HLWSF Low Impact Development Design Competition HLWSF Low Impact Development Design Competition Sponsors: Houston Land/Water Sustainability Forum with co-sponsors including AIA-Houston, ASCE-Houston, Mischer Investments, Bayou Preservation Association, Harris County/Precinct 2, City of Houston/TIRZ 15 Type: 2-Stage, open Language: English Eligibility: Integrated design teams which include an architect, a landscape architect and a civil engineer Registration Fee: $250 Awards: $15,000 in each of three design challenge categories Timetable:
October 31, 2009 – Registration Deadline
December 14, 2009 – Submission Deadline
January 11, 2010 – Finalists
January 27, 2010 – Finals Event & Awards Ceremony Jury:
Stage 1 (80% of total final score) Arthur Storey PE, Executive Director, Harris County Public Infrastructure Division, Houston TX
Dana Nunez-Brown ASLA, Principal, Danos landdesign inc., Baton Rouge LA
Larry Coffman, President, LNSB LLLP Stormwater Services Group, Chesapeake Beach MD
Greg Papay FAIA, Principal, Lake-Flato Architects, San Antonio TX
Stephen Costello PE, Principal, Costello Inc., Houston TX Stage 2 (20% of total final score)
Finals Jury Panel will be made up of leading local developers and key local political influencers Design Challenge:
Each design challenge represents an actual property for which the owner has an interest in developing utilizing Low Impact Development methods. In an effort to provide the opportunity for the broadest professional participation and to demonstrate to local developers and political influencers the benefits of LID, entries will be accepted in the following three Challenge categories: Suburban Residential,
Urban Redevelopment, Green Roadway Submission Requirements:
At least one, but no more than two foamcore presentation boards (30”x 40”), on which the team’s key concepts and elements of the design are presented visually, including a summary of the economic and hydrologic modeling results. An electronic submission package must be provided on CD or USB drive, in Power Point (PPT) format, limited to 30 pages, including: All images and data contained on the presentation boards, images of all drawings, plans and details, written overview, presenting the design team’s concept, justification for the hydrologic/drainage modeling used to develop design conclusions, an explanation of project costs and an economic comparison with the same project if developed using traditional methods, submission plan sets must include at a minimum: Site Plans, Drainage Plans, Landscape and Irrigation Plans, Elevations, Details. For more information, go to: http://www.houstonLWSforum.org
|
Image: ©wHY Architecture
Earlier this year, an article in the Architects’ Journal described what almost sounded like a death knell for wHY Architecture’s winning competition design for Edinburgh’s Ross Pavilion site. When the competition took place, some observers may have regarded wHY as a wild card, in the company of such high-profile firms as BIG and David Adjaye,* There can be no question that they understood the site and program better than their rivals, and it would have appeared that innovation had won the day. Their design could have served to rethink the way in which this site, with its replacement of an outdated bandstand by a contemporary structure, would serve as a destination for Scotland’s public—much as has been the case for Frank Gehry’s pavilion in Chicago’s Millennium Park. 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/ 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… 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…
Aerial View of site, Rendering: ©Eller + Eller Architekten
Siemens new Healthineers campus in Bengaluru, India, is hardly a milestone in the design of major R&D facilities. Although the winning design by Eller + Eller Architekten did include the necessity to go higher than the 2- to 4-story models we often find, whether in Silicon Valley, Detroit, or in Munich, the relatively small site for such a large program did ask for that campus feel, asking the competitors to focus on the interdisciplinary factor as well as sustainability and cost. Read more…
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… |
