In 2006, Singapore staged a competition for a new park on the bay spanning 250 acres. At the edge of the city’s downtown, it was intended to become Singapore’s premier urban outdoor recreation space and a national icon. In essence, what the client was looking for was a botanical garden with an element of adventure added to the mix.
The competition attracted more than 70 entries from 170 firms.
The initial shortlisted firms were:
Ah’bé Landscape Architects (USA)
Alsop Design Ltd (UK)
EDAW Australia Pty Ltd (Australia)
Field Operations (USA) in collaboration with Foster & Partners (UK)
Grant Associates (UK) in collaboration with Atelier One (UK), Land Design Studios (UK), and Wilkinson Eyre Architects (UK)
Gustafson Porter Ltd (UK)
Office For Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) (The Netherlands)
Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop (Japan)
Sasaki Associates, Inc. (USA)
WIN Landscape Planning & Design Pte Ltd (Japan)
From these Grant Associates and Gustafson Porter were eventually awarded the master plan design for the Bay South and Bay East Gardens respectively. The first phase of the Bay East Gardens opened to the public in October 2011. Featured were a series of leaf-shaped gardens, each with its own specific landscaping design. Wind and water have been introduced into the site to provide a cooling effect.
The largest of the three Gardens, Bay South Garden, opened to the public in June 2012. Due to the inclusion of some significant structural objects, Grant Associates brought Wilkinson Eyre and structural engineers, Atelier 10, onto their team. The result has been nothing less than sensational. The team enhanced the garden experience with “Supertrees,” 25 to 50 meters in height, as well as two conservatory buildings. The Supertrees provide shade in the day and come alive with a display of light and soundat night. In addition, over 160 plants comprising more than 200 species adorn many of the Supertrees at the top of the canopy. To top it all off, one can enjoy the surrounding view from a café atop the highest Supertree.
There will always be speculation as to the origin of some designs. Could it be that Marks Barfield’s design for the 2010 English pavilion at the Shanghai 2010 Expo owed something to the Supertrees design?
Since the Gardens are being developed in phases, one wonders if there are more surprises like this around the corner. If so, this could well be this decades answer to the Bilbao effect, except that here the subject is a park setting If we use the sculpture park as a point of departure, this has taken the idea of a public garden to a whole new level.
Olha Romaniuk, who received her M Arch degree from the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Art, Architecture, and Planning, and a former intern with COMPETITIONS, is presently with Gallagher and Associates’ office in Singapore.
In July 2019 the Vilnius Concert Hall competition jury began its deliberations to identify a suitable design for this major performing arts project. As one might have anticipated, two of thejurors on the seven member panel, Ole Gustavsen (Snohetta) and Andreas Cukrowicz (Nachbaur Architekten) had won high profile competitions for similar music center projects—in Oslo and Munich.The jury was confronted with a formidable task, as the competition, organized according to UIA regulations and anonymous in its format, had attracted 248 entries from around the world. For this one-stage competition, the organizers listed the following evaluation criteria, whereby the order of the criteria was not to reflect any priority:
Form and Dichroic Light Scott Hall at Carnegie Mellon University Michelle LaFoe and Isaac Campbell OFFICE 52 Architecture Forward by Cesar Pelli, FAIA Introduction by Michael J. Crosbie, FAIA Leete”s Island Books, Maine USA Hard cover; 96 pages in color ISBN 9780918172709
In his introduction to Form and Dichroic LIght, Michael Crosbie never mentions the term, “wild card,” to describe Office 52’s participation in the invited competition for the Carnegie Mellon Engineering Building. The four finalists, picked from a list of 17 firms, also included three household names: ZGF, Wilson, and BCJ (Bohlin Cywinski, Jackson). So what possible chance could a firm, which had just recently opened a small office in Portland, Oregon, have against a competition lineup of this magnitude? But as OFFICE 52 Principal, Isaac Campbell explained, as a small firm, “we were quite nimble,” and the $50,000 stipend the firms all received to produce a design could allow OFFICE 52 more time to undertake the research involved than might be the case with a larger office, where a cost controller is constantly focusing on the operation.
Memorials to commemorate atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II have taken many forms. Holocaust museums such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. by Pei Cobb Freed or the Jewish Museum in Berlin by Daniel Libeskind, all endeavor to paint a broad picture, including narratives covering most of the major events and sites. Former concentration camps such as Auschwitz, Dachau, Theresienstadt and Buchenwald have been frequent tour destinations. In the case of Buchenwald, the local city of Weimar has placed pictures of “Witnesses” throughout the downtown area as a reminder of the Nazi legacy.
Detroit’s Dia Plaza competition is hardly unique in initiating a search for urbanistic solutions to a cultural cluster. Vienna, Berlin, Mesa, Fort Worth, Chicago’s Millennium Park and Paris’ Parc de la Villette are just a few examples of projects where the focus on spaces between buildings, and arriving at a connective plan to infuse new energy into the site, has been the primary goal of other projects. All of these have been faced with their own challenges: solutions for some have been relatively simple—Vienna’s Museum Quarter and Berlin’s Forum—while others such as Paris’ La Villette and Mesa’s Downtown Plaza represent a more challenging subject spatially. In the case of Detroit, the aim of the competition was clear: “The design competition centers around enhancing and enlivening the DIA’s exterior campus and aims to connect all the institutions with a beautiful series of settings that support all types of programming and public art.”
Milton Keynes, known simply as MK, represented one of the more significant results of the UK’s “new town” programs from the 1950s and 60s. Situated almost equidistant between Oxford and Cambridge, and within easy access from London, the city had everything one might expect from a modern community—except a university. For a city having a population exceeding 250,000, and projected to have 500,000 inhabitants by 2050, that will all change, as a competition supported by the MK Council (MKC) and Cranfield University has resulted in five firms competing for the opportunity to design a higher educational institution to eventually accommodate 15,000 students.
If cities in the U.S. are anticipating funding from government entities to solve a dire need for affordable housing, they should be prepared for a long wait. The national government, a traditional source of funds for such projects, has shown little if no interest in the issue, and state and local sources are at a minimum. To exacerbate the problem, the construction cost of affordable housing has risen exponentially the the past few decades. Gone are those days when architects such as Oakland-based Michael Pyatok could build affordable housing for $100 a square foot.
IMPORTANT NOTICE : Unless otherwise indicated, photographs of buildings and
projects are from professional or institutional archives. All reproduction is prohibited
unless authorized by the architects, designers, office managers, consortia or archives
centers concerned. The Competition Project, Inc. is not held responsible for any
omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that
will permit necessary modifications during future updates.
