A Korean Heritage Site Sets the Tone Chungji National Heritage Museum Competition For those unfamiliar with Korean Heritage and its symbols, the choice of the jury for a new complex to house artifacts, now located at various scattered sites, would seem to beg more information, especially when one views the designs of the non-selected finalists—all quite modern. Some of this can certainly be explained by the subject matter of the new museum’s holdings, another by the site in broader terms. Some might say that emphasis placed on the heritage element in the design brief fostered an interpretation leading to the choice of the winning design: “The site chosen for the new Chungji National Museum is logical: Chungju, located in the central part of the Korean Peninsula, is the center of the so-called ‘Jungwon culture,’ which has played an important role geographically and historically since ancient time. Jungwon culture developed around the Namhan River, which runs through the central region from east to west, and the relics showing this are currently scattered and stored in various museums.” The importance of this project for Koreans is not only to be seen in it as an “international” competition, but also in the presence of two foreign architects as jurors. In most recent Korean competitions, most of which are open, the jurors tend to be local. When an important competition for a high-profile project is at stake, one usually finds foreign architects on juries. In this case, the jury consisted of: • William Horgan, Partner, Grimshaw Architects • Sven Shockey, Design Director, Smith Group • Seungsoo Shin, Principal, DESIGNGROUP OZ Architects • Kihyun Ahn, Professor, Hanyang University • Seounghyun Yoon, Professor, Chung-ang University • Changgyun Kim, Principal, UTAA Company Partly because of the process as an “International Competition,” a total of 89 submissions, both domestic and from abroad, were received by the closing date. After the initial stages of the jury’s deliberation process, the number of entries for final evaluation was reduced to five. The final four ranked entries were as follows: 1st Place Jungwon Tea Senery: Strolling in the Landscape Ona Architects + Jongjin Lee architects + Laguillo Arquitectos Korea/Seville, Spain 2nd Place Walking through the Landscape M.I.N Architects + Pentatonic Korea/Los Angeles 3rd Place Architecture Office Paper Story + Where Architecture Korea 4th Place Cultural Plateau Carved by History MMC Plus Architects + MMC Plus Co. Ltd Korea By selecting Ona Architects + Jongjin Lee architects + Laguillo Arquitectos as winner, the jury stated that “(it) stands out in that the building was designed to permeate the landscape environment, including existing trees. In addition, in the interior space, a distinction was made to that various landscapes could be unfolded by utilizing near, middle, and borrowed views. In particular, the jury gave favorable reviews for the fact that this work has a balance between its differentiation as an exhibition space and its attitude toward the site. It was also notable that the winner’s structures were raised from grade to allow for protection of the exhibits from flooding by the nearby river, a recent issue throughout the country. Others have noted that the appearance of the winner is very much in keeping with Korean architecture of the past—thus also a connection with heritage. The other finalists, all modernists, exhibited several ideas borrowed from the recent past: M.I.N + Pentatonic‘s rather monumental contribution not only was reminiscent of Ando’s austere interior approach, but also Steven Holl’s habit of carving out sections of the facade to give it more life. Last, but not least was their ramping solution, reminiscent of Jean Nouvel”s Quai Branly Musée in Paris—another artifacts museum. Architecture Office Paper Story + Where Architecture featured a structure with two wings, a commen device to separate permanent exhibits from temporary ones, sometimes enabling evening closures of permanent exhibits for the purpose of isolating a new exhibit at an opening. The attraction to visiting both wings was the possibility of taking in some extraordinary views from both. The often discussed relationship beween buildings and their sourrounding landscape was well resolved by MMC Plus Architects + MMC Plus Co. Ltd design, where they surrounded the entire complex with a pathway, initiated by a ramp leading to a rooftop garden. This design move served both as a boundary and as a connection to its environment. The jury acknowledged “all of the award-winning works, for “expressing the uniqueness and functionality of the exhibition space as a regional base museum, and at the same time, expressed the sincere consideration of the (museum) as a facility to be built in a waterside park on the banks of the Namhangang River.” The museum is scheduled to open in 2026. 1st Place Jungwon Tea Scenery: Strolling in the Landscape Ona Architects + Jongjin Lee architects + Laguillo Arquitectos Korea/Seville, Spain Unless otherwise noted, all images ©Ona Architects + Jongjin Lee architects + Laguillo Arquitectos 2nd Place Walking through the Landscape M.I.N Architects + Pentatonic Korea/Los Angeles Unless otherwise noted, all images ©M.I.N Architects + Pentatonic 3rd Place Architecture Office Paper Story + Where Architecture Korea Unless otherwise noted, all above images ©Architecture Office Paper Story 4th Place Cultural Plateau Carved by History MMC Plus Architects + MMC Plus Co. Ltd Korea Unless otherwise noted, all above images ©MMC Plus Architects + MMC Plus Co. Ltd |
Completed IMEX by Tuck Hinton Architects. Photo courtesy Anecdote It is not often that we look back to a competition that occurred three decades ago that was also covered in detail by COMPETITIONS (Vol. 4, #4; pp. 14-27). What made the Chattanooga IMAX different back in 1994 was that the article covering that competition was authored by Prof. Marleen Davis, then Dean of the University of Tennessee’s School of Architecture and a member of the jury panel. This was not just a short article, covering the high points of the competition with a few talking points about the winning design. This 4,000+ word document also described in detail the jury’s observations about all the finalists, including the honorable mentions—one of the few times we have gained such a detailed glimpse in this country from the inside of the competition process. Read more… Preparation and Organization of Design Competitions [phase 1] Benjamin Hossbach / Christian Lehmhaus / Christine Eichelmann 210 × 230 mm, 192 pp. over 600 images softcover ISBN 978-3-86922-316-2 (English) ISBN 978-3-86922-240-0 (German) Dom Publishers €48 in EU (For price abroad, see below) Founded in 1998 in Berlin, Phase 1 has been a principal player in the organization and facilitation of design competitions, not only in Germany, but abroad as well. The accomplishments of the firm have been well documented in three volumes—The Architecture of Competitions—beginning in 2i006. Whereas these books mainly focused on the results of the competitions they have administered, the present work, Fundamentals of Competition Management, takes one from the very beginnings of the competition process to its conclusion. The authors envisioned the publication as “three three books in one: one „blue book“ with example projects, one „yellow book“ with statements and the „white book“ with the actual guideline to competition management.” Although there have been a number of handbooks covering the administration of designcompetitions a study covering the entire process in such detail is a welcome addition to the the literature in this field. As a contribution to this important democratic process that has yielded exceptional design for decades, this volume is not only valid for Europe, but a current overview of the process for those globally who wish to raise the level of design by virtue of a design competition. -Ed Foreign institutions wishing to obtain a copy of the book will recieve a discount to cover the cost of foreign shipping. To obtain a copy for that offer, go to: [email protected] Winning entry by Luca Poian Forms Image ©Filippo Bolognese images Good design seldom happens in a vacuum. And so it was with an international competition for a new mosque in Preston, U.K. A mid-sized city of 95,000, and located in Lancashire near the west coast and almost equally distant from London and Glasgow, Preston has a storied past, going all the way back to the Romans and the late Middle Ages, where it was the site of significant battles. During the Industrial Revolution, the city prospered, and it was not until after World War II that Preston experienced the British version of the U.S. Rust Belt. In the meantime, the city has experienced an upswing in economic activity, with an unemployment rate of only 3%. Aside from the appearance of new industries, the city has benefitted from the establishment of Central Lancashire University (CLU), which employs over 3,000 faculty and staff, and, as such, is one of the regions major employers. Any new university requires new facilities, and one of the most outstanding examples of this at CLU was the new Student Centre and Plaza, a result of a 2016 RIBA-sponsored competition won by Hawkins/Brown Read More
Changdong Station winner – image ©D & B Partners Architects
Whereas international competitions for real projects have become a rarity lately, Korea is a welcome exception. Among the plethora of competition announcements we receive almost weekly, several have ended with foreign firms as winners. But the history of welcoming international participants does go back several years. One notable early example was the Incheon Airport competition, won by Fentress Bradburn Architects (1962-70).
Among the more recent successes of foreign firms was the Busan Opera House competition, won by Snøhetta (2013-) and the Sejong Museum Gardens competition, won by Office OU, Toronto (2016-2023).
Read more… 1st Place: Zaha Hadid Architects – night view from river – Render by Negativ Arriving to board a ferry boat or cruise ship used to be a rather mundane experience. If you had luggage, you might be able to drop it off upon boarding, assuming that the boarding operation was sophisticated enough. In any case, the arrival experience was nothing to look forward to. I recall boarding the SS United States for a trip to Europe in the late 1950s. Arriving at the pier in New York, the only thought any traveler had was to board that ocean liner as soon as possible, find one’s cabin, and start exploring. If you were in New York City and arriving early, a nearby restaurant or cafe would be your best bet while passing time before boarding. Read more… Helsinki Central Library, by ALA Architects (2012-2018) The world has experienced a limited number of open competitions over the past three decades, but even with diminishing numbers, some stand out among projects in their categories that can’t be ignored for the high quality and degree of creativity they revealed. Included among those are several invited competitions that were extraordinary in their efforts to explore new avenues of institutional and museum design. Some might ask why the Vietnam Memorial is not mentioned here. Only included in our list are competitions that were covered by us, beginning in 1990 with COMPETITIONS magazine to the present day. As for what category a project under construction (Science Island), might belong to or fundraising still in progress (San Jose’s Urban Confluence or the Cold War Memorial competition, Wisconsin), we would classify the former as “built” and wait and see what happens with the latter—keeping our fingers crossed for a positive outcome. Read More… 2023 Teaching and Innovation Farm Lab Graduate Student Honor Award by USC (aerial view) Architecture at Zero competitions, which focus on the theme, Design Competition for Decarbonization, Equity and Resilience in California, have been supported by numerous California utilities such as Southern California Edison, PG&E, SoCAl Gas, etc., who have recognized the need for better climate solutions in that state as well as globally. Until recently, most of these competitions were based on an ideas only format, with few expectations that any of the winning designs would actually be realized. The anticipated realization of the 2022 and 2023 competitions suggests that some clients are taking these ideas seriously enough to go ahead with realization. Read more… |