Tennessee Aquarium IMAX Competition

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.

Design competitions normally do not appear in a vacuum. Aside from the construction of the Tennessee Aquarium by Cambridge Seven Architects as a new downtown focal point, Davis explained how much interest the University of Tennessee’s Department of Architecture had taken in Chattanooga, mainly by establishing an Urban Design Center. According to Davis, “Over the years, hypothetical student projects have proposed “What if?” for a variety of strategic sites that have subsequently been developed. The design efforts and activities of the Design Center have gendered publicity, excitement, controversy, discussion, and action.”

As for the competition itself, the Tennessee Aquarium IMAX Annex Competition was one of the early invited competitions in this country. Yes, there had been others: the 1985 Phoenix Municipal Government Center Competition as an example was international in scope. Won by Barton Myers, the nine shortlisted finalists, chosen to participate by invitation, included familiar names such as Charles Moore, Arata Isozaki, Ricardo Legorreta and Michael Graves (It was not built). In a subsequent publication covering that competition in some detail, one of the three jurors, Charles Jencks, did discuss the entries, looking at the entries more as a reviewer than a former juror. That competition and the 1994 Chattanooga IMAX article differ on that count.

As an invited competition, Chattanooga’s IMAX was limited to Tennessee architecture firms that could demonstrate the ability to design and supervise the completion of a structure of that size. Fourteen of the shortlisted firms submitted entries, leading to the final selection of Tuck Hinton Architects of Nashville as the winner. Of special note here was the anonymous jurying process, often a rare occurrence in invited competitions. According to juror, Davis,

“As an open competition truly seeking to construct a building, it was judged anonymously, and it was sponsored by a private client who was ready to negotiate the commission within 48 hours of the competition deadline. The client should be commended for their good faith in the competition process and in their willingness to take a risk in working with a potentially unknown design firm.”

The Jury

– Building committee from the Tennessee Aquarium Board of Directors
– Eric Jacques,, architect from the IMAX Corporation
– Two Chattanooga citizens,
– Fred Koetter, Dean of the Yale University School of Architecture, who knew Chattanooga well, having consulted and designed for the city since 1984.
– William McDonough, Dean of the University of Virginia College of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Planning and sustainability consultant for Chattanooga
– Marleen Davis, Dean, College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Tennessee

Throughout the judging, two additional professionals were present:
– Stroud Watson, Architect, the organizer of the competition, was on hand to discuss the general urban planning goals of Chattanooga
– James Hill, the Executive Director of the Aquarium, available to answer technical/functional questions.

The jury’s deliberations concluded with six designs ranked at the top, first, second and third places, and three honorable mentions:

First Prize
Tuck Hinton Architects (Nashville)

Second Prize
Garnet Chapin. Architect (Chattanooga) with Finegold Alexander Associates

Third Prize
Derthick Henley & Wilkerson (Chattanooga) with Croxton Collaborative and Erin Yon

Honorable Mentions (3)
Frank McDonald Architects and SITE. Inc. (Lookout Mountain, TN/New York)
Rardin & Carroll Architects (Chattanooga)
Martella Associates (Knoxville)

Note: Here we must break from our usual practice of displaying all of the premiated designs and stick with the winner. All were shown in our original 1994 article in COMPETITIONS, but only in black/white. After the passage of three decades, it has been impossible to find the originals due to the absence of digitalization at that time. So we are revisiting the competition, both for its importance in producing a finished product that closely resembled the original entry, and that has been well received by the community.

First Place
Tuck Hinton Architects (now Anecdote Architectural Experiences)
Nashville, Tennessee

Completed IMEX by Tuck Hinton Architects. Photo courtesy Anecdote

Jury recommendation
“The winning project was consistently well done in all regards. Its urban presence seemed appropriate: it had handsome massing and vocabulary, and it seemed consistently developed. The internal organization was simple and gracious. The public sequence, the IMAX theater, and the Environmental Resource Center worked well in conjunction with the major linear public space which was filled with natural light and ventilation. The project was not unduly preoccupied with environmental / sustainable design gymnastics, butwas guided by appropriate principles which were clearly diagrammed.

The building’s massing clearly defined the space of the street, while a simple corner element imparted a sense of presence within the urban grid. The facade vocabulary of repetitive bays seemed appropriate in Chattanooga, while the structural idea unified the character of the interior and exterior spaces. This design had a remarkable subtlety in its scale response. It worked well on a multiplicity of scales: at the scale of the city, at the scale of the building, at the scale of the repetitive bay, at the scale ol the person, and at the scale of the detail.
Overall, the design had a great deal of elegance and dignity. This design withstood increasing scrutiny throughout jury deliberations, and ultimately was the overwhelming selection for first place, receiving the $10,000 prize, as well as the design commission.”

From original competition board (1994) Courtesy Aquarium IMAX Theater