Extensions to buildings are normally regarded as significant projects by most architects, whereas linking two existing structures might appear as a lesser priority. On rare occasion of such a significant linkage, which took place between two buildings at Pratt Institute in New York was the project by Steven Holl, which had to deal with differing floor levels in fitting the connection to the two structures.
In joining two museums structurally, especially when designed by a world-renowned architect, the design bar is suddenly raised. Add to that the fact that the architect of both museums is a household name in his home country of Finland. With that in mind, the connector cannot be too high-profile, but must enhance, rather than detract from its two neighbors, at the same time becoming part of a greater composition.
When confronted with the question of solving such a challenge—connecting two museums designed by Alvar Aalto—the Finnish city of Jyväskylä turned to an international design competition for a solution. Even considering the rather small size of the project, the Aalto name alone was enough to attract the submission of 674 entries.
Sponsored by the Alvar Aalto Foundation, and adjudicated by an all-Finnish jury, the aims as expressed in the brief were clear:
“In its criteria the competition jury stresses the need for an integrated architectural approach and the technical and economic feasibility of the design. It is particularly important that the winning entry should suit this nationally important cultural environment, and that it should find a way of creating a seamless link with Alvar Aalto’s architecture.” Important to note is that a plaza is created by linking the two buildings, introducing the importance of landscape design.
As is often the case with Scandinavian juries, the majority of the members were local stakeholders, with two architect appointees serving on the behest of the National Finnish Architectural Association. At the conclusion of judging, An entry called “Silmu” (Finnish for a leaf bud) by a team of young Finnish architects was announced as the winner of the international Ruusupuisto design competition. By staging a competition for a project of relative modest size, but high-profile in its importance, the Finns have shown that competitions for smaller projects can also be the subject for important solutions.
First Place by Sini Rahikainen, Hannele Cederström, Inka Norros, Kirsti Paloheimo, & Maria Kleimola – Finland
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.”
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.
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.
The Rails to Trails program, which gained momentum after the1984 Federal Land Banking Law—supported by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy—has seen over 24,000 miles of trails established where rail lines once existed. Some sites were strictly urban, while others, sometimes over 100 miles in length, were primarily rural, while others combined some of both.
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.
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.
