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 |
SWA/Balsley Wins Paveletskaya Plaza Landscape Competition 
Aerial view at night – courtesy SWA/Balsley 5+ Design
Of the nine railway stations in Moscow, Paveletskaya is the largest and one of the last of those that opened around the turn of the century. Compared to other Moscow stations, Paveletskaya, designed by Alexander Krasovsky and opened in 1900, represented a lower-key presence in its sprawling configuration, similar to palaces such as a Sans Souci without the ornamentation. The original site for the recent competition included a small park facing the station, bordered on one side by the Ring Road. Post WWII, the site was bifurcated by a road, thus separating the front entrance of the station from the grassy area facing it. 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/
Image Courtesy Network Rail
From Grand Central Station to King’s Cross in London, railway stations have often represented some of the major architectural accomplishments of our times. But those edifices have been primarily located in great cities. In the U.K. there are over 2,000 stations located in medium-sized, small, and rural communities. Most of those are ‘quick stop’ locations, and not the destination terminals where space requirements often result in state of the art design. In July of last year, U.K.’s Network Rail, in collaboration with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) launched a competition to identify a concept for a design that would be suitable for the medium to small-sized rail stations, at the same time updating the program to fit the modern needs of such a facility. The competition was open internationally and received 213 entries from 34 countries last September. Read more… The Urban Confluence Silicon Valley Competition
Urban Confluence Silicon Valley winner: ©SMAR Architecture Studio
After several stops and starts over an extended period of time, the winner of the Urban Confluence Design Competition was named in early March, 2021. SMAR Architecture Studio’s The Breeze of Innovation, which prevailed over two other shortlisted finalists from the original 963 entries, won with a novel tower-like structure consisting primarily of hundreds of rods, generating energy while swaying in the wind. Read More…
Pedestrian perspective
The result of an effort from a professor at the TUM (Technische Universität München) to restore the Budludzha Monument in Bulgaria, located in a remote location on a mountain top in that country, we discovered that it originally was the result of a 1959 design competition won by the young Bulgarian architect, Georgi Stoilov. Read more… A Flawed Plan Leads to Budget Issues
Competition rendering of project looking south to Mies museum ©Herzog de Meuron
Once considered on the forefront of modern architecture in post-WWII Europe, Berlin has had its share of questionable decisions concerning important urban projects in recent history. Beginning with the rebirth of the Berlin Palace (Humboldt Forum) on the Spree by Italian architect, Franco Stella, and now followed by Herzog de Meuron’s controversial addition to Mies’s 20th Century Art Museum, the times when one could look to Berlin as a signpost of architectural innovation can only be viewed in the rear view mirror.
Read more… |
