Adelaide Contemporary Art Museum Winner Announced

 


Winning entry © Diller Scofidio Renfro

 

 

Diller Scofidio Renfro’s solid and compelling design for Adelaide’s new Museum of Contemporary Art prevailed over a strong field of five international teams. As a high-profile project, it could come as no surprise that the original RfQ drew 107 teams including over 500 firms—before the shortlisting process whittled a list of finalists down to six teams. This organization format occurred under the guidance of the professional adviser, Malcolm Reading Consultants.

 

All of the finalists had considerable experience in museum design; so this exercise would be interesting to see how much of each team’s history would appear in their final presentations. The size of the compensation package for each team—$80,000 upon design submission—although probably not sufficient to totally cover the cost of producing the required presentation materials, was certainly enough to guarantee a concerted effort by each team.

 

The shortlisted teams were:

 

  • Adjaye Associates and BVNwith McGregor Coxall, Steensen Varming, Plan A Consultants, Barbara Flynn, Yvonne Koolmatrie, Aurecon Group and Front Inc
  • BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group and JPE Design Studiowith United Natures, Arketype, BuildSurv, Virtual Built, Future Urban Group, Lewis Yerloburka O’Brien, Marijana Tadic, Erica Green, Peter Dungey, Brian Parkes and Lindy Lee
  • David Chipperfield Architects and SJB Architectswith Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture and Arup Lighting
  • Diller Scofidio + Renfro and Woods Bagotwith Oculus, Pentagram, Right Angle Studio, Klynton Wanganeen, Dustin Yellin, Studio Adrien Gardère, Australian Dance Theatre, Deloitte, Ekistics and Katnich Dodd
  • HASSELL and SO-ILwith Ali Cobby Eckermann, Arup, Australian Industrial Transformation Institute, Fabio Ongarato Design, Fiona Hall and Mosbach Paysagistes
  • Khai Liew, Office of Ryue Nishizawa and Durbach Block Jaggerswith Masako Yamazaki, Mark Richardson, Arup, Irma Boom, Taylor Cullity Lethlean and URPS

 

The composition of the jury was notable for its strong participation of local stakeholders. Only two international architects were impaneled, Toshiko Mori (Harvard GSD), and landscape architect, Walter Hood (Hood Design Studio, Oakland, California). The jury consisted of:

 

  • Michael Lynch AO CBE (Chair),Chair, Sydney Community Foundation and Chair, Circa
  • Lee-Ann Tjunypa Buckskin,Deputy Chair, Australia Council for the Arts, Managing Director, L-AB & Associates and Executive, Aboriginal Strategy, South Australian Film Corporation
  • Beatrice Galilee,Daniel Brodsky Associate Curator of Architecture and Design, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
  • Walter Hood,Creative Director and Founder, Hood Design Studio
  • David Knox,Deputy Chair, Economic Development Board of South Australia and Member, Adelaide Botanic Gardens Foundation Committee
  • Toshiko Mori,Founder and Principal, Toshiko Mori Architect and Robert P. Hubbard Professor in the Practice of Architecture at Harvard University Graduate School of Design
  • Lisa Slade,Assistant Director, Artistic Programs, Art Gallery of South Australia
  • Sally Smart,Vice-Chancellor’s Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne and renowned contemporary artist
  • Tracey Whiting,Chair, Art Gallery of South Australia Board

 

 

The choice of the site was logical for such a program, as it was bordered on one side by the city, and on the other by the Botanic Garden. But to accommodate this strategy and free up the site, a large demolition program in two stages has to occur. The considerable expense this will entail only can attest to the importance which the City of Adelaide has placed on this project.

 

 

A general perusal of the entries indicates that the design strategies of the six firms had little in common with each other. And one wonders if the shortlisting process assumed this would be the case in the end. Without a jury report, but only a short summary about the winner, we cannot but imagine how the adjudication process might have evolved.

 

 

Read more…

 

 

Calendar

 

 

Exhibitions and Conferences

 

No events

Recent Archive Updates

Interview: James Mary O’Connor FAIA (Winter 2017)

After receiving his Diploma in Architecture from the Dublin Institute of Technology and BS in Architecture from Trinity College in Dublin, James received his Masters in Architecture from the University of California, Los Angeles while a Fulbright Scholar in the U.S. Shortly after his time as a student in Charles Moore’s Master Class at UCLA, he joined the Moore firm in Los Angeles, now Moore Ruble Yudell. Beginning in the late 1980s, he was involved in the firm’s many projects in Germany, many of which dealt with masterplanning and the construction of large housing, primarily in Berlin. Subsequently, he was involved in the Potatisåkern Master Plan & Housing, as well as the Bo01 Housing Exhibition, both in Malmö, Sweden.
James was MRY’s point person in its subsequent involvement with the firm’s many projects in the People’s Republic of China, beginning with their winning competition proposal for the Century Center project in Beijing. Although unbuilt, it didn’t escape the notice of the Chinese, who invited the firm to participate in a competition for the Tianjin Xin-He large neighborhood masterplan—which they won. This was followed by the 2004 Chun Sen Bi An Housing Masterplan competition in the city of Chongqing, located in central China—completed in 2010. This high profile project resulted in a number of affordable and high-end housing projects throughout China. The firm’s most remarkable sustainability project was the COFCO Agricultural Eco-Valley Master Plan project outside Beijing, envisioned to become the first net zero-carbon project of its kind in the world.
In the meantime, the firm’s focus in China has evolved from its concentration on housing to institutional projects, such as the Shanghai University of Technology‘s research buildings. In the meantime MRY has been noted as a leader in the design of campus projects in the U.S. and abroad, as well as numerous government projects—courthouses and embassies.

 

 

Interview: Richard Francis-Jones (Spring 2009) with Michael Dulin

richard_francis-jones


COMPETITIONS: The new University of Sydney Law School competition, which you won, included a lot of high profile architects besides FJMT: Neilsen Neilsen & Neilsen (Denmark), Axel Shultzes (Berlin), Norman Foster (London), (Bligh Voller Neild (Sydney, Aus), and Donovan Hill & Wilson (Brisbane, Aus). I assume it was invited?

Richard Francis-Jones: The University of Sydney became quite ambitious around this time and implemented a campus planning program called 2010. It included three major new buildings, the largest being the law school. The law school is currently downtown, so the competition was part of bringing the law school back to campus. The law school has a very prestigious faculty and the new site on campus is very strategic. It’s right across from some of the older neo-gothic sandstone buildings, and there’s a sense that it’s very solid. The building was to include a variety of programs and quarters for the faculty, and it also incorporates a law library and lots of general teaching spaces. But the main component is the law school. As a big competition, they had advisors from the architectural side – and the jury included James Weirick, Chris Johnson, Tom Heneghan from U of Sydney (all professors). It was a completely open submission of interest, worldwide. It was reduced to just a few teams and we had to assemble a very detailed – but short – submission for the second phase. We were limited to a certain number of pages and it had to include an interpretive program and outline what we were thinking about the site.

 

 

usyd_law 2
Faculty of Law, Library and Teaching Complex, University of Sydney

 

COMPETITIONS: Like a narrative of some sort?

RFJ: A narrative and a sketch – but only a few pages. Based on those submissions, they selected teams for the competitions (There were several competitions held simultaneously – the law school was just one). Then there was a full competition, and the interesting thing for me — and the unique aspect to this competition — was that we submitted our material, which included panels, a model, etc., and they were put on public display. The public could go have a look for about a month or so prior, and then we each made our design presentations to the jury. But it was also open to the public.

COMPETITIONS: So there was the proper jury but also the public?

Read more...