Bicentennial House Competition 2011 – UPDATE: EXTENDED SUBMISSIONS DEADLINE!Sponsor: Historic New Harmony, New Harmony Gallery of Contemporary Art, National Endowment for the Arts
Type: Open, two stage Location: New Harmony, Indiana
Language: English Fee: $50 Eligibility: Students and professionals in the following fields: (i) architecture, (ii) architectural drafting, (iii) landscape architecture, (iv) building design, (v) interior design, (vi) urban planning, (vii) construction, (viii) construction management, (ix) engineering, (x)studio art, or (xi) affordable housing. Must be 18 years of age or older at the time of entry.
Timetable: August 1, 2011 – Registration and submissions deadline (extended)
August 10, 2011 – Round 1 winners notified August 20-September 24, 2011 – Bicentennial House Competition Exhibition/Public Vote October 1, 2011 – Round 2 winners notified Awards: 1st Place – $2,000 2nd Place – $1,000 3rd Place – $500 The winning design will be advanced to construction documents and become the property of the town of New Harmony. It will be given free of charge to anyone seeking to build within the town limits or immediate environs. Jury: Bernhard Karpf – Associate Partner, Richard Meier & Partners Charles Durret – Co-owner of The CoHousing Company Kathryn McCamant – CoOwner of The CoHousing Company
Design Challenge:
In celebration of New Harmony’s bicentennial in 2014, Historic New Harmony and the New Harmony Gallery of Contemporary Art, with support from the National Endowment for the Arts, are sponsoring a 2011 Bicentennial House Design Competition. Individuals or teams are invited to submit designs inspired by the traditional Harmonist Construction with emphasis on sustainable, energy efficient and affordable housing.
A. Objectives:
-
Contribute sustainable, affordable, contemporary design to unique architecture of New Harmony
-
Create healthy, comfortable homes
-
Minimize monthly gas and electric expenditures by conserving energy Reduce New Harmony’s impact on natural resources
B. Contest Focus:
-
Single family housing
-
Design living space that is attractive, functional and affordable
-
Living space that is a minimum of 1,200 square feet
-
Minimum space utility needs: kitchen, dining area, living area, 2-3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, storage for bedrooms, bathroom(s,) kitchen and entry area, laundry room /mechanical rooms.
Submission Requirements:
1. Presentation boards should be confined to two, un-mounted 24”x 36” sheets of paper. Presentation boards should be 4,800 pixels by 7,200 pixels (24inx 36in @ 200 dpi) in JPG, PNG or GIF format. Please label all files with last name of designer/team leader and description: i.e. smith_presentationboard1.jpg.
2. Secondary images include building plan(s), building elevation, building sections and additional images. All image files should be at least 3000 x 2000 pixels (15x10in @200 dpi) Please label all files with last name of designer/team leader and description: i.e. smith_buildingelevation1. jpg. Secondary images must be limited to 10 (ten) images
3. A DVD of all project materials must accompany the entry.
4. Project description should not exceed three 8 1/2” x 11” pages and include information about materials, budget strategies, design intent and objectives.
5. Completed cost estimation based on 2011 construction start must include Life Cycle Costing or comparisons with conventional construction costs or both.
|
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… |
