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.
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.
