkKarl Daubmann/Craig Borum/Olivia Hyde
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
These teams will compete in a 2nd stage
with four invited firms: (North Side Site)
Koning, Eizenberg Architecture
Santa Monica, CaliforniaRoss Barney & Jankowski
Chicago,Illinois
(South Side Site)
Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects, Inc.
Atlanta, GeorgiaSmith-Miller & Hawkinson Architects
New York, New York
____________
13-Acres International Design Competition
Type: Open, anonymous
Entry fee: C$50 (US$35)
Challenge: The 13-acres international design competition challenges designers to explore the schoolyard as a site for ecological rejuvenation, expression and education.
The competition is for the design of a combined park and schoolyard site as a place for “site knowledge”, exploration, play, and learning for children, teachers, and the surrounding community. Here, the complexities of park landscape, educational programming, poetics, and ecological design come together in a powerful way to provide inspiration for creative propositions. The competition sites are two elementary schoolyard/park spaces located in East Clayton, a sustainability demonstration site in Surrey, British Columbia. Designers will choose one of these sites in East Clayton. Located between Vancouver and the U.S. border, East Clayton is a sustainable community planned for 13,000 people, with 13 acres dedicated to combined school and park use. East Clayton is known to many through the Surrey Charrette orchestrated by the University of British Columbia Landscape Architecture Program James Taylor Chair in Landscape & Liveable Environments.
The 13-acres competition builds upon the mission of this demonstration site by extending further to the park and schoolyard the plan’s sustainable mission. The Design program specifies that designers explore and envision designs that use constructed natural systems as both poetic devices and educational materials. Design entries should layer wetland ideas, classroom use, play space, parkland, and community programs in one site.
Brief: Can be downloaded at www.13-acres.org
1April 2001 – Registration deadline
1 March/20 April 2001 – Submission deadline
Address:
13-acres International Design Competition
Landscape Architecture Program
University of British Columbia
2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Tel: 1-604-822-6829
Flemington Jewish Community Center
Sponsor: Flemington Jewish Community Center (FJCC); NEA Type: Open, anonymous, one-stage, national Eligibility: Open to individuals licensed to practice architecture in the United States, or to teams led by an architect licensed to practice in the United States. A competitor may be an individual architect; a firm of architects; a number of architects associating for the purpose of this competition; or a team of designers led by a practicing architect.
Entry Fee: $75.00
Prizes:
- 1st Prize: $10,000
- 2nd Prize: $ 5,000
- 3rd Prize: $ 3,000
The Winner will have the right to negotiate with FJCC for a commission for further development of their winning design. It is the intention of the Sponsors that the honorarium paid to the architect appointed to carry out the project will be considered as partial payment for professional fees.
Timetable:
- 15 March 2001 Registration Deadline
- 9 April 2001 Question Period Closes
- 20 April 2001 Answers Mailed
- 15 May 2001 Submissions Due . . .
Jury:
Preston Scott Cohen
Harvard University Grad. School of Design
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Laurie Hawkinson
Smith-Miller + Hawkinson Architects LLP, New York, New York
Rabbi Evan Jaffe
Flemington Jewish Community Center, Flemington, New Jersey
Suzanne Kalafer
Flemington Jewish Community Center, Enrique Norton
TEN Arquitectos S.C
Mexico City/New York, New York
Stanley Tigerman, FAIA
Tigerman McCurry Architects, LTD.
Chicago, Illinois
Professional Adviser: Ralph Lerner, FAIA, Princeton, New Jersey
Goals and Challenge: The goal of this competition is to select an architect to design a new synagogue and accompanying facilities, of approximately 23,000 square feet, on a 4.5 acre site in Flemington, New Jersey. The challenge facing the competitors is to generate an innovative and affordable design which actively seeks to address the current and future needs of the FJCC congregation. The facility must also reflect the goals and activities appropriate to the spiritual and social life of the FJCC congregation, and be perceived as a community asset.
Registration: To enter, send name, address, telephone and facsimile number, e-mail address and competition entry fee (check payable to the Flemington Jewish Community Center) to :
Flemington Jewish Community Center Design
Competition;
c/o Ralph Lerner Architect PC
306 Alexander Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08540 USA
____________
Turner Centre, Margate
Sponsor: Kent County Council with Kent Architecture Center and RIBA
Project: Visual Arts Center
Type: RfQ, open, international, 2-stage
Compensation: 5 short-listed firms will receive £10,000 to develop design proposals
Budget: £7m
Timetable:
20 March 2001 – First stage submissions due
April 2001 – Stage two short-list announcement
Site: The new visual arts centre is to be located on a spectacular seafront site in Margate, associated with the artist JMW Turner for much of his life. Margate is one of a series of closely linked seaside towns. The Turner Centre is a culturally led regeneration project. The new building needs to be a building of real quality that will be an attraction in itself. It should strengthen the physical relationship between the Old Town and the waterfront.
To receive the preliminary brief, applicants should apply in writing, enclosing a registration fee (payable to: The North Kent Architecture Centre Ltd.) of £25.00 to:
Turner Centre Competition
The Kent Architecture Centre
The Historic Dockyard
Chatham
Kent ME4 4TZ
e-mail: info@kentarchitecture.co.uk
Fax: 01634 403302
____________
Booker T. Washington
High School for the
Performing and Visual Arts
Sponsor: Dallas Independent School District
Type: RfQ, Open
Timetable:
7 March 2001 RfQ submissions due
1 July 2001 Competition submittals due
The competition relates to a major facility expansion and rebuilding of the Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (BTW) in Dallas, TX
In 1998 the Future Facilities Task Force of the Dallas Independent School District identified the school for facility renovations to enhance the school’s educational program and goals as well as to enhance the school’s position in the Dallas Arts District. With the encouragement and support of the school’s Advisory Board composed of a broad cross-section of community leaders, the facility needs were redefined to constitute a basic rebuilding of the school in a notable, distinctive and signature design that will join a neighborhood of distinguished architecture, including works by I.M. Pei, Edward Larrabee Barnes and Renzo Piano.
The redesigned and expanded school, along with the soon-to-be-constructed neighboring Dallas Center for the Performing Arts, would create the eastern anchor of the Dallas Arts District. The Arts District now includes the Dallas Museum of Art, the Meyerson Symphony Center, Annette Strauss Artist Square, the Crow Collection of Asian Art, and the Nasher Sculpture Garden currently under construction.
The Competition Advisor: Lawrence W. Speck, Dean, School of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin, and the Roland G. Roessner Centennial Professor in Architecture.
Budget Initial estimates for the total project cost for the new school are a minimum of $40 million, including construction, overhead, and contingencies. Square footage of new and renovated space is estimated at 200,000 to 220,000 sq.ft. Funding for the construction project is contingent in part on a capital bond election to be held by the DISD in 2001/2002. The history of passage of bonds by the school district is impressive, in that all previous bond elections have been successful due to wide community support for the needs of the schools. Construction would commence after design is completed and the bonds are sold. Supplemental funding for the project would be coordinated by the Advisory Board of the BTW and provided by private donors. DISD Management and Business Services will provide Construction management.
To register, go to the competition website: www.artsmagnetdallas.org or by contacting:
AIA Dallas
1444 Oak Lawn Avenue
Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75207
Phone 214.742.3242
Fax 214.742.3253
Request the Arts Magnet Competition Packet.
____________
New NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
Type:
- 3-phase with RfQ first stage with preselection of 20-30 teams
- 6 firms will be short-listed for the 2nd stage “project outline.”
Languages: English and French
Eligibility: Any legal entity or person having a nationality that corresponds to one of the 19 countries that make up NATO may respond to this call.
Project:
- A large conference center (172,000 m2) surrounded by a park and buildings that will contain the offices of the different Delegations and Military Representatives from the 19 member countries, as well as those of NATO’s partners, and also the majority of the departments that make up the international secretariat, the international military headquarters and the NATO agencies.
- All the collective, technical installations of the Headquarters, including: the information and press departments, technical installations, restaurants, a cafeteria, shops, and a leisure center for the personnel including sports, social and recreational facilities.
The complex will be completed by green areas, a system of roads, car parks and the necessary technical facilities.
Procedure: The first phase of the competition consists of a general project outline. The candidates who submit a general outline judged acceptable by the jury will receive 20,000 Euros in compensation. The jury will then select 6 projects, the authors of which will be invited to submit a project for the second phase. The second phase is the project outline. The candidates who submit an outline judged acceptable by the jury will receive 100,000 Euros as compensation. NATO will award three prizes of 200,000, 150,000 and 100,000 Euros.
Timetable:
10 Jan 2001- Call for applications opens
28 Feb 2001- (17:00 UTC) Deadline for receipt of applications for preselection phase
July-October- 1st phase of competition proper
Nov-April 2002- 2nd Phase of competition proper
Jury:
The Dean of the North Atlantic Council Deputy
Secretary General of NATO International Secretariat
Executive Secretary of NATO’s International Secretariat
William Allen Alsop (U.K.)
Paul Chemetov (France)
Fumihiko Maki (Japan)
Particia Patkau (Canada)
Rafael Vinoly (USA) Meinhard von Gerkan (Germany)
General information and a form that allows candidates to ask for access to the documents needed to participate in the internation call for entries are available on the NATO internet site at:
www.nato.int/structur/tenders/newhq
Contact:
Andrew Lukach,
Purchasing and Contracts Department
NATO Hqs. B-1110
Brussels, BelgiumTel: (32 2) 707 44 77
E-mail: iadc.icb@hq.nato.int
____________
Nevada State College
Henderson Campus
Design Competition
Sponsor: Nevada State College, Henderson, Nevada
Type: National, open, limited
Eligibility: Parties interested in participating in the design competition must be registered as per Chapter 623 of the Nevada Revised Statute.
For information concerning registration requirements, please contact the Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design (contact information listed below). Out-of-state architects are encouraged to participate.
Entry fee: $100
Registration deadline: 1 March 2001
Introduction and Challenge
The Nevada State College Campus Design Competition challenges architects, landscape architects, urban designers, and planners to explore the idea of developing a new campus within one of the nationÕs fast growing communities. Located to the southeast of Las Vegas, Henderson, NV shares in the dynamic growth of the Las Vegas Metropolitan area and yet retains a unique sense of identity and place. The proposed Henderson campus for the newly envisioned Nevada State College will add to the cityÕs sense of community while providing the opportunity to create a new civic and educational component to the area.
The competition seeks designs that i) establish a strong sense of identity for Nevada State College; ii) capture the vitality of the Las Vegas Valley; iii) and that harmonize with the siteÕs desert setting and mountain views. The competition seeks ideas for the creation of a new urban campus, one that will not only provide a unique setting for education but that will also set a high standard for design within the region. The purpose of the competition is to create a conceptual master plan and vision for the new Nevada State College campus. While the proposed Nevada State College has yet to be funded by the state legislature, the competition proposals should aim to bolster support for the campus through their use of innovative campus planning principals, inspiring design languages, and through their sensitivity to southern NevadaÕs unique physical environment.
The Program
Initially, the Henderson campus of Nevada State College will host 1,000 full-time students when it opens in the fall of 2002 and enrollment is expected to reach 4,000 full-time students within the first 5 years of operation. Nevada State College is envisioned as a collection of four to six distinct but inter-related clusters of collegiate schools. Each school cluster is envisioned as a distinct academic entity and the design of the campus should reflect both the unique qualities of each school while also providing the physical fabric to weave all schools together. This collection of collegiate schools will share a common library, cultural centers, student health and service centers, and other educational utilities such as public open spaces, parking, maintenance facilities, and recreational facilities. The overall campus will occupy approximately 280 acres and will house an approximate three million square feet of classroom and support facilities.
The initial phase of campus development should include clearly articulated elements such as main drives and entry points as well as clearly defined boundary conditions, public and private spaces, and building locations. An initial academic building should be a part of the initial campus development (approx. 20 acres) and this building should include classrooms (30+) and student services and administrative offices. This college will emphasize liberal arts studies and focus upon preparing teachers for NevadaÕs K-12 school districts as well as professionals for the areaÕs growing health industry. However, competition participants are not asked to design a specific building; rather, the competition asks participants to articulate the aesthetics of the campus including materials, design styles, and appropriate landscaping. More importantly, this building should be envisioned as the first building within the college enterprise. Therefore, orientation, future expansion and campus design issues are of primary importance. The overall campus design should include a central area, a central park with water elements, that will help to link or unite the various collegiate schools, the library, cultural centers, student support, and centralized service areas. The central library should be seen as a library structure that will house traditional library services and materials as well as electronic media, computer facilities, and information and media labs. As with the initial academic building, competition participants are not asked to design the library facility but only to provide a vision of the role of the library within the campus, its material and visual characteristics, and its overall impact within the proposed master plan. Overall, the physical nature of the individual areas within collective college campus should reflect the following characteristics:
- The simplicity of elements, the arrangements of spaces, and the element of surprise
- The sequence of light and shadow and the delight of color and texture
- The mystical procession of ordered spaces (including entrances, corridors, vestibules, and public and private spaces)
- Well-defined public and private gathering spaces punctuated by the sounds of wind and water (reflecting pools, fountains, ponds, falls, cascading water, etc.)
- The music of bells, the chimes of wind-systems, and the ceremonies of sound that note the time, season, and ceremonies of the academy.
- The artistic relief of walls, arches, entrances, columns, atriums, quotations, sculpture, murals, and material and texture changes. These characteristics, coupled with the criteria listed below, should guide the visions of competition participants. While competition participants are asked to develop visions for the full campus, each submittal should illustrate on the overall master plan an initial phase of campus development. This initial phase of campus development should include the following:
- An Initial Academic/Classroom Building (30+ classrooms and labs, administrative areas, student services, etc.Ñapproximately 100,000 to 140,000 square feet): indicate location, orientation, access, and building characteristics
- Campus/Public Open Spaces: indicate location, orientation, access, material, and planting characteristics
- Formal Entry Areas and Associated Paths, Access Roads, and/or Promenades: indicate location, orientation, access, material, and planting characteristics.
The Site
The Henderson Campus of the Nevada State College will be located on approximately 280-acres of undeveloped land. Future expansion will bring the campus up to a total of 400-500 acres. Boulder Highway and Lake Mead Boulevard border the overall site. A master-planned community of approximately 8, 000 homes will be built to the north and east of the site that will include a town center and business district. This town center will include amenities that will support the social life of the college. The site has been identified as a “no action” site by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally, the site has not been used for any industrial purpose in the past nor has the site been inhabited permanently in the past. The Nevada State College campus will be located in Henderson, NV. Henderson was recently named the fasted growing city in America and serves as the southeastern gateway to the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Henderson is the second largest city in Nevada with 184,491 residents. Henderson is located one mile from the Lake Mead recreational area and only 7 miles from the Las Vegas Strip and yet the city has retained a unique small-town feel. Henderson is also widely recognized for its master-planned communities and cultural resources including well established recreational, educational and business facilities.
Henderson lies at the southern rim of the Las Vegas Valley, which is bordered by Boulder Highway to the east and Interstate 15 to the west. The area is a generally level desert floor and has views to various surrounding mountains including Black Mountain and the River Mountains. The average rainfall and temperature ranges are similar to those of Las Vegas with the area receiving an average of 3.38 inches of rain per year (average taken from the past 10 years). Temperatures range from annual average highs of 57 degrees (F) in January to average highs of 106 degrees (F) in July. Minimum temperatures range from 34 degrees (F) in January to 76 degrees (F) in July.
Timetable
Questions and Answers: 22 January 2001 Ð 1 March 2001
Site Visit 1: 16 February 2001 10:00 AM
Parties interested in attending either or both site visits should meet at the Nevada State College offices located at 610 W. Lake Mead Drive, Henderson, NV.Registration Closes: 1 March 2001
Registration forms and fees must be postmarked by this date.Site Visit 2: 28 February 2001 10:00 AM
Parties interested in attending either or both site visits should meet at the Nevada State College offices located at 610 W. Lake Mead Drive, Henderson, NV.Submissions Due: 30 March 2001 by 3:00 PM
No submissions will be accepted after 3:00PM March 30, 2001.Jury Deliberations: 31 March Ð 1 April 2001
Finalists Announced: 2 April 2001
Finalist Presentations: 4 April 2001 Time and Location TBA
Final Selection: 4 April 2001
Eligibility: Individuals or teams may enter. Parties interested in participating in the design competition must be registered as per Chapter 623 of the Nevada Revised Statute.
For information contact:
Nevada State Board of Architecture,
Interior Design and Residential Design
2080 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 225
Las Vegas, NV 89119(702) 486-7300
(702) 486-7304 fax
The Stages and Awards
The competition will be held in two stages. The first stage submittals will be anonymous. The first stage of the competition will focus upon an individualÕs or teamÕs vision for the master plan and design of the Nevada State College-Henderson campus. The first stage is an ideas competition intended to develop the framework by which a new urban campus could be built including ideas about site arrangements, building locations, material and tectonic language, open-space arrangement and design, site responsiveness, and landscaping. The competition jury will review the submissions and recommend a group of finalists to be move forward to the second stage of the competition (note: the second stage finalists will not be anonymous). Each of the finalists selected by the competition jury will be awarded an equal portion of the overall $100,000 prize monies. The competition jury will determine the number of finalists. However, no less than three (3) and no more that five (5) finalists will be selected.
During the second stage, each of the finalists will be required to make an oral presentation (not to exceed 1 hour in duration) of their design proposals to the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force prior to the selection of the winning design (4 April 2001–time and location TBA). These presentations will be open to the public. Each of the finalists invited to present to the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force should bring to the presentation a copy of the Federal Form 254 listing the qualifications of the said finalists. Following the completion of the second stage of the competition, the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force will then select the final winning scheme. In this sense, the competition jury will act in an advisory capacity with the final selection decision to be made by the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force. The author(s) of the winning scheme will be granted the right of first refusal to negotiate with the Nevada State College Foundation for preliminary design services that may include, but are not limited to, the initiation of the requisite drawings, facilities programming and/or schematic design for the campus master plan with professional service fees not to exceed $200,000.
Upon completion of the aforementioned work, the author(s) of the winning scheme will be granted the right of first refusal to negotiate a contract to provide the requisite professional services to develop the campus master plan, to help establish a material and tectonic language for the new campus including, landscape, open-space designs, and other related campus planning issues, including the architectural design of the academic and services building, contingent upon the approval of the State of Nevada Public Works Board, the University and Community College System of Nevada Board of Regents, and the 2001 legislative appropriation for the design of either project. If, in the opinion of the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force, the team or individual with the winning scheme does not have the necessary qualifications to provide the requisite professional services to develop the necessary campus master plan(s), architectural and/or landscape architecture documents or to properly implement its design, the team or individual will be asked to augment its qualifications by associating with other firms until the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force is satisfied with the teamÕs or individualÕs qualifications. If the winning team or individual is not awarded the contract for services, or if the project does not proceed, the payment of the cash prize mentioned above shall relieve the University and Community College System of Nevada Board of Regents, the State of Nevada Public Works Board, and/or the competition sponsors of any further obligation to the author of the winning entry.
Competition Objectives and Criteria
The competition aims to clearly establish a sense of identity for Nevada State College through campus design. In general, the competition seeks the following:
To establish a unique campus environment that responds to its cultural and physical environment in an informed and responsible manner.
To create a campus that promotes and enhances the role of campus design within the region.
To outline design policies for the proposed campus including preferred heights, densities of buildings, their proportions and relationships to open spaces and landscape, campus defining elements such as gates, walls, and plaza spaces, and policies for vehicular access and circulation.
To articulate a vision for a campus composed of a various clusters of colleges (4 to 6) while retaining the unified sense of an educational community.
To envision a campus with a strong sense of entry, arrival, and boundary conditions through the use of campus planning and design.
To develop a campus plan that builds upon the simplicity of elements, the arrangements of spaces, and the element of surprise.
To develop a campus plan that incorporates sequences of light and shadow and the enchantment of color and texture found within the region.
To develop a campus plan shaped by the mystical procession of ordered spaces (entrances, corridors, vestibules, and public and private spaces).
To develop a campus plan which builds upon well-defined public and private gathering spaces punctuated by the sounds of wind and water that are unique to the region (which may include the use of reflecting pools, fountains, ponds, falls, cascading water, etc.).
To develop a campus plan which may incorporate the music of bells, the chimes of wind-systems, and the ceremonies of sound denoting the time, season, and ceremonies of the academy.
To develop a campus plan which may utilize the artistic factors inherent in the imaginative use of walls, arches, entrances, columns, atriums, etc., through the use of a variety of other physical, literal and/or figurative changes.
Registration and Delivery of Entries
Registration fee for an individual or team entry is $100.00.
To register for the competition, please contact the Nevada State College Competition Advisor (contact information is listed below) and request a registration form. The registration form is included as Appendix B of this competition packet and may also be obtained by downloading the form from the Nevada State College web site. Complete the form and mail a copy of the completed form and a check in the amount of the $100.00 registration fee to the following address:
Competition Advisor
Nevada State College-Henderson
National Campus Design Competition
610 West Lake Mead Drive
Henderson, NV 89015(702) 992-2226 fax
sandoval@nsc.nevada.edu
Please make checks payable to the Nevada State College Foundation. When contacting by fax, please address the message to the Competition Advisor. When contacting by email, please list ÒAttn. Competition AdvisorÓ in the subject line in order to insure that the request will be forwarded to the proper individual. Registration forms and competition packets may be picked-up in person at the address listed above and competition entries may be shipped or hand-delivered to the address listed above as well. Only those submittals received from competitors who have registered for this competition by completing the registration form and who have paid the registration fee will be accepted. All registration forms and fees must be postmarked by March 1, 2001.
Questions and Answers
Questions will be taken from 22 January 2001 until 1 March 2001. Please submit all questions via email to the following address:
Please list ÒAttn. Competition AdvisorÓ in the subject line in order to insure that all questions will be forwarded to the proper individual. All questions and answers will be posted on the Nevada State College web page (www.nsc.nevada.edu).
To avoid errors with message machines, no telephone questions will be answered. Contacting jury members, technical advisors and/or sponsors of the competition regarding the competition is strictly prohibited.
Submission Requirements
Boards
Participants are limited to a maximum of four (4) 30Óx40Ó boards to be oriented vertically (with the 40Ó dimension perpendicular to the floor). The boards may abut and drawings may overlap from one board to the other. The boards should be of rigid material, such as foam core, illustration board, etc. (no masonite, wood, or other heavy material). The boards should have flat surfaces (no 3-dimensional relief or projections beyond the surface or edges of the boards) and the boards should not exceed 1/2Ó in thickness. Drawings, prints, high-quality color copies, photos, and/or computer renderings may be mounted onto the boards. North should be oriented up on all drawings.
Required Drawings
¥ Master Plan at Full Build Out (Scale; 1Ó=100Õ): This drawing should illustrate the major campus design concept(s) for the Nevada State College at Henderson in the context of full build out (or proposed vision of the completed college campus). The drawing should illustrate the proposed campus including building locations, outdoor recreation and sports areas, public open-space design(s) and gathering areas, landscaping elements and planting, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and service routes and related elements including parking areas. The plan should also include major entry points and elements, primary and secondary axes, and boundary demarcations. This drawing should also indicate the initial phase of campus development. The initial phase of the campus is envisioned as a 20-acre development to include an academic building, a central library, public and private open-spaces, and entry and access points into the campus.
¥ Phasing Diagrams (scale to be determined by the competitor): These diagrams should clearly illustrate the primary stages of campus development leading to a full build out of the overall master plan.
¥ Illustrative Area Diagrams, Drawings, and Plans (scale to be determined by the competitor): Provide drawings that illustrate the application of your design strategies in order to represent your vision of the proposed Nevada State College-Henderson campus. Provide campus plans, sketches, drawings, and diagrams, as appropriate, that illustrate how the competition objectives are addressed and that indicate contextual responsiveness, the quality of open-spaces and landscape features within the campus grounds, the formal languages appropriate for campus buildings, material palettes, and campus elements such as entry gates to be used within the campus.
¥ Supporting Drawings, Diagrams, and/or Photos: Provide any other drawings, sketches, diagrams, renderings, etc., as deemed necessary to convey your campus design ideas and concepts to the jury.
Narrative Description
Provide a narrative description of the principal campus design concept(s) for the proposed master plan. This narrative should also describe how the proposal addresses the competition objectives. Competitors are encouraged to limit the text to only that which is necessary to convey the design concept(s) and should not exceed the equivalent of one typed page. All text should appear on the front of one of the submittal drawings/boards. Label all drawings.
Submission Wrapping
The drawings/submissions of each competitor shall be double wrapped. The outer wrapping shall bear the delivery address listed above and on the registration form and may bear the return address of the competitor. The inner wrapping shall be opaque paper, bearing no mark or identification of any kind (this is to insure anonymity during the first stage of the competition). Each entry shall include (taped to the back of one board/drawing) a sealed plain opaque envelope containing a copy of the registration form including the name, address, and all relevant contact information of the competitor(s). This envelope should not bear any markings of any kind. Any submission lacking this envelope may be disqualified.
It is the responsibility of the competitors to wrap, ship and/or deliver their submissions to the address listed above by the specified deadline. Competitors should make additional copies of their submissions for their own records; submissions will not be returned and will become the property of Nevada Stage College. Submission of an entry in this competition shall constitute agreement by the competitor allowing the sponsors to make certain uses of the work submitted, including but not limited to, for example, photographs, exhibitions, reproduction for publication and publicity and/or related uses. In these uses, the authors of the entries will be identified to the fullest extent possible. Competitors whose entries are used for the purposes described above shall receive no compensation for their use.
All drawings/boards submitted to the competition must bear no markings, labels, or names that could serve as a means of identification, nor shall any competitor directly or indirectly reveal the identity of his/her entry nor communicate directly or indirectly regarding the competition with representatives of the sponsors, the Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force, any member of the jury except as provide under the Òquestions and answersÓ period. No entries shall be exhibited, published, or publicly described in any way by the competitors or authors until the results of the first stage of the competition12 have been announced. Competitors who publicize their schemes prior to the end of the competition may be disqualified.
The Jury
First Stage:
Jim Gibson
Mayor of Henderson, NV
Robin Greenspun
Community Member
Greater Las Vegas, NV
George Hasslein
Founding Dean of the School
of Architecture and Environmental Design
California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo
David Hickey
Professor of Art History and Theory,
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Christopher Knight
Chief Art Critic,
The Los Angeles Times
Reed Kroloff
Editor-in-Chief,
Architecture Magazine
Dan OÕBrien Manager,
State of Nevada Public Works Board
Dan Paulien
Planning Consultant, Denver, CO
President of the Society for College and
University Planning (1995-1996)
Stanley Saitowitz
Professor of Architecture,
University of California-Berkeley
Second Stage:
Board of Regents ChairÕs Task Force:
Architecture Nevada State College-Henderson
____________
Chicago Mixed-Income Housing
Sponsor: Chicago Housing Authority
Project: Mixed-Income Housing to create a fully integrated housing model that would appeal to all income levels in the ABLA community
Type: Hybrid – Open, RfQ section to select three architects which will compete with four invited architects
Eligibility: Licensed architects may enter
Compensation: The seven (7) finalists will each receive $20,000 plus traveling expenses to prepare a model, schmatic plans and elevations for the proposed development.
Prizes: The winner will receive an additional $15,000 plus the possibility of negotiating an agreement with adeveloper for full architectural services.
Timetable:
5 March 2001 Deadline for submission of RfQs
June 2001 Announcement of winner
4 June 2001 Exhibition opening at the Harold Washington Library
Entry procedure: To enter the competition, licensed architects or firms must submit a 200-word essay describing their philosophy about the housing model. They must also provide five, black and white or color images of built or un-built work. The images can be of residential, institutional or commercial, but they must represent the architect1s design philosophy and experience.
For more details, visit the website: www.thecha.org
All expressions of interest should be sent to:
Competition Coordinators
Chicago Housing Authority
626 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: Derek Hill at 312-791-8513 x4449
____________
Metro Plaza Design Competition
Sponsor: Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (Lexington, Kentucky)
Type: Open, anonymous, one-stage
Design Challenge: To create a public space in downtown Lexington, Kentucky which will serve as a main gathering venue for the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County.
Site: A rectangular 550Õ x 90Õ parcel in downtown Lexington flanked by two new court buildings on one side and bisected by a small street which can be closed on occasions.
Eligibility: Team leaders must be Landscape architects, architects, planners and/or artists
Entry fee: US$65 (inc. processing)
Language: English
Project budget: $1.5M
Awards: A minimum of $17,500 (total)
1st Prize – $10,000 and right to negotiate with client for commission
Timetable:
20 Dec 2000 —Competition program available
0 1 Feb 2001— Q & A period closes
15 Feb 2001— Answers mailed to registrants
20 Feb 2001 —Registration Deadline
27 Mar 2001— Receipt of submissions (4 p.m.)
30 Mar/2 Apr 2001— Jury Deliberations
Jury:
Grady Clay, Consulting Editor
Louisville, KentuckyRobert T. Coles, FAIA
Robert Traynham Coles Architect
Buffalo, New YorkDavid Mohney, AIA Dean,
School of Architecture
University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY CorneliaCornelia Hahn Oberlander, FCSLA, FASLA
Vancouver, British ColumbiaNicholas Quennell, FASLA
Quennell Rothschild Associates,
New York, NYDavid Scheer, AIA
Scheer & Scheer
Cincinnati, Ohio
For more information on the entering the competition,, go to the community website at: www.lfucg.com
To purchase the Plaza Program information and drawings, please contact:
Lynn Blueprint
(859) 255-1021
For more information, please contact Harold Tate at the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, (859) 258-3100.
Note: Hotmail.com email addresses will not be accepted!
____________
Saluda Shoals International
Design Competition
Sponsors: NCR and Cultural Council of Richland
and Lexington Counties, South Carolina
Project: A new amphitheater in a 270-acre park
Site: Saluda Shoals Park outside Columbia, South Carolina
Entry fee: $50 (professionals); $20 (students)
Timetable:
31 Dec 2000 Deadline for questions
26 January 2001 Registration closes
23 February 2001 Submissions due
Prize money: First place: $15,000 and right to negotiate for the commission Citations: $3,000 (3)
Jury:
Thomas Pfifer, AIA
New York, NYLaurie D. Olin, FASLA
Philadelphia, PAJohn Jacques, AIA
South CarolinaProf. Ellis m Pryce Jones, MFA
Las Vegas, NVBeverly Brandes
Columbia, SC
To enter, participants must download the registration form from the website: www.naturestheater.org
or request a faxed copy by calling (803) 799-3115
Send the form with payment to:
NCR/Saluda Shoals International Design Competition
The Cultural Council of Richland and Lexington Counties
1728 Gervais Street
Columbia, SC 29201
____________
12th Takiron International
Design Competition 2000
Theme: A House within Nature
Prize: First prize(1): \1,000,000/Second prize(1): \500,000/ Third prize(5): \100,000 each/ Honorable mention(10): \50,000 each
Jury: Kengo Kuma (architect)
Deadlines
| October 20, 2000 | registration | |
| November 15, 2000 | submission |
Address:
Takiron International
Design competition 2000 Office,
2-31-2 Yushima,
Bunkyou-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 113-8051
Contact Information:
Tel: 81-3-3818-1961
www.kenchiku.co.jp
____________
The Musée des Confluences in Lyon
Sponsor: Rhone Department (Lyon, France)
Type: Open, two-stage with shortlist
Deadline for applications:
2 October 2000 (4 p.m.)
(After the first, RfQ stage, 7 firms will be shortlisted for the competition)
Procedure for awarding the contract
Architectural design contest with the aim of appointing an architect’s team in accordance with articles 279.1 and 314 ter of the Code of Public Works.
Subject of the contract
Construction of the MusZe des Confluences in the 2nd arrondissement of Lyon (RhTne). This is a root assignment as defined by article 15 of government order No. 93-1268 dated 29 November 1993; as such, complementary assignments may be added to it.
Chief characteristics
The Conseil GZnZral du RhTne (RhTne Local Council) has decided to create the MusZe des Confluences at the confluence of the RhTne and SaTne rivers. This is a major urban development site.
The MusZe des Confluences is conceived as a contemporary-style museum devoted to educating the public about science and society. Its aim will be to examine the interactions between the sciences and society, to stimulate enquiry, and to make the public aware of the major scientific issues affecting the modern world, both on the large and small scales.
The museum will be a place for learning and living and will offer visitors the opportunity to discover science for themselves and share their discoveries with others. It will encourage both private reflection and shared debate.
Site: The site chosen for the museum, at the tip of the peninsula where the RhTne and SaTne rivers meet, is a reflection of the innovatory character of this scientific and educational project. The winning design must therefore reflect both the aims of the museum and its outstanding setting. The target admissions of 500,000 visitors per year will give the museum a Europe-wide status as a cultural centre.
The 20,000m2 total useful surface area of the museum will be divided into permanent and visiting exhibition halls, teaching/lecture areas, auditoriums and conference-rooms as well as catering, museum shop, reception and logistics facilities. The museum is scheduled to open in 2005.
Awarding of the contract
The contract to build the museum will be awarded in conformity with articles 314 bis (paragraph 5) and 314 ter of the Code of Public Works (i.e. by secret bid).
Shortlist criteria: Applicants are invited to submit a file giving details of their resources, skills and clients. These files will be examined by a panel who will advise the Project Commissioner on drawing up a shortlist.
Shortlisted applicants will be selected mainly by virtue of:
• the competence of their team (composition and organisation),
• resources available to complete the assignment, in particular a commitment to be available for the project,
• the quality of the reference files of the team members; this should include details of projects completed in the educational and scientific fields and premises open to the public.
Competition process: The sev en shortlisted applicants will have approximately twelve weeks in which to provide an outline of the project: “outline” should be understood in the terms of the Public Works law of 12 July 1985 (government order 1268-93 dated 29 November 1993). The outline should be accompanied by any necessary information explaining the architectural features, the costing of the project and the principles of construction together with a scale model.
Criteria by which projects will be judged
The projects presented will be judged along the following criteria in order to pick the winning applicant:
1. compliance with the programme and competition rules,
2. architectural qualities and integration of the building into the site,
3. internal operation and organisation of volumes,
4. adherence to the planning budget allocated by the Project Commissioner
5. principles of construction and compliance with safety standards
6. overall running and maintenance costs of the project
The adjudication panel will provide the Project Commissioner with a list of the applications arranged by order of preference.
A contract will be negotiated with the winner or winners of the competition. The Project Commissioner is not bound to accept the panel’s recommendations, which must be accompanied by explanations of the choices made. Provided their applications comply with the competition rules, each unsuccessful shortlisted applicant will be paid the sum of FF 350,000 (Euro 53,357) including tax. The winner will receive the same sum paid as an advance on the contract This sum includes the cost of the scale model..
Composition of the team
The present call for bids is open to contracting teams the minimum composition of which must include specialists in the following fields:
| • | architectural surveys | |
| • | technical surveys covering structure, fluids, roads and utilities, acoustics | |
| • | technical surveys covering preventive conservation of precious items and collections, | |
| • | technical surveys covering public reception, movement and safety, | |
| • | technical surveys covering the integration of every type of new communications technology | |
| • | project economic surveys | |
| • | environmental protection surveys |
The teams should also include one or more designers. These skills may overlap provided that details are given of the human and equipment resources available for each sector, and that the corresponding references are provided.
Joint contractors are not required to be members of only one group. The members of the winning group will be severally liable. The group will be made up as follows:
• a group of jointly and severally liable individuals or legal entities responsible for the assignments making up the project,
• one or more individuals responsible for design decisions. As the agents of the jointly and severally liable group, the architect or group of architects will work as the agents of the severally liable group.
The architect will, however, retain responsibility for selecting and organising the joint contractors.
The winning architect will have to show that he/she can devote considerable time to the project.
Address for applications: Applications must be sent by recorded delivery to:
S.E.R.L.
4 boulevard Eug�ne Deruelle
BP 3099
69398 Lyon CEDEX 03
France
Part 1 of the Application Must Contain the Following Documents:
1. A declaration of intention to sub-contract with details of each member of the team; this document must be presented by the project head and signed by each member of the team (French government form DC4 may be used).
2. Each member of the team must provide: The original of the applicant’s declaration duly signed and dated (sections DC5F or DC5E, and DC6). These documents may be obtained from the S.E.R.L. Alternatively they are on sale to the public at the French National Printers, Imprimerie Nationale, 2 rue Paul Hervieu, 75015 Paris or by post from Service Diffusion (distribution department), B.P. 514, 59505 Douai CEDEX.
• Certified copies of tax form 3666 (taxes and VAT), URSSAF (social security) certificate (both sides) and certificates of paid holiday, sickness, pensions (where applicable), or annual statements of certificates received (DC7) from the Treasury Paymaster General of the place in which the taxes have been paid. These certificates or statements must show that the company was up to date with its contributions on 31/12/99.
Each of these photocopied documents must be certified identical to the original by bearing the words “Je soussignZ ………. agissant au nom de la sociZtZ ………. atteste sur l’honneur que la prZsente photocopie est conforme ^ l’original” (I the undersigned ………. acting on behalf of the ………. company hereby certify on my honour that the present photocopy is a true copy of the original). The photocopies must bear the original dates and signatures of a person authorised to take decisions that are binding on the company.
Applicants from outside France must provide a certified copy of certificates issued by the appropriate authorities in their State. Such certificates must state that the applicant has fulfilled his/her obligations regarding payment of the social security contributions, taxes and dues required by the laws of the country concerned. For taxes and contributions for which the State issues no such certificate, applicants must draft a signed, dated certificate written in French in which they certify on their honour that they have fulfilled their obligations.
• An original certificate signed and dated by a person authorised to take decisions that are binding on the company on his/her honour that the applicant has not, over the past five years, been convicted of an offence that requires registration on list 2 of the police records under articles L.324.9, L.324.10, L.341.6, L.125.1 and L.125.3 of the labour laws (article 5.6 of order 97.638 of 31 May 1997) or equivalent legislation for foreign applicants.
This certificate is not required from applicants who submit form DC5F99 or DC5E99.
Part 2 of the Application Must Contain the Following Documents
Each member of the team must provide:
¥ a presentation of itself: name, registered name, legal form, registered capital, turnover, outline of company structure, human and other resources, shareholdings, certificates of professional qualifications, etc.
¥ a table giving the references of seven assignments, either completed or in progress, that the applicant considers representative of its work relative to the subject of the competition.
¥ Each reference must give:
• the Project Commissioner • the cost of the works • the exact nature of the applicant’s assignment and fees charged • the delivery date • A model table may be obtained from the S.E.R.L
Each team must provide a poster consisting of 2 unbound horizontal A3 pages showing photographs or colour photocopies of assignments the applicant considers representative of its work relative to the subject of the competition.
Applicants may attach any documents such as brochures, article, etc. to be used to judge their skills, references and resources. These documents will be returned to unsuccessful applicants at the end of the competition.
Address from which competition rules may be obtained
S.E.R.L.
4 boulevard Eug�ne Deruelle
BP 3099
69398 Lyon CEDEX 03
Further information: by fax only from S.E.R.L.
Contact person:
Philippe Rambaud
fax: (+33) 478 95 22 31
e-mail: ph.rambaud@serl.fr
____________
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Richmond, Virginia
Request for A/E Services
Type: RfQ, open (There is a possibility that a competition will be part of second phase)
Scope: Addition of 132,000 GSF and renovation of 167,000 SF in existing museum building
Timetable: 2:00 p.m., 29 Sept. 2000—written proposals and statements of qualifications due
Design challenge: To integrate construction of a 600-car parking structure and conversion of the current parking lot into a park and sculpture garden, reconfiguring the vehicular entrance to the campus. New Adition will include: public entrance and lobby, additional galleries for the display of the museum’s collection and for temporary exhibitions, kitchen and dining areas, retail shop, children’s entrance and activity area, art storage and conservation; design studios; library; carpentry and painting shops; improved circulation in public spaces and in-staff work spaces, and renovations to 500-seat theater
To obtain a RfP (#238 99-00:0317) send letter or fax to:
Brian K. Haggard
Capital Outlay Manager
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
2800 Grove Avenue
Richmond, VA 23221-2466
Fax: (804) 340-1548e
____________
On-site Briefing
Notice/Architecture/Planning
(Re) Vision—Isla Vista
Sponsor: County of Santa Barbara, CA; University of California, Santa Barbara, Isla Vista Recreation and Park District
Type: First stage is open, anonymous: Second stage will be limited to 5 teams who will be compensated. The competition winners will receive the first right to negotiate a multi-year contract with the County to provide the requisite professional services to develop the Specific Plan, zoning amendments, Local Coastal Plan, environmental assessments and other planning documents needed to implement the winning urban design plan.
Entry fee: US$100
Eligibility: Architects, Landscape architects and planners (teams encouraged)
Adviser: William H. Liskamm, FAIA
Timetable:
Competition programs available Onsite briefing Submissions due Jury deliberations
Site and Challenge: Isla Vista, California is an unincorporated community in Santa Barbara County. The area is surrounded on three sides by the University of California, Santa Barbara and on the fourth by the Pacific Ocean. Isla Vista is just less than one square mile in size. The community was first subdivided in the 1920s and still retains the character set by the early creation of numerous 20 foot lots intended for summer housing and a largely grid street system. When the University moved to its present site in 1954, the area experienced a building boom of apartment houses and the buildup of a small business district.
Since that time, buildings have deteriorated and what was formerly a community of 20,000 (predominately students) has evolved to separate student and Latino communities. Both groups live primarily in apartments and duplexes. There is also a small single family residential district, still inhabited by homeowner families. Although densely populated and plagued by traffic, crime, decaying buildings and urban design problems, the community still retains substantial open space and enjoys a physical setting of great beauty overlooking the Pacific. It also has the advantage of adjacency to one of the most beautiful campuses on the West Coast and the larger environment of Santa Barbara which is known throughout the world for its architecture, climate and livability.
The purpose of this competition is to create a master plan vision, which will take Isla Vista from its present configuration to a state which is compatible with the physical beauty of its surroundings and the intellectual environment of the University.
Details on the guidelines and competition priorities are available on the website.
For more details on the competition, visit the competition website at: www.islavistaplan.org
____________
New Performance Venue in Doncaster
Type: RfQ, open, two-stage (interviews in both stages)
Submission date for first stage: 24 August 2000 (1600 hrs)
Budget: £8 million
The intended facility will become a key venue for Doncaster and the wider Borough for the performance of high quality, small to medium scale drama, dance, literature, comedy, cabaret and music of all kinds. Innovative programming and appropriate use of the venue would be encouraged by professional and non-professional arts organizations.
The site, comprising approximately 3 acres, is located to the south of Doncaster town center and is within Doncaster Council ownership.
As the scheme’s design will involve an evolutionary process, the selection will be by competitive interview.
At interview, teams will be asked to provide their initial responses to the site and explain their initial ideas. The interviews will be held in two stages, in Doncaster:
At stage 1 a maximum of 10 teams will each receive £500 to meet the jury panel and show examples of past work.
At stage 2 a maximum of 6 teams will be issued with preliminary details on the project and invited to view the site. A payment of £2,000 will be made to each team to explain their ideas on the project.
Submissions: Applicants should express their motives for wishing to undertake the project and give details of their experience, resources and design skills. Teams should submit three (3) copies of the following information on no more than 20 single sides of A4:
The team’s motivation for applying;
• Details of the team including evidence of their record in the successful realization of similar buildingts, or of projects of a similar scale;
• Illustrations of completed projects;
• Details of proposed consultants
Send applications to:
RIBA Competitions Office
6 Melbourne Street
Leeds LS2 7PS
U.K.E-mail: RIBA Competitions@mail.riba.org
____________
Competition Results:
Monument to the Third Millennium
San Juan, Puerto Rico
The five Finalists and five Honorable Mentions selected by the Jury for the first stage of the two-stage Monument to the Third Millennium Design Competition in San Juan, Puerto Rico are:
Finalists:
1. Jin Taek Han
Brookline, Massachusetts2. Matthew A. Mitchell
Flavio A. Coronel
Layne R. Mitchell
Expressions Architectural Group
Sunrise, Florida3. Roberto Pamio
Charles Felton
Rossana Bocus
Chiara Serena
Matteo Pamio
Ariana Gobbo
Paolo Pamio
Ronny Morfino
Studio di Architettura e Design
Architetto Roberto Pamio
Venice, Italy4. Michel Tortel
Edward Asfour
Michel Tortel, Architecte
Paris, France5. Jonathan Bennett
Robert Papazian
Paul McCleary
B+B Architects
Dublin, Ireland
Honorable Mentions:
1. Kevin OÕBrien
Siteworks Architecture
Los Angeles, California2. John di Domenico
Andrew Berger
Richard Alomar
Kenji Suzuki
Surawat Hant
Karen Quiana
di Domenico & Partners
New York, New York3. Arthur Cotton Moore
Arthur Cotton Moore/Associates
Royal Oak, Maryland4. Cecilia Benites
Miriam Gusevich
Claudia Herasme
Peter McMahon
Demetri Sarantitus
Nicole Schindler
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.(Pedro Sifre)
Susana Torre
Cassandra Wilday
Team for Environmental Architecture
New York, New York5. Herbert I. Burns
William M. Marion
Mili Mulic
HB Studios
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Each Finalist received a stipend of $10,000 to proceed to the second stage. Honorable Mentions received $2,500.
The five Finalists will go on to develop their designs for a second stage submission in late August. A winner, who will be awarded a $50,000 prize will be announced in early September and contracted to produce contract documents for the $25M Monument, sponsored by the Government of Puerto Rico.
Jury members who will also judge the second stage are:
Rafael A. Crespo, Ph.D., Architectural Historian
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Luis Hernandez Cruz, Painter/Sculptor
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer
New York, New York
Charles O. Perry, Sculptor/ Architect
Norwalk, Connecticut
Adele Naude Santos, Architect/ Educator
San Francisco, California
Michael Sorkin, Architect/ Critic
New York, New York
Raphael Vinoly, Architect
New York, New York
Enrique Vivoni Farage, Architectural Educator
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Professional Advisor: Theodore Liebman, FAIA
____________
Green Homes for Chicago
Sponsor: The Chicago Departments of Environment and Housing
Submisstion Deadline: 9 August 2000
Entry fees: $25 (design professionals); $10 (students)
The Chicago Departments of Environment and Housing invite design professionals, including architects, engineers, students and agencies to participate in their upcoming Green Homes for Chicago Design Competition. Beginning July 3, 2000, all materials for the competition can be found on the Chicago Department of Environment’s web page, http://www.cityofchicago.org/Environment. The first phase of competition runs from July 3, 2000 until August 9, 2000.
Five winning designs will be built as Green Homes for Chicago demonstration projects, combining sustainable building and energy efficient technologies with affordable housing. From the initial concept drawings, 10 entrants will receive stipends to produce design drawings of their original submittal. Five entrants will then be selected to receive a commission to produce construction and permit drawings.
The focus is to incorporate green building technology into housing without increasing construction costs. Projects must fit into the urban context of Chicago.
____________
The San Francisco Prize
This year the City of San Francisco and The San Francisco Prize challenge artists and designers to transform Harvey Milk Plaza into a vibrant place of activity and commemoration. This is a major urban design project that encompasses the creation of a public gathering place, multi-modal transit use, a high volume of pedestrian activity, and a significant amount of automobile and truck traffic. A redesigned public space with a memorial focal point in honor of Harvey Milk, innovative street furniture, directional and interpretive signage, and improved transit access will transform the plaza into a city landmark and dynamic town center for this neighborhood.
The purpose of the competition is to generate ideas that respond to the design program. Neither the City nor the Prize have committed funding for the implementation of any of the entries. The City intends to use the ideas generated by the competition as a planning guide for future capital improvements to the area.
Type: Open, one-stage, open to artists, architects, planners, etc.
Entry fee: $30.00
Timetable:
June 19 – Competition Kits Mailed
July 12 – Competitors’ Briefing/Orientation*
July 17 – Deadline for submitting Questions
July 21 – Answers Mailed (addenda)
August 11 – Registration closes
August 31 – Submissions Due
Submissions must be postmarked by August 31 and received by 2:00 PM September 4. Late Submissions WILL NOT be accepted.
The winning scheme should address the following:
1. Harvey Milk Memorial: Design a commemorative work of public art (an object, image, or concept evocative of the values for which Milk fought.)
2. Public Space: Redesign the intersection of Castro, Market and 17th Streets to provide a public gathering space; maximize pedestrian access; improve traffic flow; provide better access to transit.
3. Signage and Wayfinding: Provide directional as well as interpretive signage
4. Street Furniture: Design public amenities including seating, information kiosks, and pedestrian-oriented lighting.
Awards: The Jury will select up to five (5) entries that best respond to the design program. A total of $10,000 (US) will be awarded to the five winners at the discretion of the jury. The payment of the said cash prizes shall relieve the Sponsors of any further obligation to the Competitors. In addition, the Jury may award Certificates of Merit and/or Honorable Mentions for meritorious designs from other Competitors during the Jury
Reviews. The five winners will not be ranked in any order; they will each receive equal recognition and will be displayed at a prominent public space. The City reserves the right to display and reproduce copies of the entry boards for public display or distribution in any type of media.
Jury:
Jim Chappell
President San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
Joe Curtin
AIA President and a charter member of Castro Area Planning + Action
Elizabeth Diller
Professor of Architecture at Princeton University, practicing public artist.
Walter Hood
Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture and -Environmental Planning at the University of California at Berkeley, Macon, GA.
Ellen Lupton
Adjunct curator, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum.
Mark A. Primeau
AIA Director of San Francisco Department of Public Works.
Peter G. Rowe
Dean, Faculty of Design Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Tucker Viemeister
Executive vice president, research and development Razorfish.
Allison Williams
FAIA Partner and Director of Design for Ai
Selection Criteria:
• Represent the highest criteria of design, both in their disciplined and creative use of material, composition, and scale.
• Make users aware of the history and symbolic nature of the place.
• Respond to the context of the immediate neighborhood and the various communities that use the plaza.
• Create a welcoming civic space that is easily identifiable as this neighborhood’s “town center.”
• Be usable, comfortable, easy to maintain, and appropriate to their setting.
• Provide solutions that can be implemented in phases over a period of time.
Registration
Only those submissions from Competitors who have registered and paid the $30 registration fee will be considered eligible for this competition. A completed Entry Form (attached), including the names of the Competitor(s), mailing address, and telephone number, is required to be included in a sealed envelope attached to the back of each of the drawings. A short biography of the team principals should also be enclosed in the sealed envelope.
Only one submission will be permitted per $ 30(US) registration fee. Checks must be made out to SF Prize 2000/Harvey Milk Plaza and sent to the attention of:
Edgar Lopez, AIA
Project Manager
Department of Public Works
30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 4100
San Francisco, CA 94102
Questions and any communications should be sent in writing by mail, FAX, or e-mail to:
Edgar Lopez, AIA
Competition Project Manager
c/o Bureau of Architecture
30 Van Ness, Suite 4100
San Francisco, CA 94102
FAX: (415) 557-4703
Sfprize2000@ci.sf.ca.us
____________
13-acres International Design Competition
Sponsor: University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Type: Open, international, to both students and professionals; Interdisciplinary groups involving landscape architects and people who work with children are strongly encouraged to enter
Note to university faculty members: Competition briefs available on September 1, 2000
Entry fees: US$35 or CND$50
Prizes: $CND30,000 total
Jury:
Peter Latz (Munich)
Mark Francis (University of California via Norway
Cornelia Hahn Oberlander (Vancouver)
Gina Crandell (Boston)
Irere Cinq-Mars (Montreal)
Mark Dudek (London)
…and local representatives.
The jury will be moderated by Susan Herrington of the University of British Columbia’s Landscape Architecture Program.
Design Challenge: The 13-acres international design competition challenges designers to explore the schoolyard as an untapped site for ecological rejuvenation and environmental education. The competition is for the design of combined park and schoolyard land as places for “site knowledge,” exploration, play, and learning for children, teachers, and the surrounding community. Here, the complexities of park landscape, educational programming, poetics, and ecological design come together in a powerful way to provide inspiration for creative propositions.
The competition site is located within East Clayton, a sustainability demonstration neighborhood in Surrey, British Columbia. The 13-acres competition builds upon the mission of this demonstration site by extending further to the park and schoolyard the plan’s sustainable mission. The Design Program specifies that designers explore and envision designs that use ecological systems as both a poetic device and an educational material.
Design entries should layer wetland areas, classroom use, play space, parkland, and community programs in one site.
Currently, schoolyards are typified by expanses of pavement, pre-fabricated play structures, and chain-link fence. Why are we designing schoolyards that could barely entertain a chimpanzee? While these spaces can provide key learning experiences for children and adults, their value is under-appreciated, even in this time of increased environmental awareness.
“It is at the level of public school education that the most basic schemata of the culture are systematically presented and reinforced” (Bowers. 1995). Yet in this age of environment awareness and lands art, schoolyards rarely exhibit any sensitivity to the site’s ecological conditions, the school’s cultural setting, or the children and neighbors who use it on a daily basis.
In this past decade there has been a rising concern among landscape architects, environmental designers, parents, educators, and others to reinterpret the schoolyard to address community needs. This competition asks designers to step outside conventional thinking and combine two paradigm shifts emerging in the development of landscapes.
The first shift is from schoolyards that are designed primarily to serve organized sports and provide play equipment to schoolyards that are layered sites for play and environmental learning, and provide a broader community resource. The second shift is from the design and planning of communities that are detrimental to the ecological environment, to communities that are planned to employ green infrastructure and sustainable design techniques.
For more information and registration
see the web page beginning August 1: www.13-acres.org
____________
New School of Business
Sponsor: University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD
Type: RfQ, two-stage; 3-5 finalists will be selected
Timetable:
31 Aug 2000 First stage (portfolio) deadline
Sept 2000 Announcement of final stage competitors
Budget: $12.7M for a structure of 94,000 SF
Eligibility: Open to U.S.-based registered architects with experience in design and project management at the scale required for an educational facility of this type.
Procedure:
During the first stage of the competition, portfolios/credentials will be reviewed by a professional jury and selected entrants will be invited to enter the second stage of the competition.
The second-stage of the competition will be to develop and provide conceptual design proposals for a new School of Business on the campus of the University of South Dakota based on specific site, program and cost criteria. The selected entrants will submit their requisite proposals for final review by a State of South Dakota Building Committee and 3-5 finalists will share $100,000 for their work plus travel expenses for the final presentation before the jury.
The competition winner will have thet right to negotiate with the client for the design commission. A State of South Dakota Building Committee composed of the President of the University, the Executive Director of the Board of Regents, a Regent Representative and the State Engineer with the support of the Jury, will chose the winning competition entry.
Challenge: The second-stage of the competition will be to develop and provide conceptual design proposals for a new School of Business for the University of South Dakota based on specific site, program and cost criteria. Submissions must create a vision of the New School of Business within the framework of the University community. Concepts must be telling and indicate a level of buildable reality that can speak to the students, faculty and staff of the University of South Dakota and the people of the State of South Dakota. This is public building that will represent more than itself. It will bear witness to a time and place, a people and purpose.
Jury and Selection Process:
Tom Bantel AIA
The Freedom Forum World Center, Arlington, VA
William Conway AIA
Head, Department of Architecture
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
David Cronrath AIA
Chair, Department of Architecture
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Lincoln, NE
Robert Findlay FAIA
Interim Chair and Professor
Department of Architecture
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Competition Adviser: Tom Reasoner, University Architect
Portfolio Submission requirements:
First-Stage: Proof of current architectural licensure, i.e. state registration number(s), is required with the first-stage portfolio submissions. Documentation of previous experience in projects of this scale and scope are to be included in the portfolio submission. The work documented must include the names of the lead designer and project teams for those projects and the submission must also state the lead designer for the competition design team.
Second-stage competition submissions must be conveyed in the form of four separate, independent Òvision boardsÓ 30Ó x 40Ó (with the long dimension vertical) suitable for reproduction in black and white and/or color. No identification of the competitors is allowed on the submissions, “blind boards.”
At a minimum, the four boards must include a site plan showing adjacent buildings and connections to the campus; block floor plans with major programmatic spaces and relationships defined. Also essential building infrastructure and systems must be described, and sufficient three-dimensional renderings, elevations, sections and/or other images to enliven and present a built form on the competition site
FirstÐstage portfolio submissions should be sent to:
New School of Business Design Competition
c/o Facilities Management
University of South Dakota
414 East Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069-2390
Website: www.usd.edu/finadmin/competition
Ph: 605/677-6101
____________
City and County Museum, Lincoln
Project: New City & County Museum and multi-story car park in Lincoln, UK. The successful architect/team will also be expected to develop the spatial master-plan for the surrounding area.
Sponsors: RIBA, City/County of Lincoln
Type: Two-stage with RfQ in first stage: 2nd stage is anonymous
Budget: £10million
Timetable:
18 May 2000 RfQ deadline (1600 hrs)
12 June 2000 Interviews
Language: English
Interview process: The interview will seek an architect/team that has the right balance of experience, expertise, proven design flair and the personal chemistry needed to work with the client body.
Overseas applicants should demonstrate their ability to successfully deliver the project from within the UK.
Submit: Applicant teams should submit three (3) copies of the following information:
• The team’s motivation for applying
• Details of the practice including evidence of their record in the successful realisation of similar projects, or of buildings of a similar scale.
• Evidence of working on projects within sensitive, historic locations
• Details on the intended organisation of the team, with CVs of staff who would contribute to the project.
• Experience of lottery funded projects (in UK)
• Details of the economic and financial standing of the practice
Information in support of these criteria should be succinctly set out on not more than 10 A4 single-sided pages. The 10 sheets of text may be supplemented by graphic material to reference previous projects, but must be restricted to an additional 10 single sides of A4 paper.
Applications should be delivered to:
RIBA Competitions Office
6 Melbourne Street,
Leeds LS2 7PS
U.K.
____________
Institute for the Blind, Regensburg, Germany
Sponsor: Institute for the Blind Foundation, Wurzburg, Germany
Type: Open, 2-stage, anonymous
Fee: DM200
Language: German
Eligibility: EWR member state residents as well as licensed architects/landscape architects residing in countries with membership in GATT and WTO.
Timetable:
| 4/10/2000 6/15/2000 10/5/2000 |
Program briefs available 1st stage entries due 2nd stage entries due |
Design challenge: Design for a new Institute for the Blind in Regensburg as well as a plan for the surrounding area.
Jury:
Susanne Burger, Munich
Willi Egli, Zurich
Friedrich Carl Haindl, Munich
Prof. Herbert Kallmayer, Munich
Prof. Otto Steidle, Munich/Berlin
Utz Peter Strehle, Munich
Kurt Werner, Regensburg
Total Prizes:
| First Second Third Fourth Fifth |
DM40,000 DM32,000 DM24,000 DM19,200 DM12,800 |
plus, 4 Honorable Mentions – DM8,000 each
Contact information: Programs may be obtained by sending a check or money order to:
Architekturburo Manfred Blasch
Weitoldstrasse 7a
D-93047 RegensburgTel: 0941/495800
Fax: 0941/53969
____________
Monument to the Third Millennium Sponsor:
Government of Puerto Rico
Type: Open, two-stage
Budget: $25M Eligibility: Architects and artists resident in either the continental U.S. or Puerto Rico (At least one member of the design team must be a registered architect in either locality.)
Honoraria: Five (5) priize winners from the first stage will each receive $10,000 to compete in the 2nd Stage
Prizes: First Prize is $50,000 plus commission. Second and Third Place prizes will also be awarded
Jury:
Luis Hernandez Cruz,, Artist/Sculptor, PR
Matthys Levy, Engineer, New York City
Charles O. Perry, Sculptor, New York
Otto Ottavio Reyes-Casanova, Architect, PR Adele Naude Santos, Architect, Philadelphia
Michael Sorkin, Architect, Critic, New York
Raphael Vinoly, Architect, New York
Guillermo Baralt, Ph.D. Historian, PR
Rafael Crespo, Architectural Historian, PR
Professional Adviser: Theodore Liebman, FAIA
Timetable:
15 April 00 Program released
16 June 00 First Stage submittal due
25 Aug 00 Second State submittal due
Site: The site is in the newly constructed Third Millennium Park in San Juan, Puerto Rico Further details, the jury, and program information will be forthcoming on the web site: www.monumentcompetition.com.
____________
New Government Center
Contra Costa County, Martinez, California
The Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, intends to engage the services of an architecture and engineering consultant to provide comprehensive programming, planning and design services for the construction of a new 140,000 gross square foot office building and Board Chambers for the City and County administrative headquarters. The successful offeror will be selected through an open solicitation and selection process that includes a limited design competition. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to terminate this selection at any time.
Type: RfQ, 2-stage
Eligibility: Not limited to state of California
Timetable
| 1. | Request for Proposals Available | January 18, 2000 |
| 2. | Stage 1 Submittals Due | February 18, 2000 |
| 3. | Short List Announced | March 14, 2000 |
| 4. | Stage 2 Team Proposals Due | April 7, 2000 |
| 5. | Stage 2 Visioning Concepts Due | April 28, 2000 |
| 6. | Selection Complete | June 6, 2000 |
Project Description and Status
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this architect selection and design competition with the hopes of soliciting alternative visions from talented architects and designers for their new Government Center. This new Government Center provides the opportunity to architecturally invigorate the historic California community of Martinez. The new Government Center in downtown Martinez incorporates approximately 140,000 gross square feet to meet the future space needs of the Board of Supervisors, Clerk of the Board, County Administrator, County Counsel, Human Resources, Risk Management, the Training Institute, Clerk/Recorder, Elections, the Assessor’s Offices, and administrative offices for the City of Martinez.
O’Brien Kreitzberg is currently updating the preliminary facilities program for the new Government Center. Shortlisted design firms will receive a copy of this preliminary program prior to their preparation of Stage 2 submittals. The selected architect will prepare the detailed facilities program for the project.
Scope of Required Services
Detailed Building Program Prepare a detailed facilities program that identifies the technical requirements for each functional area of the facility including furniture and equipment. In addition develop adjacency or separation requirements of each functional area, building infrastructure requirements, building security requirements, and parking requirements for elected officials and designated staff. The architect shall also prepare a project budget for the approved program. Site Analysis and Planning: Prepare a comprehensive site analysis to determine optimal site usage and building footprint. Include with this analysis consideration of proposed city, county, and private facilities.
Design: Provide comprehensive and complete architectural and engineering design services including schematic design, design development, and construction document services. In addition provide cost estimating (including value engineering) services, space planning and interior design services, and graphic communication services.
Construction: Provide limited construction administration services including: submittal and shop drawing review, response to contractor Requests for Information, preparation of supplementary instructions, periodic site observations, and creation of punch lists prior to construction completion. Supplementary Services: Provide other supplementary planning and design services as requested by the county.
Submittals
Interested firms shall submit three copies of their proposal to:
Mr. Mark Tortorich, AIA
Sr. Project Manager
O’Brien Kreitzberg
2500 Alhambra Avenue
Martinez, California 94553
Phone: 925-370-5371;
Fax:925-370-5378
Proposals must be received no later than 3:00pm, February 18, 2000 and fully respond to the Stage 1 submittal requirements listed below. Fax proposals will not be allowed.
STAGE 1 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Past Performance on Design: The architectural design firm’s previous experience and design ability will be evaluated after reviewing the following materials, information from references or direct experience.
Submit Standard Form 254 (Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire) items 1-9 for each firm (or the firm’s local office, if appropriate) including the firm’s website address,
A profile, no longer than two typewritten pages, which describes the architectural design firm’s history, significant accomplishments, and design philosophy, and…
A maximum of five projects (completed or designed within the last five years) to convey the firm’s experience with buildings of similar size, function, or budget. For each of the five projects provide:
A single page project profile. Include with the project profile the actual and/or estimated construction cost per square foot in 1999 dollars (excluding construction contingencies, land acquisition costs, furniture, fittings, equipment, or professional fees) and a client reference. Highlight building features which encourage energy and environmental conservation.
Three additional pages of graphics, with at least one graphic depicting the building site plan and surrounding context.
Key Personnel: The architectural design firm’s key personnel will be evaluated after review of the following materials, information from references, or direct experience.
Submit SF 255 for the key personnel that will be principally involved with the design and production of the project. These key individuals should include:
•The Design Principal responsible for guiding the design team,
•The Project Designer(s) responsible for development of the concept, and
•The Project Manager in charge of client contact, contractual issues, and construction documents.A portfolio with no more than three (3) projects (completed or designed within the last five years) should accompany the biography of each key person. The portfolio should include:
•A brief description of the key person’s role on each project and two (2) graphics per project.
•If two or more key personnel worked on the same project, please do not submit duplicate portfolios or increase the number of graphics for the projectProduction Capabilities and Experience with Preparing Construction Documents for Public Agency Procurement: Provide a narrative description (no more than two typewritten pages) of procedures and controls used to prepare construction documents. Cite specific examples of project documents prepared for lump sum, lowest price procurement. Estimate, as a percentage of the firm’s total workload, what portion is awarded through lowest price procurements.
Construction Administration
Briefly address the firm’s construction administration approach to this project. This statement may be separate (and limited to one typewritten page) or incorporated with the narratives for items 1, 2, or 3 above (i.e. construction administration is incumbent with project management duties).
Selection Requirements
This Architect selection will occur in two stages as follows:
STAGE 1: The first stage will establish the design and production capabilities of the architectural design firm (or the firm’s local office responsible for the project) and its key personnel. This firm, which will have primary responsibility to conceive the design concept and building architecture, will be the prime contractor to the County for the designated services. The architectural design firm’s qualifications and capabilities will be evaluated against the following criteria (in order of importance) to establish the short list.
Firm’s Ability to Produce Quality Design with Modest Budgets: The firm (or the firm’s local office responsible for the project) will be evaluated on their ability to achieve architectural excellence on comparable projects.
Key Personnel’s Qualifications and Experience: The education, experience, and training of key personnel will be evaluated to determine their capacity to perform the proposed project. The Project Designer should demonstrate his/her skill with achieving architectural excellence on comparable projects. In addition, the proposed Project Manager must demonstrate his or her experience with public agency facilities.
Familiarity and Expertise in Producing Construction Documents for Public Agencies: The firm will be evaluated on their documented success with maintaining project budgets and controlling construction cost growth on fixed priced construction procurements.
Ability to Support Project During Design and Construction: The firm will be evaluated on its ability to quickly and efficiently respond to the client and other project team members (Project Management Firm, Construction Contractor, etc.) during design and construction.
STAGE 2: In the second stage of this selection, the short listed architectural design firms will be invited to submit information regarding the engineering and specialty consultants proposed for this project and participate in a limited design competition. Design firms must also demonstrate ability to comply with state and local building codes, regulations, and guidelines.
Technical Proposal and Evaluation: In this second stage of selection the architectural design firm’s engineering and technical consultants will submit firm histories, relevant experience, and biographical information on key personnel. Firms will also receive additional information regarding Contra Costa County’s Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program. Emphasis will be placed on the project team’s creativity, internal working relationships, and past success with delivering a fully integrated design. The County’s Technical Evaluation Committee will interview each shortlisted team.
Visioning Concept
The conceptual design proposals should represent the architect’s philosophical and stylistic approach to the development of modern government facilities in downtown Martinez. Specific elements of the competition include: Each finalist will receive a $25,000 honorarium upon completion of the second stage requirements as full and complete compensation for services rendered.
Submittal requirements include a maximum of (4) 30″ X 40″ presentation boards, a 1″ to 30′- 0″ scale model and a project cost estimate. A model base of the Martinez Civic Center, including surrounding buildings and site features, will be provided by the County.
A competition jury composed of private sector architects and design and construction professionals will advise the Technical Evaluation Committee on the merits of the visioning concepts. The competition jury plays an advisory role, with final slate recommendations resting with the Technical Evaluation Committee. An information package including the preliminary program, site survey and geotechnical reports, and competition guidelines will be distributed to the shortlisted firms.
Final Selection
The Technical Evaluation Committee which includes county facilities staff, professional consultants, and others appropriate for the selection will recommend a final slate to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors in order of preference. This recommendation accounts for both the technical proposals and the visioning concepts on an equal weighting. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, contract negotiations will commence with the highest ranked firm from the slate. Contract award is contingent upon successful negotiations and the availability of funds.
____________
Architecture/Finalists
University of New Mexico
School of Architecture
The four finalists selected for the competition phase of the project are:
Leers Weinzapfel, Architects,
Boston; in association with SMP Architects, AlbuquerqueBarton Myers Associates, Architects,
Beverly Hill, California; in association with Ellis/Browning Architects, Santa FeAntoine Predock Architect,
AlbuquerqueRob Wellington Quigley,
Architecture, San Diego; in association with Garrett Smith Architects, Albuquerque.
____________
Anglia University Polytechnic
Centre for Business, Management
& Postgraduate Studies
Client: St. Francis
Type: International, RfQ, 2-stage (up to 6 architects shortlisted for a competition)
Submission Deadline: 1600 hrs, 1 March 2000
Budget: £8 million
Anglia University Polytechnic in Chelmsford, England is seeking a building of architectural distinction to be a powerhouse for modern learning, teaching and research, and a base from which the University can play a significant part in the economic development of the eastern region. The new building will be the Essex base of the Anglia Business School complementing the work of the Business School in Cambridge and a postgraduate centre for the Essex campus of the University.
The Centre will form part of the continued development of the University’s Rivermead Campus masterplan. The campus comprises brownfield land and is bounded by the River Chelmer to the east, and the Chelmer Valley Road to the west. The University is seeking architects with the necessary design excellence, experience and capability to produce an environmentally friendly building of distinction.
Selection process: Up to six (6) architects will be invited to take part in the competition and prepare preliminary design proposals for the new building. The selection will be preceded by interviews with between ten and twelve architects, with the design brief issued to selected candidates in mid-March. Interested applicants should provide details of their experience (including experience of their record in the successful realization of building projects of this scale), and their ability to design a sustainable, environmentally friendly building of distinction. Practices should express their motives for applying, demonstrate how their previous work is relevant, and what originality they would bring to the project. CVs should be provided of staff who would contribute to the project. Overseas applicants should demonstrate their ability to deliver the project from within the UK.
Information in support of these criteria should be set out on not more than 10 A4 single pages. The 10 pages of text may be supplemented by graphic material to reference previous projects, but must be restricted to 10 additional single sides of A4 paper.
Note: Applicants should submit 3 copies of the above information in English!
Applications should be delivered to:
RIBA Competitions Office
6 Melbourne Street
Leeds LS2 7PS
UK
Tel: 0113 2341335
Fax: 0113 2460744
E-mail: RIBA.Competition@mail.riba.org
____________
Call for Expressions of Interest
Limited Competition for Design of New Gymnasium and Arts Center Addition
Client: St. Francis School, Louisville, Kentucky
Type: Two stages: 1st stage – RfQ; 2nd stage – limited competition (3 participants)
Eligibility: Architects living or practicing within a 120 mile radius of Louisville, Kentucky
Compensation: Each participant will receive $5,000 upon completing the requirements for submission. The winning team will have the opportunity to negotiate with the client for the commission.
Budget: $3.3M (based on 25,000 SF @$135 per square foot)
Timetable:
15 Dec 1999 Deadline for RfQs
15 Feb 2000 Submission deadline for entries
Jury:
• James Gibson, Architect, Louisville, Kentucky
• Jasper Ward, Architect, Louisville, Kentucky
• David Mohney, AIA, Dean, School of Architecture, University of Kentucky
• Joe Argabrite, AIA, Louisville, Kentucky (alternate)
St. Francis School is planning the construction of a 25,000 SF structure to house sports facilities and an arts center (theater, art and photography studios, music rooms) in an urban setting in downtown Louisville. The new building will be located on a 1-acre site on Third Street directly north of the school’s present facilities in the hidtoric YMCA Building at Third and Broadway. A master plan for the renovation of the existing building has recently been completed by Potter and Cox Architects of Louisville. A contemporary design for the new building is desired, in Keeping with the school’s progressive philosophy.
RfQ Requirements: Expressions of interest shall include:
• Images of two (2) built projects by the project architect with descriptions of each (In addition, one unbuilt premiated design from a competition can be submitted, if available)
• A one-page letter describing the design philosophy and brief resume of the project architect
• The letter must contain the name of the person(s) who will be responsible for the design, the construction documents, and be the project contact person. The lead designer will make the presentation in the event that his/her firm is one of the competition participants.
Competition Requirements
• Two (2) 40″ x 30″ sheets mounted on boards
• Separate rendering of Third Street elevation
• Detailed description of facade treatment
• No models or model shots
• Drawings to include floor plans, sections, elevations and one rendering illustrating the Third Street elevation
• The firms which are shortlisted will receive a detailed program and a copy of the master plan.
For information, contact:
Tom Pike, Head of School St. Francis High School
233 West Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202
Ph: (502) 585-2057;
Fax: (502) 585-3658
e-mail: mancini@stfrancis.pvt.kl2.us
____________
Helsinki Music Center Competition
First Stage Results
Six entries were chosen as the best entries of the first stage (These six entries are not necessarily the winners of the second stage). The purpose of the first stage was to find ideas, townscape and urban structure solutions as well as the music centre’s basic functional concept. The second stage will be used for the actual building design of the Music Centre. All Competitors who submitted an approved entry in the first stage can enter the second stage. The names of the six best entries are not to be published before the end of the second stage – that is next summer, 20 June 2000.
Results of the first stage can be viewed
at the Music Centre website: http://www.musicfinland.com/musiikkitalo/palkintoluokka.html
____________
Architecture in Perspective
Event: International competition and exhibition of architectural illustration
Organization: The American Society of Architectural Perspectivists (ASAP)
Deadline: December 6, 1999
Eligibility: Open to ASAP members in good standing and newly subscribed members, who may submit up to 10 slides representing proposed buildings, interiors, or architectural environments. Renderings of wholly existing (at time of drawing execution) buildings, interiors, or environments will not be acceptable.
Categories: Formal (formal presentation renderings, drawings, paintings or computer imagery); Sketch (informal sketches, drawings and paintings) Format: 35mm slides- glass slides not acceptable Entry Fees: $65 first slide, $30 each additional (up to 10 slides per entrant)
Contact:
ASAP
1518 K Street NW, Suite 503
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 737-4401
Fax (202) 638-4833
Email hq@asap.org
Website http://www.asap.org
____________
Visitors Center in Bavarian National Park
(Bayerischer Wald)
Client: State of Bavaria
Type: Open, two-stage
Site: Ludwigsthal, District Regen
Size: 2.184 m2
A visitors center in an environmentally sensitive area in the Bavarian forest. The center will have space for exhibits, meetings, administration, shop, etc.
Eligibility: Residence in an EWR country or Switzerland
Registration deadline: 1/15/2000
Submittals: 2/10/2000
Fee: DM200.-
Language: German
For information, contact:
Staatliches Hochbauamt Passau
Karlsbader Strasse 15
94036 Passau, Germany
Tel: 0851/5017-255
Fax 0851/5017-444
e-mail: abteilung.16@shbapa.bayern.de
Internet: http://www.shbapa.bayern.de
____________
New HQ Building and Residential Accommodation, Stoke-on-Trent
Sponsor: Staffordshire Housing Association RIBA approved
Eligibility: Architects registered to practice in U.K. and Europe
Type: RFQ (Expressions of Interest) Ten teams will be interviewed and six chosen for a competition
Compensation: £1,000 for each team
Budget: £1.7 million Deadline: Wednesday, 21 July 1999
Send firm information (10 single sides of A4) to:
RIBA Competitions Office
6 Melbourne Street
Leeds LS2 7PS
Tel: 0113 2341335
Fax 0113 2460744
____________
Helsinki Music Center Competition
Sponsor: Finnish Government and the City of Helsinki
Type: Open, international, two-stage The purpose of the first stage is to find ideas, townscape and urban structure solutions, as well as the music centre’s basic functional concept.Ê The competition’s second stage will be used for the actual building design of the Music Centre.
Registration Deadline: 2 August 1999
Submission Deadline: 23 August 1999 (Entries must either be postmarked or sent by courier by this date. They must be received no later than 30 August 1999. The scale model is due by 6 Sept 99 Ñ postmarked or sent by courier by that date: receipt – 13/9) Languages of competition: English, Finnish
Eligibility: Open to all citizens from the European Union’s member states, and to citizens from those countries that have concluded the GP Agreement with the European Union, according to each country’s currently valid agreements and law (This includes the U.S.)
Registration Fee: None
Awards: Euro – 336,500 (total)
Jurors: Vilho Hirvi, Aimo MurtomSki, Tuulikki Terho, Lassi Rajamaa, Dr. Kati HSmSlSinen, Jorma Heinonen, Marjatta Erwe and PSivi Montola
Design Challenge: To design facilities in the Music Centre for the Sibelius Academy, the Radio Symphony Orchestra, the Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra, the Music Information Centre, as well as for a concert hall fulfilling high acoustical standards.Ê The Music Centre’s operational concept is openness. Its goal is to be musical meeting place for the public.Ê At the Music Centre, it will be possible to drop in, listen to music, visit a sheet music shop, cafeteria or the music library.Ê Vital to the Music Centre’s existence is its location in one of the city centre’s most active pedestrian traffic areas.Ê In the Music Centre, music is listened to, played, rehearsed, studied, taught, researched and produced in all its diversity.Ê Professional musicians, students and the public will be able to interact in a new kind of innovative environment.Ê
For more information or to register, contact:
Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA)
Yrjsnkatu 11 A
FIN-00120 Helsinki, Finland
Phone: +358-9-584 448
Fax: +359-9-584 44222
Email: paula.huotelin@safa.fi
Website: http://www.minedu.fi/helsinkimusiccentercompetition/
____________
Shinkenchiku Residential Design 1999
Theme: A theater for 200 People in a Square in an Urban Center
Prizes: Total amount of ´1,500,000 will be apportioned at the discretion of the judge
Jury: Oscar Niemeyer (Brazil)
Submission deadline: 13 May 1999
Send entries to: Entries Committee The Shinkenchiku Residential Design Competition1999 Shinkenchiku-sha Co. Ltd. 2-31-2 Yushima, Bunkyou-ku Tokyo 113-8501 Japan
(This is the only information available to us on this competition)
____________
Finalists: African Burial Ground Interpretive Center
Sponsor: General Services Administration
Location: Manhattan, New York City
Finalists:
Design & Production Inc. of Lorton, VA
Michael Smith, Patrick Gallagher, Roberta Washington, Daniel Sorg, James Oliver Horton and Theresa Singleton
Duckett and Associates/H.J. Russell & Company of Atlanta, GA
Bruce harris, Craig VanDevere, Darrell Stallings, Herman Mason Jr.,
Lee Baker and Warren Barbour
IDI Construction Company, Inc. of New York, NY
Jose Velazquez, Jacqueline Hamilton, Deidre Scott, Robert Avitable,
A.J. Williams-Myers and Lee Baker
Promatech, Inc., of New York, NY (William E. Davis, Jr., John K. Samuels III, Martial Elie-Pierre, Thomas Bouchard, Delores Newton
and Gayle T. Tate.)
Studio Works UAI, and Joint Venture, New York, NY
Tony Shitemi, Winston Deans, Keith Godard, Lee Baker
and Margaret Washington
____________
Dundas Square Competition
Sponsor: City of Toronto Toronto, Canada
Winner: Brown and Storey Architects Toronto, Ontario
2nd Place Oleson & Worland Toronto, Ontario
3rd Place Bregman and Hamann Toronto, Ontario
return to top of page
____________
Results: School of Architecture Competition,
Florida International University
The winners of the competition were announced on March 6, 1999.
They are:
Winner: Bernard Tschumi/Bruno-Elias & Associates (Paris)
Other finalists:
• Mateu Carreno Rizo & Partners
• Spillis Candela & Partners
• Arata Isozaki/Zyscovich (Tokyo)
____________
New Aomori Prefectural Athletic Park
“General Gymnasium” Concept Plans
& Technical Proposal Competition
Brief: Designing the comprehensive Athletic Park to serve the Prefecture as a center for sports.
Prizes: 5-6 finalists: 1M yen each and attending the hearing session in the second stage Jury: Kisho Kurokawa (Chair)/Toyo Ito/Hiroshi Naito, etc.
Timetable: 24 March 1999
Submission Deadline: 6 May 1999
Submission Deadline Address:
1-1-1 Nagashima
Aomori City, Aomori Prefecture
Japan
Tel: 81-177-34-0171
Fax: 81-177-34-0099
____________
School of Architecture Competition,
Florida International University
Public presentations by finalists on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 in Room 110, Wertheim Performing Arts Center, Florida International University
Schedule:
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM Mateu Carreno Rizo & Partners
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Spillis Candela & Partners
2:00 PM – 3:30 PM Bernard Tschumi/Bruno-Elias & Assoc (Paris)
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Arata Isozaki/Zyscovich (Tokyo)
Final announcement of the winner will be on March 6, 1999
Construction of the $15.5M project is expected to be completed by Spring of 2001.
____________
Results of Pittsburgh Convention Center Competition
1st Place Rafael Vinoly, New York, NY
2nd Place Arquitectonica, Miami, FL
Other finalists:
• SOM, New York, NY
• Cesar Pelli, New Haven, CT
____________
Conversion of the Keroman Submarine Base,
Lorient (France)
In our announcement of this ideas competition in the last issue of the CompetitionHotline (Febuary), we forgot to specifically mention that the registration fee of FF2,000 is to be reimbursed to the participant when the sponsor receives the particpant’s competition entry.
____________
U.S. Courthouse, Springfield, MA
Client: U.S. General Services Administration
Type: Open, RfQ, 3-stage
Budget: $30-40 Million
Size: 14,500 SF
Deadline for RfQs: 2 March 1999 (2 PM)
Eligibility: Design/production office must be located within the New England region (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT). The design/production team shall perform a significant portion of its design/production effort with a firm whose primary office address is in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut or Rhode Island.Architects from outside this area must combine with a New England firm for consideration by the GSA
Evaluation criteria:
1. Past performance on design (35%)
2. Philosophy and design intent (25%)
3. Lead designers portfolios (20%)
4. Lead designers profiles (15%)
5. Geographic location (5%)
Stage 1: The first Stage will establish the experience and capabilities of the A/E Design firm and the lead designer. In the first stage, a short list, minimum of six (6) A/E Design Firms, will be selected to continue to stage 2. The short list will be based on the A/E Design firms’ submittals in response to this Request for Qualifications (RfQ). The A/E Design Firm shall provide specific evidence of its capabilities to deliver design excellence, and shall express its design philosophy. Qualifications submitted by each firm will be reviewed and evaluated during this stage using the above-mentioned criteria.
Stage 2: In the second stage of evaluation, each of the short-listed firms will submit information for the total Project Team for review. The Project Team shall be considered to include the A/E Design Firm, their designated lead designer and ALL consultants who will be involved on the project. The A/E Design Firm shall submit Standard Forms 254 and 255s that address the entire project team. Dates for stage 2 submissions will be published in the CBD.
Stage 3: The short-listed firms will be invited to participate in a design competition juried by a panel of design professionals. Submissions must be mailed to: The General Services Administration Property Development Division 10 Causeway Street, RM 901 Boston, MA 02222-1077 by 2 PM, 2 March 1999
To obtain a copy of the Commerce Business Daily announcement with all conditions, contact:
Frank Saviano, Project Manager
Ph: (617) 565-5494
Fax: (617) 565-5967
____________
Finalists for Corcoran Gallery of Art Competition,Washington, D.C.
Daniel Libeskind, Berlin/Los Angeles
Frank Gehry, Los Angeles
Santiago Calatrava, Valencia, Spain
____________
OISTAT Prague Theater Competition correction:
Entries should be postmarked not later than February 15, 1999
____________
Finalists for the Foster City (California) Government Center:
Hellmuth Obata Kassabaum (San Francisco office)
Robinson Mills + Williams (San Francisco)
Fisher-Friedman (San Francisco)
Roesling Nakamura Architects (San Diego)
DES Architects and Engineers (Redwood City, CA)
____________
City Gateway Competition
New London, Connecticut
Submission Date Correction: 10 November 1998
____________
School of Architecture,
Florida International University
Type: RfQ – eight (8) firms selected for interviews four (4) firms selected to participate in design competition
Eligibility: Firms must be licensed in Florida (joint ventures possible)
Compensation: $35,000 for each firm
Deadline for applications: 2 p.m., November 2, 1998
Budget: $11,877,350, of which approximately $9 M will be available for construction (There is a possibility of additional $3.5 million for later expansion)
This project is to build the School of Architecture at Florida International University, University Park. It is located on a prominent site along the east side of the main campus entrance mall connecting from S.W. 8th Street, at the corner intersecting the campus loop road. The site extends eastward toward the existing Engineering and Computer Science building. The portion of the building which fronts on the entrance mall will be subject to the established design guidelines for the Entrance Mall district identified in the “Comprehensive Campus Master Plan” dated May 16, 1995. The portion of the building which fronts the campus loop road will have the challenge of connecting two contrasting architectural styles. Space requirements for the building include teaching laboratories which consist of studios, review rooms, visual resource room, model-making shop, interior design materials room, architectural demonstration laboratory, and werver and printer room. Graduate research studios, classrooms, reading room, gallery, and faculty and staff offices will also be included. In addition support spaces for instructional media, student academic support, and campus support services are to be provided.
The construction delivery method is proposed to be construction management – at risk. Notice-to-proceed and the design Competition Rules and instructions will be issued to the four applicants at the scheduled pre-design orientation meeting.
At the end of the Design Competition phase, each of the competitors will present its design to a jury preselected by the University. The competitor with the winning design will be asked to enter into a contract to provide full design, construction documents and construction administration for the referenced project. Blanket professional liability insurance will be rquired for this project in the amount of $1M and will be provided as a part of Basic Services.
Instructions: Those firms and Joint Ventures desiring to apply for consideration will submit a letter of application. The letter of application should have attached:
1) A completed Board of Regents “Professional Qualifications Supplement,” dated 9/15/97. Applications on any other form will not be considered. Notwithstanding item “C” of the special instructions for the joint venture, applicants included on the Professional Qualification Supplement, location will be scored based on the location of the party to the joint venture which is closest from the project.
2) A copy of the applicant’s current Professional Registration Certificate from the appropriate governing board. An applicant must be properly registered at the time of application to practice its profession in the State of Florida. if the applicant is a corporation or a Joint Venture, it must be chartered by the Florida Department of State to operate in Florida. Submit ten (10) copies of the above requested data bound in the order listed above. No other materials are to be submitted.
Applications which do not comply with the above instructions are subject to disqualification. Application materials will not be returned. The plans and specifications for the State University System projects are subject to reuse in accordance with the provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. As required by Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, a consultant may not submit a proposal for this project if it is on the convicted vendor list for a public entity crime committed within the past 36 months. The selected consultant must warrant that it will neither utilize the services of, nor contract with, any supplier, subcontractor, or consultant in excess of $15,000 in connection with this project for a period of 36 months from the date of their being placed on the conviced vendor list.
Professional Qualifications Supplement forms, descriptive project information, and selection criteria may be obtained by contacting: Facilities Management, Room 450, ECS Building, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, FL 33199 Ph: (305)348-4000; Fax: (305) 348-4010 Requests for meeting by individual firms will not be granted. Once the firm acquires the required forms, questions may be directed to Mary Witham of Facilities Management. Submittals must be received in the facilities management office at the above address by 2 p.m., local time, November 2, 1998. Late submittals will be disqualified. Facsimile (FAX) submittals are not acceptable and will not be considered.
____________
The Bridgehaven 40th Anniversary
National Design Competition
The Bridgehaven 40th Anniversary National Design Competition will not be held as announced in the Summer 1998 issue of COMPETITIONS
____________
Nahuel Huapi National Park Hotel
new deadlines
Project: Design of 5-star hotel in Argentina
Sponsor: Lagos Espejo Resort, S.A.; UIA
Type: International, open, ideas
Eligibility: Open to architects throughout the world, individually or in teams, who possess the right to practice in their countries.
Prizes:
$50,000 First Place
$15,000 Second Place
$10,000 Third Place
Registration Fee: $US150.00
Languages: Spanish and English
Timetable (new deadlines):
31 Aug 98 – Deadline for registration
10 Sep 98 – Deadline for questions
15 Sep 98 – Deadline for sending answers
26 Oct. 98 – Deadline for sending or handing in entries
02 Nov 98 – Deadline for receipt of mailed entries
Jury:
Sara Topelson de Grinberg (Mexico)
Felipe Lariviere (Argentina)
Jorge d�Angeli (Argentina)
Luis Mirabelli (Argentina)
Luiz Paulo Conde (Brazil)
Tomas Dagnino (Argentina)
Terry Farrel (United Kingdom)
Massimiliano Fuksas (Italy)
Jorge Glusberg (Argentina)
Luis Grossman (Argentina
Itsuko Hasegawa (Japan)
Hans Hollein (Austria)
Augusto Pantarotto (Argentina)
Cesar Pelli (USA)
Stanley Tigerman (USA)
Competition goals/program: The goal of the promoter is to develop a prestigious pole of tourism in this region in the south of Argentina, on an exceptional site on the shores of Lake Espejo, rich with a precious natural heritage. This zone which is protected by the National Parks Administration, calls for an exemplary design in harmony with the landscape and vegetation of which it must become a part. The program for the hotel, of a total surface of 7,000 m2, is for one hundred bedrooms and will include various hotel and recreational facilities, a pool and various nautical activities.
Registration: The registration may be made in person or in writing and will include the name of the entrant or team leader together with full address, telephone and fax numbers, and possibly e-mail address as well as a bank draft for US$150 made out to: Fundacion CAYC. Alternatively, payment may be made by bank transfer to Fundacion CAYC, Acct.# 200015/6 023/0 at the öBanco de Galicia,ä Branch 23, Juan B. Justo 6599, 1407 Buenos Aires, Argentina. Copy of bank transfer must be included with registration.
Send to:
CAYC
Viamonte 448, 1st Floor
1053 Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Fax: (54-1) 639 3900
Email: modulor@impsat1.com.ar
____________
Beaux Arts Competition Winners
The Beaux Arts Competition sponsored by COMPETITIONS resulted in the following premiated designs:
First Place
1st Place ($250) – #9 Stephen T. Chrisman, Brooklyn, NY This parti is as direct and clear as can be achieved. The drawing suggests an urban site. Everything is organized around a grand central court. Everything is seen and accessed from this court, via its encircling arcade. The corners might be developed into smaller courtyards, surrounded by offices. The only things not suggested, but which might be added is some grand foyer space, for use in gatherings and celebrations, as in the best of the 1878 designs.
Second Place
2nd Place ($100)– #16 Deepak Gupta, Seattle, WA This is a clear and logical parti, and would have rated fairly high. It has a grand entrance, leading to a well-scaled courtyard. All the main spaces are well related to the central courtyard, and the location of the offices around smaller courtyards is very good. The only criticisms of the design are that the lecture halls should have more ample foyers, a fairly easy adjustment, and that it would have been advantageous to provide a large central foyer for gatherings, again as in the 1878 designs. Of course, that was not required in the program, but a conscientious and imaginative eleve would have added it. The courtyard, however, could serve that function to a degree.
Description of the program and evaluation
by the competition juror, Paul D. Spreiregen, FAIA:
“Twenty design submissions were received and evaluated. The competition brief (COMPETITIONS, Winter 1997/78, page 4) listed five evaluation criteria:
1) Function
2) Composition
3) Circulation
4) Overall circulation
5) Artistry
The twenty designs, as expected, were quite varied in concept. For example, of the twenty, just over 25% proposed a one-story design. They also varied in presentation method. About half were hand drawn (two free hand), half CAD. In order to establish as fair a comparative basis for design evaluation, and identifying the principal issues which designers explored, the evaluation criteria were expanded:
1) Symmetry, external and internal. (Full symmetry is more difficult.)
2) One floor or two. (A one-floor design is harder to do.)
3) Entrance design
4) Overall circulation
5) Circulation details
6) Lecture Halls – location and design
7) Library – location and design
8) Exhibit Area – location and design
9) Offices (and ancillary support spaces) – location and design
10) General Gathering Space(s) – though they were not specified, except by way of a suggestion for “courts or atriums,” they are a highly important element in a public building serving many people.
11) Clarity of Concept
12) Directness or Simplicity of Concept
13) Drafts”person”ship – either hand or CAD
After analyzing the design several times, each was rated accordingly. However, some designs – nine, in fact – were found to have either major flaws or a serious ambiguity as to how a key space functioned. Some of these, unfortunately, were otherwise quite good designs. To keep the playing field dead level, these were designated “HC” (hors concours). In other words, out of the running…merde alors! For each factor well achieved, each design was given a point; so the maximum number of points was 13. Only the winner achieved the maximum point total.
Some (particularly their authors) might wonder how a design could get a high number of points, and yet be designated “HC.” (#17, for instance, received 11 points.) The answer is that the design got lots of points on individual criteria, but got them by skirting a key design requirement, like full symmetry or lack of clarity in the design of a key space. Most often, by the way, that was the exhibit space, sometimes shown as a good gathering space, but not a good exhibit space. Remember, something similar happens in competitive sports. You can perform very well, even perfectly, but still be disqualified. Zut alors!
In the Summer 1998 issue of COMPETITIONS, there will be a presentation of the 1878 Beaux Arts student designs, as well as the twenty contemporary submissions. We hope all our readers will see in this an exercise that benefits all who participate in it. Until next time, and with our heartfelt thanks, Vive les concours! Vive l’architecture! Vive les architectes! – Paul D. Spreiregen
Other entries in the order that they were received:
1. Yong Huang, Brooklyn, NY
2. Alexandru F. Ionescu, R.A., Long Island City, NY
3. Robert L. Bliss, FAIA, Salt Lake City, UT
4. James A. Wright, Ann Arbor, MI
5. David L. Krebs, Lakewood, OH
6. Lucia Dunin-Borkowski, Falls Church, VA
7. David M. Meis, Dallas, TX
8. Bruce Carchidi, Palmerston North, New Zealand
9. see above
10. Paul Backewich, Toronto, Ont. Canada
11. Edward W. Angerer, AIA, Rock Island, NY
12. Stefan L. Zastawski, Fallston, MD
13. Lawrence Marek, New York, NY
14. Keren He/Yufang Zhou, Elmhurst, NY
15. Christopher Pickell, AIA, Flemington, NJ
16. see above
17. Jim Wilson, McKinney, TX
18. George S. Liu, Architect, Okemos, MI
19. Dale Bugner, Chicago, IL
20. Steve Bass, New York, NY
