A Significant Addition to a Public Place: The Cadogan Café Competition, London
by Stanley Collyer
Winning entry by NEX (Illustration: NEX)
This place is missing something—probably a subliminal thought of many Londoners who frequented the Duke of York Square area in London, near the entrance to the Saatchi Gallery in Chelsea. The locals also decided the site needed a visual lift—but what kind? Settling on a café as the answer would always seems to meet at least one requirement: You can pick up a coffee on the way to work, or it can serve as a casual meeting place. In any case, it is not to be ignored.
In selecting an architect for the project, a normal client might just go out and pick any firm for the job. But this client was different. The architect selection process was to take place via a competition. According to the competition brief: “The Cadogan Estate is not seeking the already well-established architect, rather it is keen to identify and support emerging talent and, in doing so, act as a client patron in the classic sense. It is looking for a team with a fascination for innovative construction techniques and logistics, an interest in the art of place-making and an eye to keeping disruption to a minimum.” Still, although the RfQ process was open, the competition itself was to be preceded by a short-listing process, whereby 5-7 firms were to be chosen for the next stage.
The final short list ended up with six firms, NEX, Architecture 00, Carmody Groarke, Duggan Morris Architects, Pernilla Ohrstedt & Sarah Price Landscapes, and TaylorSnell. The process was administered by Malcolm Reading Consultants, a firm which has had broad experience in running design competitions in the U.K.
Winning entry by NEX (Illustrations: NEX – click to enlarge)
In the end, NEX prevailed over the other competitors, proposing an “organic coiled form with a roof terrace and incorporating a glass wall that rises and falls depending on the weather. The jury thought that it would intrigue passers-by and become a mini-landmark on the King’s Road.
In a similar vein, the scheme by Carmody Groarke may have come closest to giving the winner some competition. It also was quite expressive, although not in the compact, free-standing, here-I-am manner of the winner. The other finalists were somewhat predictable, each in his/her own way. Architecture 00 proposed a rectangular box that spoke all about function, but obviously lacking in poetic aura. The entry by Duggan Morris looked rather cumbersome for the site, too large at the edges so as to even present a visible obstacle to passers-by. The imprint of a landscape architect was evident in the presentation by Pernilla Ohrstedt & Sarah Price Landscapes. But their whimsical botanical scheme, although a valid contradiction for this site, seemed somehow out of place on such a hard surface. Finally, the proposal by TaylorSnell attempted to turn the site into a kind of stage set. One only could wonder how it would work in the absence of lots of people to give a sense of activity to the site.
This project is proof that competitions are even useful for small projects, and often can make a world of difference. Oh that more clients could take a cue from this forward-looking foundation.
Entry by Carmody Groarke
Entry by Architecture 00
Entry by Duggan Morris
Entry by Pernilla Ohrstedt & Sarah Price Landscapes
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.
