Re-Shape History: The Atlanta History Center Competitionby Stanley Collyer
Winning entry by Pfeiffer Partners Architects, Final Stage Submission
As part of a $27.4M capital campaign to update its building and exhibition areas, the Atlanta History Center settled on a design competition as a model to seek innovative ideas, not only for a redo of its circulation problems, but also to deal with an arrival issue—an outdated entrance and foyer.
The initial structure, built in 1993 and designed by Heery International, experienced several additions over the years, the last being in 2006 by Perkins and Will, dedicated to the story of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. As often happens with additions, circulation suffered from a “disjointed floor plan” around a central corridor. As a result, most of the museum’s exhibits are hidden behind walls and meager entrances. Moreover, the footprint of the atrium is small and doesn’t serve well as a pre-function space for the much-used ballroom. Finally, the present entrance is hardly inviting as an arrival feature. To present the Center as a modern, state-of-the-art institution, a new façade and foyer certainly presented a challenge for the competition participants.
The chosen vehicle to deal with these issues was an open, two-stage competition, with a due-date for first-stage submissions set for 22 August 2011. Coordinated by a local firm, ai3, Inc., the first stage was completely anonymous, with a jury made up partially of design professionals. After the jury settled on five finalists, each team was invited separately for a review session, with the anonymity of the designs between the teams still being upheld. After reviewing all of the finalists, the museum issued a list of guidelines, which they felt should be followed. Lorenzo Mattii of the eventual winning firm, Pfeiffer Architects, noted that some of the issues pointed out by the museum had already been addressed by their initial design; so they were in the dark as to what the other firms may have neglected.
The finalists were:
• Pfeiffer Partners Architects, New York, NY
• Vines Architecture / Kenneth Hobgood Architects, Atlanta/Raleigh, NC
• Stanley Beaman & Sears, Atlanta
• MSTSD, Inc. / Kallman McKinnel & Wood , Atlanta/Boston
• patterhndesign, St. Louis, MO
The Second Stage
Each of the short-listed finalists received $5,000 to fine-tune their designs in the second stage with the requirement that they submit a model of the building. As an added incentive, the eventual winner would receive $15,000.
The Winning Design: Pfeiffer Partners Architects
Winning entry by Pfeiffer Partners Architects, Phase I Submission A second-stage jury, made up primarily of laypersons having a vested interest in the Museum, selected Pfeiffer Partners Architects of New York as the winner. Besides solving many of the circulation problems encountered in the existing structure, the firm’s conceptual tour de force for the much needed re-do of the front façade was not only a modernizing moment, but by stretching the skin beyond the entrance area, it avoided the usual cosmetic makeover. In some ways it is reminiscent of Jean Nouvel’s Fondation Cartier and Musée du Quai Branly, albeit at much closer quarters. In the first stage their design even included an electronic billboard, which the firm decided to drop in the second stage, retaining only the digital strip at the top (See phase I and phase II boards). Mattii explained that they did not want their chances to sink or swim based on technology. Besides, neighbors might have perceived this form of institutional display as a little over the top for this neighborhood.
  Phase I competition boards by Pfeiffer Partners Architects (click to enlarge) As for the main circulation spine on the main floor, the galleries were not altered, only touched at the edges. But the biggest change—which must have pleased the jury—was the creation of direct access from parking to the main lobby by moving the seminar room and classrooms from the lower level to above, and bringing light below by revealing a large opening to the upper level at a stairwell. All of this enabled this lower level space not only as access for those using the parking garage, but also serve as a collection point for group tours. Those parking their cars would now be able to gain direct access to the museum undercover, and not be required to walk around the outside perimeter to the entrance. Finally, the subtle, but important circulation improvements may have been an indication to the client that this proposal could well be accomplished close to the budget guidelines.
Phase II competition boards by Pfeiffer Partners Architects (click to enlarge)
 
Competition images (click to enlarge)
Finalist: Stanley Beaman & Sears 
Of all the finalists, the Stanley Beaman & Sears scheme provided the greatest visual contrast. Here emphasis was on transparency, with a generous portion of glazing at the front entrance as a calling card. A wave created by ribbed elements in the ceiling, leading down the central spine, served to lure visitors along a path to exhibits and ballroom, with an additional corridor providing an island in the middle of the existing structure for temporary exhibits. The architects went to considerable lengths to explain in detail how the museum would actually look and function on the inside with a large number of exquisite renderings. Although not the winner, this was certainly a conversation piece, which must have generated some interesting discussions. Competition boards by Stanley Beaman & Sears (click to enlarge)
  
  
  
Competition images (click to enlarge)
Finalist: Vines Architecture / Kenneth Hobgood Architects
The entry by Vines Architecture / Kenneth Hobgood Architects concentrated almost entirely on changes to the central circulation spine. Here the most significant intervention was the addition of a narrower second level, not only extending the length of the circulation spine, but also extending out beyond the facades of the building to form an overhang at the drop-off area at the front entrance, and a viewing platform to the campus at the rear. This area also provided space for traveling exhibits and classrooms. While this elevated platform element was a bold statement, solving some of the space problems and lending the building a modern touch, the total treatment of the front façade was unclear, though one of the renderings did suggest that there would be some needed significant changes to this ordinary, pseudo-classical feature.
  
 
Competition images and model (click to enlarge)
Finalist: patterhndesign
The most radical circulation change was proposed by patterhndesign. Not only did they suggest a new entrance, but also two new wings—one to be added later— as the principal features of their intervention strategy. The generous spaces created by this scheme resulted in a look not unlike that of the British minimalist, David Chipperfield, architect of the Neues Museum addition in Berlin. The new wing and re-orientation addressed two critical issues: improved accessibility for the diverse visitor group from the garage and better connections to the larger campus and improvement of campus landscape/grounds. The new wing also extends the visibility of the north facade/north entry and allows the new lobby space to exist. It is the only scheme to not rely heavily on corridors and hallways. Apart from the imagery, the strength of this design rests on its generous spatial treatment of the interior.
 
Competition boards by patterhndesign (click to enlarge)
Competition images and model (click to enlarge)
Finalist: MSTSD, Inc. / Kallman McKinnel & Wood
The proposal by MSTSD, Inc. / Kallman McKinnel & Wood was significant for its more conventional entrance feature, based on the rhythm of Georgia’s antebellum architecture. The interior circulation changed from the existing single spine to two corridors, alleviating access to the various galleries. This presentation was heavy on illustrations of the firm(s) previous projects, an unmistakable hint that this team could be counted on as a serious choice, based on its portfolio.
  
Competition images and model (click to enlarge) All of the above teams presented differing strategies for solving the museum’s image and circulation concerns. The choice of Pfeiffer Partners Architects as the winner, with its somewhat low-key, but elegant approach to the problem must have been the deciding factor in their selection by the museum. |
Completed IMEX by Tuck Hinton Architects. Photo courtesy Anecdote
It is not often that we look back to a competition that occurred three decades ago that was also covered in detail by COMPETITIONS (Vol. 4, #4; pp. 14-27). What made the Chattanooga IMAX different back in 1994 was that the article covering that competition was authored by Prof. Marleen Davis, then Dean of the University of Tennessee’s School of Architecture and a member of the jury panel. This was not just a short article, covering the high points of the competition with a few talking points about the winning design. This 4,000+ word document also described in detail the jury’s observations about all the finalists, including the honorable mentions—one of the few times we have gained such a detailed glimpse in this country from the inside of the competition process. Read more… Preparation and Organization of Design Competitions 
[phase 1] Benjamin Hossbach / Christian Lehmhaus / Christine Eichelmann
210 × 230 mm, 192 pp.
over 600 images
softcover
ISBN 978-3-86922-316-2 (English)
ISBN 978-3-86922-240-0 (German)
Dom Publishers
€48 in EU (For price abroad, see below)
Founded in 1998 in Berlin, Phase 1 has been a principal player in the organization and facilitation of design competitions, not only in Germany, but abroad as well. The accomplishments of the firm have been well documented in three volumes—The Architecture of Competitions—beginning in 2i006. Whereas these books mainly focused on the results of the competitions they have administered, the present work, Fundamentals of Competition Management, takes one from the very beginnings of the competition process to its conclusion. The authors envisioned the publication as “three three books in one: one „blue book“ with example projects, one „yellow book“ with statements and the „white book“ with the actual guideline to competition management.”
Although there have been a number of handbooks covering the administration of designcompetitions a study covering the entire process in such detail is a welcome addition to the the literature in this field. As a contribution to this important democratic process that has yielded exceptional design for decades, this volume is not only valid for Europe, but a current overview of the process for those globally who wish to raise the level of design by virtue of a design competition. -Ed Foreign institutions wishing to obtain a copy of the book will recieve a discount to cover the cost of foreign shipping.
To obtain a copy for that offer, go to: [email protected] 
Winning entry by Luca Poian Forms Image ©Filippo Bolognese images
Good design seldom happens in a vacuum. And so it was with an international competition for a new mosque in Preston, U.K. A mid-sized city of 95,000, and located in Lancashire near the west coast and almost equally distant from London and Glasgow, Preston has a storied past, going all the way back to the Romans and the late Middle Ages, where it was the site of significant battles. During the Industrial Revolution, the city prospered, and it was not until after World War II that Preston experienced the British version of the U.S. Rust Belt. In the meantime, the city has experienced an upswing in economic activity, with an unemployment rate of only 3%. Aside from the appearance of new industries, the city has benefitted from the establishment of Central Lancashire University (CLU), which employs over 3,000 faculty and staff, and, as such, is one of the regions major employers. Any new university requires new facilities, and one of the most outstanding examples of this at CLU was the new Student Centre and Plaza, a result of a 2016 RIBA-sponsored competition won by Hawkins/Brown
Read More
 Changdong Station winner – image ©D & B Partners Architects
Whereas international competitions for real projects have become a rarity lately, Korea is a welcome exception. Among the plethora of competition announcements we receive almost weekly, several have ended with foreign firms as winners. But the history of welcoming international participants does go back several years. One notable early example was the Incheon Airport competition, won by Fentress Bradburn Architects (1962-70).
Among the more recent successes of foreign firms was the Busan Opera House competition, won by Snøhetta (2013-) and the Sejong Museum Gardens competition, won by Office OU, Toronto (2016-2023).
Read more… 
1st Place: Zaha Hadid Architects – night view from river – Render by Negativ
Arriving to board a ferry boat or cruise ship used to be a rather mundane experience. If you had luggage, you might be able to drop it off upon boarding, assuming that the boarding operation was sophisticated enough. In any case, the arrival experience was nothing to look forward to. I recall boarding the SS United States for a trip to Europe in the late 1950s. Arriving at the pier in New York, the only thought any traveler had was to board that ocean liner as soon as possible, find one’s cabin, and start exploring. If you were in New York City and arriving early, a nearby restaurant or cafe would be your best bet while passing time before boarding. Read more… 
Helsinki Central Library, by ALA Architects (2012-2018)
The world has experienced a limited number of open competitions over the past three decades, but even with diminishing numbers, some stand out among projects in their categories that can’t be ignored for the high quality and degree of creativity they revealed. Included among those are several invited competitions that were extraordinary in their efforts to explore new avenues of institutional and museum design. Some might ask why the Vietnam Memorial is not mentioned here. Only included in our list are competitions that were covered by us, beginning in 1990 with COMPETITIONS magazine to the present day. As for what category a project under construction (Science Island), might belong to or fundraising still in progress (San Jose’s Urban Confluence or the Cold War Memorial competition, Wisconsin), we would classify the former as “built” and wait and see what happens with the latter—keeping our fingers crossed for a positive outcome. Read More… 
2023 Teaching and Innovation Farm Lab Graduate Student Honor Award by USC (aerial view)
Architecture at Zero competitions, which focus on the theme, Design Competition for Decarbonization, Equity and Resilience in California, have been supported by numerous California utilities such as Southern California Edison, PG&E, SoCAl Gas, etc., who have recognized the need for better climate solutions in that state as well as globally. Until recently, most of these competitions were based on an ideas only format, with few expectations that any of the winning designs would actually be realized. The anticipated realization of the 2022 and 2023 competitions suggests that some clients are taking these ideas seriously enough to go ahead with realization. Read more… |
