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
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.
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.
