Berlin Kulturforum Competition (Museum of 20th Century)

Winner Herzog & de Meuron Basel, Switzerland

2nd Place Lundgaard & Tranberg Copenhagen, Denmark

3rd Place Bruno Fioretti Marquez Berlin

Honorable Mentions Office of Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) Rotterdam

Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa/SANAA Tokyo, Japan

Volker Staab Berlin

Aires Mateus & Associados Lisbon, Portugal

 

An Exhibition of the winning entries for the 20th

Read more…

Interview: Ralph Johnson of Perkins+Will (Fall 1995)

shanghai-museum-c
COMPETITIONS: you have been in both open and invited compe-titions—both as a juror and as a participant. Which type do you prefer and why?

 

RALPH JOHNSON: I think both are viable. For a young architect, open competitions are great, because they are not going to get invited. It’s a way for young architects to break into a bigger scope of work. It’s an oppor-tunity for someone who doesn’t have the experience in that particular building type to get into a new area.
Shanghai Natural History Museum Photos: courtesy Perkins and Will

 

An invited competition usually involves some kind of portfolio or resume of the firm’s work, and you usually get selected on experience in that particular building type. In the latter case, you are probably dealing with fairly extensive presentation requirements and a big outlay of money. It often also involves a couple of stages. If the compensation is adequate, which is usually six figures—$100,000-$200,000—it’s great. Most of the time, it’s inadequate. For the recent (Beirut Conference Center) competition, we did in Lebanon, it was $200,000, and that was enough to cover (our) costs. So there are benefits for both types of competitions.

 

COMPETITIONS: And as a panelist?

 

RJ: It’s much more difficult to jury the open ones because it takes longer. I was on the Astronaut Memorial jury, and there were over 600 entries. You normally don’t interview the architect; it’s single-stage. It’s more a process of winnowing out inadequate submissions—which is easy to do—and getting down to the ten percent after the first cut. In the case of an invited competition, you have five to ten submissions from very qualified firms. I think it’s good if you can actually interview firms and have a question and answer period. In an open competition, it’s almost inevitable that you wonder who is actually doing the project, how qualified the architect is. It’s hard to keep that out of your mind.

 

shanghai-museum-a shanghai-museum-b
shanghai-museum-f shanghai-museum-d
shanghai-museum-e shanghai-museum-h
Shanghai Natural History Museum Photos: courtesy Perkins and Will

 

COMPETITIONS: In other words, the presentation isn’t necessarily an indication of the qualifications of the designer?

 

RJ: I wasn’t on the jury in the case of the Vietnam Memorial, which was a famous competition. There were very sketchy charcoal drawings (by Maya Lin), which really didn’t indicate anything other than conceptual design capabilities. How could you possibly come to any conclusion of technical competence based on those drawings? You really have to read into it and assume a lot in terms of the person. In that case, of course, it was a great success as a non-complex building type. As a laboratory or something else, it’s a different story.

 

COMPETITIONS: There are a number of anecdotes concerning jurors speculating about the author behind a competition entry—the one in Paris resulting in the Grand Arch is an example. Richard Rogers, a competition juror, supposedly remarked to another juror, Richard Meier, that the author of what eventually turned out to be the winning design, “might be a nobody.” Meier reminded Rogers that, before Pompidou, he was a “nobody.”

Read more…

Royal College of Art Shortlist

London—10 August, 2016—The Royal College of Art announced today the seven shortlisted architectural practices for its new state-of-the-art £108 million Battersea South campus in an invited design competition.

The shortlisted practices are (in alphabetical order):

Christian Kerez (Switzerland) Diller Scofidio + Renfro (US) Herzog & de Meuron (Switzerland/UK) Lacaton & Vassal (France) Robbrecht en Daem

Read more…

Montparnasse Tower Competition

Location: Paris, France (left bank)

The Board of the Montparnasse Tower has preselected seven firms from a list of

700 architects from around the world (four international and three French). They are:

Architecture Studio, France Dominique Perrault Architecture, France MAD Architects, China • nAOM(Chartier Dalix/Franklin Azzi Architecture/Hardel-°©‐Lebihan Architectes), France OMA, Holland PLP Architecture, UK Studio

Read more…

Bauhaus Museum Weimar

Photo: courtesy: ©Heike Hanada

Event: Cornerstone ceremony Location: Weimar, Germany Time: Friday, 28th October 2016 (14:30 hrs)

Winning Competition Architect: Heike Hanada Contact: info@bauhausmuseumweimar.de