UIA-HYP Cup 2019 International Student Competition
Theme: Architecture in Transition Topic: Happy Spaces – Integrating Architecture and Landscape Sponsor: Union International des Architects (UIA) Organizers: School of Architecture, Tianjin University and Urban Environment Design (UED) Magazine Type: Student, international, ideas Eligibility: Open to all architecture and relevant major students around the globe. Full-time on-campus architecture students from accredited institutions (including master and PhD candidates and graduate students of 2019) can participate alone or as a team with team members of no more than four people and advisors of no more than two. Awards: 1st Prize (1 team) – Certificate and 100,000 RMB (approx.15, 000 USD) (before tax) 2nd Prize (3 teams) – Certificate and 30,000 RMB (approx.4, 500 USD) (before tax) 3rd Prize (8 teams) – Certificate and 10,000 RMB (approx. 1, 500 USD) (before tax) Timeline: 30 August 2019 – Registration deadline 20 September – Submission deadline Jury Chairman: Benedetta Tagliabue (Pritzker Jury Member (since 2015), Co-founder and Principal of Miralles Tagliabue EMBT) Design Challenge: Architects can change people’s environment and influence their future in a positive way. They can create “happy spaces” that contribute to people’s well-being. Inserting a building in a nice environment makes this goal easier. When the building is linked to its surroundings, when the limits are blurred with the construction, all of the positive elements of the site can contribute to create this good feeling inside. But the real defy is how to do the opposite, how to influence in a positive way the surroundings throughout the architecture? The competition is conceived as an exercise to help students understand:
– How to plan a building and its environment as a comprehensive system. – How to improve a place through an architectural intervention. – How to integrate inside and outside; the building and the landscape. – Understand the importance of analysis of the site and context. – How to create a happy building in a less happy environment.
Providing a project experience which teaches students about the social responsibility of an architectural project and how it can change people’s life in a positive way.
Requirements: – Participants can choose sites in a degraded urban/ landscape area, preferably at the periphery (anywhere in the world). The site shall include construction area and surrounding area of the building. The student proposal should become a unit that can be imagined as a whole.
* A degraded area can be for instance an urban unstructured area, residual zones where urban planning didn’t arrive or didn’t have a positive effect, areas that remained un-integrated in a city/landscape, self-constructed neighborhoods. They can be areas that remained isolated, can be difficult neighborhoods, areas with social conflict or poverty, areas that have been damaged and need reconstruction, etc. They are places that are not attractive for the people or investors.
– It is compulsory that the context is existing, and participants shall define how their intervention can improve the quality, the value, the social life, the wellness and transform it into an attractive one. – The surrounding area can vary in dimensions, but it has to guarantee the integration of the building with the surroundings. The participants should include a surrounding area that can create an ecosystem together with the building/ buildings itself. – Participants can propose types of program or activity, but they should be mixed (at least 2 different functions). They have to propose the uses and program for the construction and for the surrounding area as well. – The construction can have around 4,000㎡ but it is not restricted to this dimension. Any dimension is possible if it is justified. – The proposal shall have the intention to improve the environment and bring benefits to the people living there.
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:
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.
In these times when political emotions run high and gun violence is the norm, not the exception; and when emotions no longer are held in check, but encouraged by our leaders, minorities become easy targets for those who adhere to ideologies based primarily on exclusivity and hate.
The LGBT community has long been the target of various segments of our society; but the massacre that took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a favorite hangout for gays, elevated this phenomenon to a new level. After an event that claimed the lives of 49 victims, injured 68 others, and left hundreds permanently traumatized, it should come as no surprise that a memorial to this tragedy has been front and center in the minds of the community ever since. Because the very nature of this event has drawn nationwide attention, the community wanted to get it right. So it was only logical that they would turn to a competition as the most viable vehicle for arriving at a solution for the design of a memorial, as well as a museum. For this, the onePULSE Foundation was formed, to memorialize this tragedy and “ensure that Pulse”s legacy of love, acceptance and hope will never be lost.”
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.
