Adding on to Mies van der Rohe’s famous Museum of the 20th Century is no small challenge for any architect participating in this competition. If symbolism wasn’t enough, the site is surrounded by distinctive structures, including Hans Sharoun’s Philharmonic Hall and National Library, the latter located just across the street, and the Matthias Church. Although the selected site next to the current museum was a controversial call, the sponsors of this international competition decided against moving it to another location. One of the unintended consequences of that decision would have to be the size and appearance of the addition. To what extent would it be competing with the existing Mies museum, not only in its siting, but also its architectural expression?
This recently concluded ideas competition attracted 460 entries from around the world. Of those, ten submissions were awarded €26,000 to proceed to the next competition round, where a number of firms will be added to the mix—40-60 is the most recent estimate by the client—for the €200M commission. Why add an ideas competition to this process when the normal procedure has been to shortlist high profile firms for EU competitions? One may only speculate that the uproar caused by a lawsuit coming from a substantial segment of the architecture profession in Germany, complaining about the exclusion of smaller firms from the process, had its effect on the sponsor’s decision to pursue this two-tier process.
Although probably well intentioned, this process could have some interesting, unintended consequences. One could only imagine what might occur if a young employee of a large firm, which subsequently was selected to participate in the second-stage competition for the commission, had already entered the invited competition and been selected as one of the ten finalists in the ideas competition to participate in the next stage. Would that firm be represented twice in the second stage? Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt, long-time editor of the German architectural publication, Wettbewerbe Aktuell, said, “in my 50 years as an observer in this business I have never seen a competition organized in this fashion.” One may assume that the Association of German Architects (BdA) didn’t have a guiding hand in this.
The ideas competition did turn out to be international in scope, as half of the ten finalists were non-German. As the anonymity will be adhered to throughout the second stage, those first-stage entries—identified here by number only—may still have an outside chance for the commission. In the meantime, there will be a lot of debate about the several strategies pursued by those teams who advanced to the second stage.
The reunification of Germany in 1989 not only had a great impact on the lives of many Germans, especially those living in the former DDR,but together with the decision to move the nation’s capital from Bonn to Berlin resulted in two major international design competitions in 1992: the first was to convert the existing Reichstag building into a home for the German parliament, the second being the Spreebogen planning competition, which included a chancellery for the head of state as well as needed buildings nearby for the Federal government.
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.
The renovation of Miremont-le-Cret n 2012 was unusual in that the project was the subject of a competition. This building had long been landmarked as one of Geneva’s most significant modern accomplishments, designed in 1953 by a local architect, Marc-Joseph Saugey. The building’s design is remarkable in how it fits into a somewhat narrow, elongated site, but solving the issue of monotony that could naturally arise, had the facades not consisted of a simple elevation with no protruding edges. Instead Saugey came up with the idea of a faceted treatment of the facade on both sides of the structure, thus eliminating any notion of boredom on the part of a casual visitor.
The Rise in the City Housing Competition in the African country of Lesotho presented many similarities with student competitions that have occurred over the past decades, the main link being the presence of mentors as advisers to the team(s) who were designing the entries. One of the most famous examples of this was the winning design for the Vietnam Memorial Competition by Maya Lin, who was enrolled at the time in a studio course at Yale University. In that case it was also a case of students competing against professionals. Lin’s design just happened to find favor with the jury.
The features of a truly international competition were quite in evidence in Prague’s SMÍCHOV School search for an ideal elementary school design: the event attracted 66 entries from around the world, and the winners were a team from Canada and Poland. The sponsors went so far as to even estimate the number of hours spent by all of the architects who submitted entries for the competition (58,800). One can only imagine what that number might have been for the Helsinki Guggenheim competition, which attracted 1,715 entries.
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.
