Architecture as Political Statement in the Ukraine

Design Competition for the National Memorial for the Heavenly Hundred Heroes and Revolution of Dignity Museum in Kiev


Winning design: ©Kleihues + Kleihues Gesellschaft von Architekten

 

After an extended and rigorous competition process, the winner(s) of the National Memorial for the Heavenly Hundred Heroes and Revolution of Dignity Museum in Kiev have been selected. They are:

 

1st Prize – Kleihues + Kleihues Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Berlin/Germany
2nd Prize – Burø architects, Kiev/Ukraine
3rd Prize – Lina Ghotmeh – Architecture, Paris/France

 

This was the second competition in the process to determine the designs for both the site and the museum complex itself. The purpose of the project was to honor the victims of the attempted suppression of the protests, which ultimately ended with the deposition of the pro-Russian premier, Viktor Yanukovych.

 

The competitors in the Museum competition were selected as a result of a RfQ/qualifications process. From the 12 invited participants in stage 1, six teams were shortlisted for stage two. In addition to the above-mentioned winners, they were:
Guillermo Vázquez Consuegra Arquitecto SLP, Seville/Spain (round 3)
Dominique Lyon Architectes Paris, France (round 2)
Coop Himme(l)blau, Vienna/Austria (round 1)

 

It was understandable that none of the illustrations of the submitted entries indicated any kind of symbolism that one might construe as a revolutionary, symbolic reference to the events surrounding the Maiden revolution. Here we see a process with a primary focus on the visualization, organization, and functionality of a facility that could best serve to illustrate an event of a major historical event for the community. In this sense, it mirrors the non-representational styles from the exterior of numerous Holocaust museums, where only upon entering does one encounter the full force of the subject matter.

 

If there was any symbolism here, it was somehow reminiscent of Lina Ghotmeh’s recent winning design for the National Estonian Museum. In that case, the architecture of the museum was certainly apolitical, but a former Soviet military airstrip as the site of the Museum was a certain statement that Estonia was determined to no longer be a vassal to its neighbor. In the Ukrainian case, the architecture is also apolitical, but the site is certainly not.

 

As for the architectural expression of the finalists, the winning design by Kleihues + Kleihues could have been mistaken for Chipperfield—certainly not a bad act to follow. The others also exhibited variations on recent examples of modern museum architecture, as seen in a number of recent competitions. But based on the composition of the jury, there would be no chance for a traditional design on this one.

 

The competition jury was a good mix of Ukrainian and foreign professionals. The participating architectural jurors were:

 

• Julian Chaplynskyy, Architect (Lviv, Ukraine) *
Guido Hager, Landscape Architect (Zurich, Switzerland)
Prof. Rainer Mahlamäki, Architect (Helsinki, Finland)
Maciej Miłobędzki, Architect, (Warsaw, Poland)
Prof. Matthias Sauerbruch, Architect (Berlin, Germany)
Olexander Svystunov, Architect (Kiev, Ukraine)
• P
rof. Can Togay, Artist, Filmmaker, Writer (Berlin, Germany) *
• D
mytro Volyk, Architect (Dnipro, Ukraine)

Deputy Architectural Juror
Volodymyr Shevchenko, Architect (Kiev, Ukraine)
*excused, not attending Stage 2

 

The coordination of the jury was administered by Benjamin Hosbach, Architect and Director [phase eins]. The extensive notes surrounding the discussion of the finalists, and approved by the jury chair, are included with the three prize winners.

 

1002 (1st prize)
Kleihues + Kleihues Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Berlin/Germany
Authors: Prof. Jan Kleihues, Johannes Kressner
Employees/freelance collaborator:
Markus Schlosser, Pia Nürnberger
Consultants/experts:
Visualization: bloomimages Berlin GmbH, Andrea Cogo, Berlin
Structural Design Concept: sbp schlaich bergermann partner, Boris Reyher
Sustainability concept: Transsolar, Mathias Rammig
Model: Monath + Menzel GmbH, Christian Axel Monath, Berlin

 

Photo:©Andrey Mikhailov

 

 

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: Steven Holl (Summer 1998)

with Stanley Collyer

portrait 30% copy SHA_02_PAN view_extra long
Mumbai City Museum Competition Winner (2014)

 

COMPETITIONS: What was the first competition you ever participated in?

 

HOLL: I did a competition in 1972 for the Niagara Falls Rainbow Plaza Gardens—which I did in my bedroom in San Francisco. I had just graduated from the University of Washington and had moved to San Francisco, where I was working for Backen Aarigoni and Ross. I think I got fourth place, or something like that in that competition, and it gave me incredible encouragement to proceed in my own design work. It was published in architecture plus by Peter Blake. The article was called “Back from Niagara.” That was the first time I ever got published.

 

COMPETITIONS: The last time we met you had just returned from San Francisco, where you came in a very close second in the San Francisco Mission Bay planning competition (COMPETITIONS, Vol. 8, #2). You teamed up with George Hargreaves, a landscape architect who is not known for just filling in the blanks.

 

HOLL: Whenever you go after a competition, you try to put the best team together and envision winning it. I thought that George would be a great collaborator out there in San Francisco—he lives on a hill which overlooks the Mission Hill project—I thought that if all things went well, he would be the best person to work with. We collaborated back and forth by fax and met a few times. I think he was very partial to some of the ideas we had; he helped us to develop them. There was a good back-and-forth going on.

 

COMPETITIONS: I understand that one of the major concerns of the jury was phasing, since the plan could not be realized all at once. One member of the jury characterized the first phase as “brilliant.”

 

HOLL: I thought our phasing scheme was very good—and this was George’s idea—in the sense that we could landscape and make an incredible public space in the first phase. I thought it was the strongest part of our scheme. I think one has to look at it carefully to understand it. That was actually the strongest part of our scheme.

 

model view from SE Glasgow SHA 14-01 7506

Glasgow SHA 14-01 6922 Completed-003
Holl model (upper left) for Glasgow School of Art Competition (2009); Completion (2013)

 

COMPETITIONS: Many of your recent projects have been additions to buildings—Cranbrook, Pratt Institute, the University of Minnesota School of Architecture. Additions can be almost like infill; but in other respects, a question may arise, as in Cranbrook, as to how much you may feel obligated to defer to Saarinen’s design. How does the existing architecture play a role?

Read more...