National Pulse Memorial & Museum International Design Competition
Sponsor: onePULSE Foundation
Type: open, international, two-phase (RfQ)
Location: Orlando, Florida
Professional Adviser: Dovetail Design Strategists, LLC
www.dovetailstrategists.com
Eligibility: Open to architects across the globe. Architects will be required to form and lead a multi-disciplinary team to include urban design, landscape design and
exhibition design professionals. The inclusion of an artist is strongly encouraged.
Fees: None
Language: English and Spanish
Timetable:
25 March 2019 – Competition launch
30 April 2019 (15:00 EST) Stage I RFQ submissions due
Compensation: Up to six architect-led design teams will be selected to participate in Stage II
of the Design Competition and an honorarium of $50,000 will be paid to each
of the shortlisted teams who have met onePULSE’s Stage II requirements, payable upon selection of a winning team.
Design Challenge:
On June 12, 2016 the largest and deadliest act of violence affecting LGBTQ+ people, and one of the deadliest terrorist attacks by a single gunman in modern American history occurred at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. A total of 49 people’s lives were taken that night, 68 others were injured and hundreds were left permanently affected from the trauma.
In the aftermath, the Orlando community and the world came together to prove that love will overcome fear and hatred. Under this banner, the onePULSE Foundation, an educational nonprofit, was created to memorialize this tragedy and ensure that Pulse’s legacy of love, acceptance and hope will never be lost.
The National Pulse Memorial & Museum International Design Competition challenges architects to create an iconic Memorial & Museum, including a pedestrian pathway called Survivors Walk in Orlando, Florida on the site of the Pulse nightclub and nearby properties. The National Pulse Memorial will be a
sanctuary of hope and healing, the Pulse Museum will educate, enlighten, inspire reflection and start conversations that will change mindsets. Survivors Walk will trace the three-block journey many victims and survivors took the night of the tragedy to get to the Orlando Regional Medical Center.
Together these three distinct elements will be a tribute to all those affected, will engage and educate visitors from around the world, and will serve as a catalyst for positive change.
The Jury includes:
Mayra Alvear, Victim’s Liaison, Mother of Amanda Alvear, Task Force Advisory Council, onePULSE
Earl Crittenden, Chair, Board of Trustees onePULSE, GrayRobinson, P.A.
Yolande Daniels, Principal, studioSUMO
Mayor Jerry Demings, Orange County, Florida
Mayor Buddy Dyer, Orlando, Florida
Hilary Lewis, Board of Trustees onePULSE, Chief Curator & Creative Director, The Glass House
Teresa Jacobs, School Board Chair, Orange County Public Schools, former Orange County Mayor
George Kalogridis, Vice Chair, Board of Trustees onePULSE, President, Walt Disney World
Ricardo J. Negron-Almodovar, Survivor, Service Legal Coordinator, Latino Justice Southeast Office
Barbara Poma, Owner, Pulse Nightclub, Founder & CEO of onePULSE
Laurinda Spear, Principal, Arquitectonica
Sarah Whiting, Dean, Rice University School of Architecture, Principal WW Architecture
Susanna Sirefman, Competition Director and Jury Advisor, President, Dovetail Design Strategists
In July 2019 the Vilnius Concert Hall competition jury began its deliberations to identify a suitable design for this major performing arts project. As one might have anticipated, two of thejurors on the seven member panel, Ole Gustavsen (Snohetta) and Andreas Cukrowicz (Nachbaur Architekten) had won high profile competitions for similar music center projects—in Oslo and Munich.The jury was confronted with a formidable task, as the competition, organized according to UIA regulations and anonymous in its format, had attracted 248 entries from around the world. For this one-stage competition, the organizers listed the following evaluation criteria, whereby the order of the criteria was not to reflect any priority:
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.
Memorials to commemorate atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II have taken many forms. Holocaust museums such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. by Pei Cobb Freed or the Jewish Museum in Berlin by Daniel Libeskind, all endeavor to paint a broad picture, including narratives covering most of the major events and sites. Former concentration camps such as Auschwitz, Dachau, Theresienstadt and Buchenwald have been frequent tour destinations. In the case of Buchenwald, the local city of Weimar has placed pictures of “Witnesses” throughout the downtown area as a reminder of the Nazi legacy.
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.”
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.
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.
