New England Town Meeting HallSponsor: AIA Vermont Emerging Professionals Network. Type: Open, one-stage (see “Eligibility”) Eligibility: This competition is open to all emerging design professionals within 10 years of graduation or 5 years of licensure, living or working in New England. Entrants may either work individually or as part of a team. Fee: $20 Timetable 4 October 2015 – Registration & Submission deadline AWARDS
1st Place: $1000
2nd Place: $500
3rd Place: $250 Background
Only 35.9% of eligible voters in the U.S. cast ballots during the 2014 midterm elections*. That was both the lowest turnout and the biggest drop from a preceding presidential election since 1952*. While many factors contributed to this statistic, the role of architecture can not be diminished.
Many towns hold voting and meetings in inadequate spaces, such as cramped town halls, gymnasiums, and church basements. Communities need a new platform to facilitate and celebrate civic engagement. New England already has a strong tradition of holding annual Town Meetings, where citizens publicly discuss and vote on issues. Proposals should consider the Town Meeting as a framework for architecture that encourages an open dialogue among citizens.
BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
Town Meeting Halls may be sited in any New England community in a prominent location. The two primary functions of Hall are: town assembly and informing the public about local and national issues. Halls should be designed to accommodate: local debates, televised state and national debates, hold community meetings, etc.
The Hall shall consist of a large assembly space, adequate bathrooms, and mechanical space. The Hall shall be appropriately sized to the community it serves. As a rule of thumb 10% of the local voting population might be accommodated in the assembly space at one time. Bathrooms should be sized in relation to assembly capacity. Buildings must meet local codes and comply with ADA requirements.
Design Criteria
• How is the building sited to maximize visibility in town and promote accessibility?
• How might the form and facade of the Meeting Hall communicate function and democratic ideals?
• What are the limitations of traditional meeting spaces that are being improved upon?
• How can architecture encourage voter turnout and engagement in local issues?
The jury will be asked to consider graphic clarity, originality in response to the brief, and cohesiveness of concept. Include a description of approximately 200 words, of the concept, on the board itself. Be concise and clear to convey the essence of the proposal. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All submissions must be digital. Email a single, horizontally oriented, 18 in x 36 in file, in JPG or PDF format. Please title the file yourname.JPG or .PDF. Indicate entrant name(s), firm affiliation, town/city, and state in the email. Do not include entrant name(s) anywhere on the board itself. Names will be displayed during exhibitions, but will be anonymous during the jury process.
For more information:
Email: AIAVT.EP@Gmail.com
Website: www.AIAVT.org/Emerg-Prof
Facebook: Search for AIAVT-EPN
|
SWA/Balsley Wins Paveletskaya Plaza Landscape Competition 
Aerial view at night – courtesy SWA/Balsley 5+ Design
Of the nine railway stations in Moscow, Paveletskaya is the largest and one of the last of those that opened around the turn of the century. Compared to other Moscow stations, Paveletskaya, designed by Alexander Krasovsky and opened in 1900, represented a lower-key presence in its sprawling configuration, similar to palaces such as a Sans Souci without the ornamentation. The original site for the recent competition included a small park facing the station, bordered on one side by the Ring Road. Post WWII, the site was bifurcated by a road, thus separating the front entrance of the station from the grassy area facing it. Read more… Young Architects in Competitions 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: https://crc.umontreal.ca/en/publications-libre-acces/
Image Courtesy Network Rail
From Grand Central Station to King’s Cross in London, railway stations have often represented some of the major architectural accomplishments of our times. But those edifices have been primarily located in great cities. In the U.K. there are over 2,000 stations located in medium-sized, small, and rural communities. Most of those are ‘quick stop’ locations, and not the destination terminals where space requirements often result in state of the art design. In July of last year, U.K.’s Network Rail, in collaboration with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) launched a competition to identify a concept for a design that would be suitable for the medium to small-sized rail stations, at the same time updating the program to fit the modern needs of such a facility. The competition was open internationally and received 213 entries from 34 countries last September. Read more… The Urban Confluence Silicon Valley Competition
Urban Confluence Silicon Valley winner: ©SMAR Architecture Studio
After several stops and starts over an extended period of time, the winner of the Urban Confluence Design Competition was named in early March, 2021. SMAR Architecture Studio’s The Breeze of Innovation, which prevailed over two other shortlisted finalists from the original 963 entries, won with a novel tower-like structure consisting primarily of hundreds of rods, generating energy while swaying in the wind. Read More…
Pedestrian perspective
The result of an effort from a professor at the TUM (Technische Universität München) to restore the Budludzha Monument in Bulgaria, located in a remote location on a mountain top in that country, we discovered that it originally was the result of a 1959 design competition won by the young Bulgarian architect, Georgi Stoilov. Read more… A Flawed Plan Leads to Budget Issues
Competition rendering of project looking south to Mies museum ©Herzog de Meuron
Once considered on the forefront of modern architecture in post-WWII Europe, Berlin has had its share of questionable decisions concerning important urban projects in recent history. Beginning with the rebirth of the Berlin Palace (Humboldt Forum) on the Spree by Italian architect, Franco Stella, and now followed by Herzog de Meuron’s controversial addition to Mies’s 20th Century Art Museum, the times when one could look to Berlin as a signpost of architectural innovation can only be viewed in the rear view mirror.
Read more… |
