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.
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.
