Munich Concert Hall Competition


1st Prize project by Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten (image ©  Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten)

 

Until the early 1970s, architecture in Bavaria, and in Munich in particular, was not only viewed as traditional, but even leaving the impression to some as being ‘quaint.’ Then came the 1972 Olympic Games, which marked a watershed moment in design for that community. Not only was a contemporary solution for the site of the games implemented—the roof tensile structures designed by the German architect, Frei Otto was revolutionary—but a new cylindrical BMW Headquarters building arose nearby. Designed by the Austrian architect, Karl Schwarzer, as the result of an invited competition, the building became one of the city’s major landmarks—a prominent tower as arrival feature in a low-rise city.

 

Since then, numerous modern structures have appeared, both in the city itself and in the surrounding suburbs—the most prominent being Coop Himmelb(l)au’s BMW World in the city, Herzog de Meuron’s Allianz Arena in a nearby suburb, and Helmut Jahn’s new Munich Airport Terminal near Freising. Based on Munich’s long tradition as a center of music, especially opera, the city is finally moving forward with a new Concert Hall project, starting with a recently completed competition.

 

The Process

Supported by the State of Bavaria and coordinated by phase1 of Berlin, the competition was launched on 12 August 2016 and concluded with the selection of the winner and other premiated designs in late October 2017. It was an invited competition, with 35 participants in all—29 shortlisted from the RfQ and six preselected for participation in the design stage. The latter were:

 

• Gehry Partners, LLP, Los Angeles
• gmp Architekten von Gerkan, Marg und Partner, Hamburg
• Henning Larsen Architects, Copenhagen/Munich
• Herzog & de Meuron, Munich
• Schultes Frank Architekten, Berlin
• Snøhetta, Oslo

 

When the final submissions were received, 31 of the 35 invitees responded with entries. For those designs which were premiated by the jury, the following compensation was available:

1st prize: EUR 125,000 (w/o VAT)
2nd prize: EUR 100,000 (w/o VAT)
3rd prize: EUR 75,000 (w/o VAT)
4th prize: EUR 60,000 (w/o VAT)
5th prize: EUR 40,000 (w/o VAT)
Recognitions (total) EUR 100,000 (w/o VAT)

 


1st Prize model (photo © Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten)

 

 

The professional architects on the jury panel were:

Prof. Markus Allmann, Munich
Ldt. BD Kurt Bachmann, Chief Building Director, Head State Building Office Munich 1
Kai-Uwe Bergmann, New York/Copenhagen
Prof. Hannelore Deubzer, Munich
MDirig Friedrich Geiger, Head Section State Buidling, Supreme Building Office, Munich
Prof. Finn Geipel, Paris/Berlin
Prof. Harry Gugger, Basel
Prof. Hubert Hermann, Vienna/Leipzig
Prof. Hermann Kaufmann, Munich
Prof. Ulrike Lauber, Munich /Berlin
Prof. Arno Lederer, Stuttgart
Josef Peter Meier-Scupin, Munich
Prof. Dr.(I) Elisabeth Merk, Planning Director, State Capital Munich

 

Alternate Architectural jurors

Lutz Heese, Munich
Ltd BD Harald Löhnert, Head Section State Building, Government of Upper Bavaria, Munich
Susanne Ritter, City Director, Leader Urban Design, State Capital Munich
Prof. Kirsten Schemel, Berlin/Munster
Elena Schütz, Berlin/Zurich
BDin Christine Mantel, Project Leader Concert Hall, State Building Office Munich 1
MR Andreas Muschialik, Head Section IIA3, Supreme Building Office, Munich

At the end of the adjudication process, the jury settled on the following ranking:

1st Prize – Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten ZT GmbH, Bregenz, Austria
2ndPrize – PFP Planungs GmbH,
Hamburg, Germany
3rd Prize – David Chipperfield Architects Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Berlin
4th Prize – 3XN A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
5th Prize – Staab Architekten GmbH,
Berlin
Honorable Mentions:
• Henning Larsen Architects,
Copenhagen/Munich
• Zaha Hadid Architects,
London
• Mecanoo,
Delft, The Netherlands
• Christ & Gantenbein
, Basel, Switzerland

 

The choice of Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten as the winner only found one dissenting vote. Aside from fulfilling all of the technical requirements, the cruise-ship-like (or shed) configuration of the structure was greeted as a good fit for the neighborhood, not overbearing, but certainly presenting a recognizable icon in a less than upscale environment. This, although the main concert venue was located in the upper levels of the building—evidently hardly seen as an issue after the recent opening of the new Hamburg opera.


See more images…

 

 

Calendar

 

 

Exhibitions and Conferences

 

No events

Recent Archive Updates

 

 

Interview: Susie Kim of Koetter & Kim (Winter 2004)

kka.1Sewoon District 4 Urban Redevelopment Competition, Seoul, South Korea (Winning entry)

COMPETITIONS: Let's talk about one of your most recent competitions where you came out on top - the Seoul planning competition. I recalled one of your statements about urban planning while I was looking at the Seoul plan: "You can't fool a city." With that in mind, how did you approach the challenge to create something new in a high density environment, where an old megastructure once existed?

 

KIM: These ideas are one that come from oneself. You study a city., you know the personality of a city. If one begins by looking, it's the city that is going to tell you something. Because Seoul is my hometown, I could have a lot of input in the design process. In fact the area where I grew up is just down the street where my grandfather owned a block. I was quite familiar with the nature and characteristics of this district. Historically, it was always the heart of the city. If you look at it topographically, you come to realize what it was historically: it was an important place. (This place) was alive with its history, its philosophy, religion and culture. It was really the heart of it all. In recent years it has been neglected, and for various reasons: the landowners would not sell - they really didn't need the money so they set a price that was actually too high. During the military era, they put a highway through the district. The canal, which had been the center of much of domestic life, was filled in - it was also part of the city water system at one time. My sense was that if it was going to come back, it shouldn't ignore its historical roots. There was every reason why it should be something of great quality. It's not just about keeping up with the Jones's, just to bring the tourists in, but it had to become the center that it was always meant to be.

 

kka.9
Sewoon District 4 Urban Redevelopment Competition, perspective view with reflecting pool
So one begins to come up with an idea, and those ideas begin with those natural conditions, where if you understand the Korean culture, there is a great link to something natural; it's an authentic place. At the same time there is more willpower to the city than any other city I have seen. It's possible there that you can have both, linking you to what is to its history; but you really want to be in the position where you are the example of what the city of the future should be also. That's where we begin, and it doesn't necessarily come from ourselves, but it comes from the study of the possibilities presented by the given conditions and situation.
kka.3
Sewoon District 4 Urban Redevelopment Competition, site plan
COMPETITIONS: The way this was explained to me, this will be somewhat like the Potsdamer Platz model from Berlin with various architects establishing their own personality within the plan. Do you see a similarity?

Read more...