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
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.
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 Rails to Trails program, which gained momentum after the1984 Federal Land Banking Law—supported by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy—has seen over 24,000 miles of trails established where rail lines once existed. Some sites were strictly urban, while others, sometimes over 100 miles in length, were primarily rural, while others combined some of both.
The reunification of Germany in 1989 not only had a great impact on the lives of many Germans, especially those living in the former DDR,but together with the decision to move the nation’s capital from Bonn to Berlin resulted in two major international design competitions in 1992: the first was to convert the existing Reichstag building into a home for the German parliament, the second being the Spreebogen planning competition, which included a chancellery for the head of state as well as needed buildings nearby for the Federal government.
The renovation of Miremont-le-Cret n 2012 was unusual in that the project was the subject of a competition. This building had long been landmarked as one of Geneva’s most significant modern accomplishments, designed in 1953 by a local architect, Marc-Joseph Saugey. The building’s design is remarkable in how it fits into a somewhat narrow, elongated site, but solving the issue of monotony that could naturally arise had the facades not consisted of a simple elevation with no protruding edges. Instead Saugey came up with the idea of a faceted treatment of the facade on both sides of the structure, thus eliminating any notion of boredom on the part of a casual visitor.
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.
