Ideal Theater 2009 CompetitionIdeal: Theater 2009 Sponsors: Serapid, Boldt Construction and HGA Architects and Engineers Type: Open, international, ideas, two-stage Eligibility: Open to any registered architecture and theater student (team) enrolled at an accredited college or university. Awards: Each of three finalists will receive: • Cash award of $1,000 • Team travel assistance of $500 to USITT Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio • Cost of Conference registration for two team members covered • Additional cash prize of $500 for winner Timetable: 17 November 2008 – Submit intention to compete by email – End Question and Answer period 15 January 2009 – Submission deadline 19-21 March 2009 – Final presentation and exhibition at USITT Conference Jury: • Architect: John Prokos, FAIA Gund Partnership, Cambridge, MA • Acoustician: Mark Holden, JaffeHolden Norwalk, CT • Theatre Consultant: Benton Delinger, Theatre Projects Theatre Consultants, South Norwalk, CT Design Challenge: The Architectural and Theatre Students “Ideal Theatre” Design Competition requires teamwork. The competition poses the design question, “What is the Ideal Theatre for teaching professional theatre”? This question is to be explored and answered by a “Team” composed of at least one theatre student currently enrolled in a college or university theatre program and one architectural student enrolled in an accredited architectural college or university program.Teams can be part of a class or be independent students. Each team member has a defined responsibility. The theatre students will act as the “Client” and the architectural students as the “Designer”. The “Client” is responsible to teach the “Designer” about the workings and artistry of Theatre! The “Client” will define the detail needs of the theater complex and provide at least one critique of the design produced by the “Designer.” It is desired that the “Client” will remain an active member of the design process. The design solution MUST be the result of a “Conversation” between the “Client” and “Designer”. History proves the most successful theatre design solutions take into account all aspects and needs of theatre production, artist presentation and audience interaction. The Problem Statement Your College has been given a gift of $25 million to construct a new Center for the Performing Arts. The new Center must reflect your department’s educational goals and the technological needs for your area of theatre specialty. The audience chamber can be between 400 to 600 seats. The intimacy of the live performance must be expressed and the layout is to be defined by your University’s performance specialty. Additional front and back of house must be defined by the “Client” to meet the department needs. The Center will be a free standing building on your college campus. The Art Center Spaces The program detail, areas, stage type and audience arrangement must be developed by the “Client” to reflect their department needs. The “Client” is to provide a written statement describing their University’s Theatre Department’s educational goals and needs of the teaching program. This can be made up or patterned after a real program. For information, go to: Website: www.usitt.org (ref: student architecture awards) Email: sgeorgeson@hga.com Submissions should be sent to: USITT Competition: Scott F. Georgeson, AIA, HGA Architects, 333 East Erie Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53202 414.278.8200 |
A Church Ruin as Reconciliation Memorial  View of winning design from south ©Heninghan Peng Architects For those tourists visiting Berlin today, the sudden approach to the ruins of a 1895 church building located on the city’s downtown Breitscheidplatz would certainly arouse their curiosity. One of the few remaining relics of World War II in the city, the church has now been the subject of a competition: Redesign and renovation of the Old Tower of the Friedrich Wilhelm Memorial Church (Umgestaltung des Alten Turms der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächnis-Kirche). Read more… Young Architects in Competitions When Competitions and a New Generation of Ideas Elevate Architectural Quality  by Jean-Pierre Chupin and G. Stanley Collyer published by Potential Architecture Books, Montreal, Canada 2020 271 illustrations in color and black & white Available in PDF and eBook formats ISBN 9781988962047 What do the Vietnam Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, and the Sydney Opera House have in common? These world renowned landmarks were all designed by architects under the age of 40, and in each case they were selected through open competitions. At their best, design competitions can provide a singular opportunity for young and unknown architects to make their mark on the built environment and launch productive, fruitful careers. But what happens when design competitions are engineered to favor the established and experienced practitioners from the very outset? This comprehensive new book written by Jean-Pierre Chupin (Canadian Competitions Catalogue) and Stanley Collyer (COMPETITIONS) highlights for the crucial role competitions have played in fostering the careers of young architects, and makes an argument against the trend of invited competitions and RFQs. The authors take an in-depth look at past competitions won by young architects and planners, and survey the state of competitions through the world on a region by region basis. The end result is a compelling argument for an inclusive approach to conducting international design competitions. Download Young Architects in Competitions for free at the following link: https://crc.umontreal.ca/en/publications-libre-acces/ Architecture as a Unifying Concept  1st Place – UNStudio Image: ©Aerial image: ©die developer Projektentwicklung GmbH As attractive as some of our most famous towers might appear, they do have a serious downside according to some observers: ‘they suck the life out of the street.’ This has not gone unnoticed, as some cities have required setbacks as partial solutions. Two Mies Van Der Rohe projects, New York’s Seagram Building and the Toronto-Dominion Centre are prime examples of this concept. More recently the recognition that landscaping can provide some breathing space has become quite the fashion. Competitions are now replete with competitors who insist that the surrounding green environment does not stop at the front door. One of the most obvious in recent history is Elizabeth de Portzamparc’s competition winning entry for the Taichung Tower 2 competition in Taiwan. Read more… Belfast Looks Toward an Equitable and Sustainable Housing Model  Birdseye view of Mackie site ©Matthew Lloyd Architects If one were to look for a theme that is common to most affordable housing models, public access has been based primarily on income, or to be more precise, the very lack of it. Here it is no different, with Belfast’s homeless problem posing a major concern. But the competition also hopes to address another of Belfast’s decades-long issues—its religious divide. There is an underlying assumption here that religion will play no part in a selection process. The competition’s local sponsor was “Take Back the City,” its membership consisting mainly of social advocates. In setting priorities for the housing model, the group interviewed potential future dwellers as well as stakeholders to determine the nature of this model. Among those actions taken was the “photo- mapping of available land in Belfast, which could be used to tackle the housing crisis. Since 2020, (the group) hosted seminars that brought together international experts and homeless people with the goal of finding solutions. Surveys and workshops involving local people, housing associations and council duty-bearers have explored the potential of the Mackie’s site.” This research was the basis for the competition launched in 2022. Read more…  Perkins & Will Carrying the label, “Artistic Ideas Competition,” five firms vied for a commission to design a new National Museum of the U.S. Navy. Household names, the five were Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) Copenhagen/ New York Gehry Partners (Los Angeles) DLR Group (Columbus, OH) Perkins&Will (Chicago) Winner! Quinn Evans (Ann Arbor) With a site not yet identified, it is possible that a final design will look quite different from the present submission. the Navy has expressed a preference for M Street SE and 6th Street SE, near the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. Six Firms Competed to Rethink the Future of a Major Museum  Aerial view of winning design ©Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos (courtesy Malcolm Reading Consultants) The history of the Dallas Museum of Art’s expansion has been punctuated by several moves, culminating in a new building designed by Edward Larrabee Barnes in 1984. The importance of this move to a new, somewhat desolate location in the city cannot be underestimated: it has led to the revitalization of what is now called the “Arts District,” with the relocation of various arts institutions to new facilities: the opera house (Foster and Partners), Dee and Charles Wyly Performing Arts Theater (REX/OMA), Nasher Sculpture Center (Renzo Piano), and I.M. Pei’s Meyerson Symphony Center being among the most significant. Read more… |