Hans Christian Andersen House of Fairytales Ideas Competition
Sponsor: Odense City Museums; City of Odense; Realdania Foundation
Location: Odense, Denmark
Type: Open, international, ideas
Language: English
Eligiblity: The competition is open to everyone, but is particularly aimed at multidisciplinary teams of architects, exhibition designers, culture mediators, landscape architects, ideas and design professionals, artists and others from similar professions.
Registration Deadline: 12 November 2013
Submission Deadline: 29 November 2013
Awards: The total prize amount that the jury can distribute is EUR 100,000. The jury reserves the right not to distribute the full amount and will award prizes on the basis of the number and quality of the entries submitted. The jury may select up to three equal winners, each of whom will receive at least EUR 20,000. If only one winning entrant is selected, the prize awarded to this entrant will be at least EUR 47,000.
Jury:
Jørgen Clausen, chief executive, City of Odense (chair)
Mayor, City of Odense
Deputy Mayor, Department of Culture and Urban Development, City of Odense
Stefan Birkebjerg Andersen, CEO, City of Odense
Hans Peter Svendler, executive director, Realdania
Lars Autrup, project manager, Realdania
Torben Grøngaard Jeppesen, museum director, Odense City Museums
Asger Halling Lorentzen, head of communication and strategies, Odense City Museums
Johannes Nørregaard Frandsen, professor, Univer- sity of Southern Denmark (Hans Christian Andersen Centre / Department for the Study of Culture)
Christian Have, creative director, Have Kommunika- tion, specialist jury member appointed by Odense City Museums
Signe Cold, architect MAA, owner of Entasis, design professional appointed by the Danish Architects’ Association
Hanne Bat, architect MAA MDL, owner of Hanne Bat Landskab, design professional appointed by the Danish Architects’ Association
Design Challenge: Odense City Museums and the City of Odense have launched an open ideas competition to create a unique place where fantasy and reality come together, where the past meets the present, and where the indoors and the outdoors merge into one: a magical house of fairytales and a fairytale garden. The objective of this ideas competition for a new House of Fairytales in Odense is to obtain proposals for an overall intermediary and architectural concept that can serve as a source of inspiration and a basis for further development of the place. The competition site comprises the buildings that currently house the Hans Christian Andersen Museum and the Tinderbox Cultural Centre for Children as well as the adjacent green urban space, Lotze’s Garden. The new House of Fairytales should unite, continue and rethink the experiences currently offered at the museum and the cultural centre for children, but should also add a new layer so that the fairytales become the gateway to the Hans Christian Andersen universe. Furthermore, the ideas competition is expected to show how a unique interplay between existing buildings, new buildings and public urban spaces can create a very special place and a new spatial and experiential whole for the benefit of both local residents and visitors to the House of Fairytales.
When Competitions and a New Generation of Ideas Elevate Architectural Quality
by Jean-Pierre Chupin and G. Stanley Collyer published by Potential Architecture Books, Montreal, Canada 2020 271 illustrations in color and black & white Available in PDF and eBook formats ISBN 9781988962047
What do the Vietnam Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, and the Sydney Opera House have in common? These world renowned landmarks were all designed by architects under the age of 40, and in each case they were selected through open competitions. At their best, design competitions can provide a singular opportunity for young and unknown architects to make their mark on the built environment and launch productive, fruitful careers. But what happens when design competitions are engineered to favor the established and experienced practitioners from the very outset?
This comprehensive new book written by Jean-Pierre Chupin (Canadian Competitions Catalogue) and Stanley Collyer (COMPETITIONS) highlights for the crucial role competitions have played in fostering the careers of young architects, and makes an argument against the trend of invited competitions and RFQs. The authors take an in-depth look at past competitions won by young architects and planners, and survey the state of competitions through the world on a region by region basis. The end result is a compelling argument for an inclusive approach to conducting international design competitions.
Download Young Architects in Competitions for free at the following link:
In early 2020, a group advocating a new approach to the design of the Los Angeles Museum of Art (LACMA)—The Citizens’ Brigade to Save LACMA—organized a competition to counter an existing design by the Swiss Architect Peter Zumthor. Already commissioned by the LACMA administration, the project is slated to begin almost immediately with the demolition of four LACMA buildings—three existing and one new. Moreover, the existing plan to incorporate all of the existing collections under one roof isn’t covered by the Zumthor plan. This obvious lack of exhibit space was the focus of a query by the Ahmanson Foundation, a major donor of artworks to LACMA in the past. Upon not receiving assurances from LACMA that those donated works would be exhibited, but possibly held in storage and hidden from public view, the Foundation cut all ties with LACMA. Finally, the plan by Zumthor foresees the new structure not only occupying much of the new space created by demolition, but extends part of the new building over Wiltshire Boulevard. As one might anticipate from Zumthor, the construction of the structure is also primarily of concrete, thereby raising the cost per SF. So no matter how highly finished this material turns out to be, it does in essence represent a brutalist structure replacing an eclectic ensemble.
If one were to search for a railway museum in the U.K., London would seem to be an obvious choice. But, as it happens, its location is in the northeastern city of York, far from the major cultural and economic centers of the country. But despite its distance from the major metropolitan areas to the south and west, York has managed to become the focal point of research into the history of rail in the U.K., supplemented by a major museum. Here we are not just talking about some posters, but sheds replete with a large collection of vintage trains.
Foundation non-profits are no strangers to good architecture. Ford Foundation’s forward-looking headquarters in New York City by Roche Dinkeloo was an early example of a non-profit using architecture as a vehicle for serving to brand it as a progressive institution. In 2001 the California Endowment went one step further, staging an invited competition for their new headquarters in Los Angeles.
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.
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.
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.
