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
|
A Church Ruin as Reconciliation Memorial 
View of winning design from south ©Heninghan Peng Architects
For those tourists visiting Berlin today, the sudden approach to the ruins of a 1895 church building located on the city’s downtown Breitscheidplatz would certainly arouse their curiosity. One of the few remaining relics of World War II in the city, the church has now been the subject of a competition: Redesign and renovation of the Old Tower of the Friedrich Wilhelm Memorial Church (Umgestaltung des Alten Turms der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächnis-Kirche). 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/ Architecture as a Unifying Concept 
1st Place – UNStudio Image: ©Aerial image: ©die developer Projektentwicklung GmbH
As attractive as some of our most famous towers might appear, they do have a serious downside according to some observers: ‘they suck the life out of the street.’ This has not gone unnoticed, as some cities have required setbacks as partial solutions. Two Mies Van Der Rohe projects, New York’s Seagram Building and the Toronto-Dominion Centre are prime examples of this concept. More recently the recognition that landscaping can provide some breathing space has become quite the fashion. Competitions are now replete with competitors who insist that the surrounding green environment does not stop at the front door. One of the most obvious in recent history is Elizabeth de Portzamparc’s competition winning entry for the Taichung Tower 2 competition in Taiwan. Read more… Belfast Looks Toward an Equitable and Sustainable Housing Model 
Birdseye view of Mackie site ©Matthew Lloyd Architects
If one were to look for a theme that is common to most affordable housing models, public access has been based primarily on income, or to be more precise, the very lack of it. Here it is no different, with Belfast’s homeless problem posing a major concern. But the competition also hopes to address another of Belfast’s decades-long issues—its religious divide. There is an underlying assumption here that religion will play no part in a selection process. The competition’s local sponsor was “Take Back the City,” its membership consisting mainly of social advocates. In setting priorities for the housing model, the group interviewed potential future dwellers as well as stakeholders to determine the nature of this model. Among those actions taken was the “photo- mapping of available land in Belfast, which could be used to tackle the housing crisis. Since 2020, (the group) hosted seminars that brought together international experts and homeless people with the goal of finding solutions. Surveys and workshops involving local people, housing associations and council duty-bearers have explored the potential of the Mackie’s site.” This research was the basis for the competition launched in 2022. Read more… 
Perkins & Will
Carrying the label, “Artistic Ideas Competition,” five firms vied for a commission to design a new National Museum of the U.S. Navy. Household names, the five were
Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) Copenhagen/ New York
Gehry Partners (Los Angeles)
DLR Group (Columbus, OH)
Perkins&Will (Chicago) Winner!
Quinn Evans (Ann Arbor) With a site not yet identified, it is possible that a final design will look quite different from the present submission. the Navy has expressed a preference for M Street SE and 6th Street SE, near the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. Six Firms Competed to Rethink the Future of a Major Museum 
Aerial view of winning design ©Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos (courtesy Malcolm Reading Consultants)
The history of the Dallas Museum of Art’s expansion has been punctuated by several moves, culminating in a new building designed by Edward Larrabee Barnes in 1984. The importance of this move to a new, somewhat desolate location in the city cannot be underestimated: it has led to the revitalization of what is now called the “Arts District,” with the relocation of various arts institutions to new facilities: the opera house (Foster and Partners), Dee and Charles Wyly Performing Arts Theater (REX/OMA), Nasher Sculpture Center (Renzo Piano), and I.M. Pei’s Meyerson Symphony Center being among the most significant. Read more… |
