National Museum of Romanian Jewry and the Holocaust in RomaniaSponsors: Romanian Government
Facilitator: Elie Weisel National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania
Type: Open, international
Location: Banloc-Goodrich Palace (also know as the “Red Building”), Bucharest, Romania
Eligibility:
Languages: English, Romanian
Fees: None (Compensation: Each team to receive £6,000 for documents delivery)
Timetable:
19 October 2020 – Site visit (Register by 10/16/2020)
23 October 2020 – Deadline for Questions
7 December 2020 – Submissions deadline
14 December 2020 – Jury ranking of submissions
Jury:
• Antonel Tănase
The General Secretariat of the Government;
• Radu Ioanid
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Paul Shapiro
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum;
• Aurel Vainer
The Federation of Jewish Communities of Romania;
• Florin Manole
Roma Cultural Center ”O Del Amenca”
• Ileana Murgescu Tureanu
The Union of Romanian Architects;
• Sergiu Nistor
“Ion Mincu` University of Architecture and Urbanism;
• Mihaela Criticos
`Ion Mincu` University of Architecture and Urbanism;
• Cristina Verona Tobi
The National Museum of Art of Romania;
• Virgil Nițulescu
The National Museum of the Romanian Peasant
• Ciprian Anghel Ștefan
Astra Museum Complex, Sibiu;
• Constantin Gorcea
Graphic Design Architecture, Suceava;
• Elisabeth Ungureanu,
”Elie Wiesel” National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania
Challenge
The purpose of the National Museum of the History of the Romanian Jewry and the Holocaust is to present and promote the history, culture, and traditions of the Jewish communities in Romania and to educate local and international audiences on this national minority’s contributions to the evolution and development of Romanian society over time.
Moreover, the activity of the future institution will include a major educational component, the central elements of which will be to protect the memory of the Holocaust victims and to promote non-discrimination.
Location: the museum will be set up in the downtown of Bucharest, in one of the most emblematic areas of the city, Calea Victoriei street, in the Banloc-Goodrich building, projected by the architect Octav Doicescu, during the 1940s. The Call for Application with full information is accessible on:
www.inshr-ew.ro/museumcompetition-2020/ . |
A Church Ruin as Reconciliation Memorial 
View of winning design from south ©Heninghan Peng Architects
For those tourists visiting Berlin today, the sudden approach to the ruins of a 1895 church building located on the city’s downtown Breitscheidplatz would certainly arouse their curiosity. One of the few remaining relics of World War II in the city, the church has now been the subject of a competition: Redesign and renovation of the Old Tower of the Friedrich Wilhelm Memorial Church (Umgestaltung des Alten Turms der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächnis-Kirche). Read more… Young Architects in Competitions 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: https://crc.umontreal.ca/en/publications-libre-acces/ Architecture as a Unifying Concept 
1st Place – UNStudio Image: ©Aerial image: ©die developer Projektentwicklung GmbH
As attractive as some of our most famous towers might appear, they do have a serious downside according to some observers: ‘they suck the life out of the street.’ This has not gone unnoticed, as some cities have required setbacks as partial solutions. Two Mies Van Der Rohe projects, New York’s Seagram Building and the Toronto-Dominion Centre are prime examples of this concept. More recently the recognition that landscaping can provide some breathing space has become quite the fashion. Competitions are now replete with competitors who insist that the surrounding green environment does not stop at the front door. One of the most obvious in recent history is Elizabeth de Portzamparc’s competition winning entry for the Taichung Tower 2 competition in Taiwan. Read more… Belfast Looks Toward an Equitable and Sustainable Housing Model 
Birdseye view of Mackie site ©Matthew Lloyd Architects
If one were to look for a theme that is common to most affordable housing models, public access has been based primarily on income, or to be more precise, the very lack of it. Here it is no different, with Belfast’s homeless problem posing a major concern. But the competition also hopes to address another of Belfast’s decades-long issues—its religious divide. There is an underlying assumption here that religion will play no part in a selection process. The competition’s local sponsor was “Take Back the City,” its membership consisting mainly of social advocates. In setting priorities for the housing model, the group interviewed potential future dwellers as well as stakeholders to determine the nature of this model. Among those actions taken was the “photo- mapping of available land in Belfast, which could be used to tackle the housing crisis. Since 2020, (the group) hosted seminars that brought together international experts and homeless people with the goal of finding solutions. Surveys and workshops involving local people, housing associations and council duty-bearers have explored the potential of the Mackie’s site.” This research was the basis for the competition launched in 2022. Read more… 
Perkins & Will
Carrying the label, “Artistic Ideas Competition,” five firms vied for a commission to design a new National Museum of the U.S. Navy. Household names, the five were
Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) Copenhagen/ New York
Gehry Partners (Los Angeles)
DLR Group (Columbus, OH)
Perkins&Will (Chicago) Winner!
Quinn Evans (Ann Arbor) With a site not yet identified, it is possible that a final design will look quite different from the present submission. the Navy has expressed a preference for M Street SE and 6th Street SE, near the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. Six Firms Competed to Rethink the Future of a Major Museum 
Aerial view of winning design ©Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos (courtesy Malcolm Reading Consultants)
The history of the Dallas Museum of Art’s expansion has been punctuated by several moves, culminating in a new building designed by Edward Larrabee Barnes in 1984. The importance of this move to a new, somewhat desolate location in the city cannot be underestimated: it has led to the revitalization of what is now called the “Arts District,” with the relocation of various arts institutions to new facilities: the opera house (Foster and Partners), Dee and Charles Wyly Performing Arts Theater (REX/OMA), Nasher Sculpture Center (Renzo Piano), and I.M. Pei’s Meyerson Symphony Center being among the most significant. Read more… |
