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
Master plans have been around for ages; but master plans for very large cities with all their support systems are relatively new. Milton Keynes (MK), located in Buckinghamshire in southern England, and begun in the late 1960s, is one of the most successful of the new cities, now having a population of almost 250,000. Its success lies mainly on the lessons learned from the establishment of the planning which generated the new towns in the U.K. during the 1940s and 50s, many of which have not fared well in the test of time. MK’s success was based primarily on the careful separation of high density from residential where the influence of the “garden city” could be seen. Here the idea of a live/work environment was even incorporated.
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.
The updating and modernization of Chicago’s O’Hare Airport has been well overdue. Aside from occasional problems caused by Chicago’s winter storms, congestion at the airport has led air travelers to avoid the airport when catching a connecting flight is on the agenda. So Chicago, noted for its modern architecture and the home of several high-profile architecture firms, decided to turn to an invited competition for a solution to these issues.
Competitions in Chicago in the recent past have been anything but encouraging, especially when transparency is an issue. During the competition for the Obama Center on the South Side, the Obama Foundation, which was responsible for the administration of that “competition,” was anything but a model of transparency; and to this day, none of the finalist designs, other than that of the winner, have seen the light of day. In the case of the O’Hare project, videos submitted by the five finalists teams were on public display, and the public was even asked to vote for their favorite.
In these times when political emotions run high and gun violence is the norm, not the exception; and when emotions no longer are held in check, but encouraged by our leaders, minorities become easy targets for those who adhere to ideologies based primarily on exclusivity and hate.
The LGBT community has long been the target of various segments of our society; but the massacre that took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a favorite hangout for gays, elevated this phenomenon to a new level. After an event that claimed the lives of 49 victims, injured 68 others, and left hundreds permanently traumatized, it should come as no surprise that a memorial to this tragedy has been front and center in the minds of the community ever since. Because the very nature of this event has drawn nationwide attention, the community wanted to get it right. So it was only logical that they would turn to a competition as the most viable vehicle for arriving at a solution for the design of a memorial, as well as a museum. For this, the onePULSE Foundation was formed, to memorialize this tragedy and “ensure that Pulse”s legacy of love, acceptance and hope will never be lost.”
As part of a policy to relocate archives of local interest outside of major Bavarian cities, a competition was staged for the design of a new archive in Kitzingen, 12 miles from the provincial capital city of Würzburg, Germany. The competition was open to qualified teams in the EU, with 25 firms identified to take part in a competition. Since five firms were preinvited, 20 openings were available for the 79 applicants that vied for participation in the competition. In the end, 23 firms submitted designs for the final adjudication process.
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:
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 Competitions-Archive LLC is not held responsible for any
omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that
will permit necessary modifications during future updates.
