A Museum as Entertainment Landscape

 

The Taoyuan Museum of Arts Competition

 


Courtesy: TMOA ©Joe Shih. Architects + Riken Yamamoto and Field Shop

 

 

The competition for the Taoyuan Museum of Arts is similar to now what has become the typical invited format for major projects in Taiwan. In this case, 14 architectural teams submitted their qualifications, and four qualified for the second competition stage. They were Q-LAB + menacoo architecten, Joe Shih. Architects + Riken Yamamoto and Field Shop, Ricky Liu & Associates, and JJPan and Partners, Architects and Planners + MVRDV.

 

 

After the final evaluation was took place on the 28th of February 2018, Joe Shih. Architects + Riken Yamamoto and Field Shop were named the winners with a proposal developing the Museum of Arts as a entertainment landscape hill in the heart of Taoyuan City. Different from most high profile art museums that have appeared on the international scene over the past decades, this one depends almost entirely on a landscape motif as attraction, not a building as symbolic structure. It could be described as a terraced pocket park, with a number of follies on view.

 

 

 

 

 

This museum has three layers of space; the Cube, the Hill and the Inbetween. The Cube is an enclosed exhibition space, and the Hill is a landscape that contains attractions . The Cube and the Hill are connected by the Inbetween, inside of which one can find art installations, performing art and workshops. in addition the terraces include an outside theater. All this is connected by an “inclined lift,” which will connect the various venues. The pop-up boxes serve as multipurpose spaces for commercial and additional exhibition spaces, where artists can sell their works.

 

 

 

Although we haven’t seen the works of the other competitors at this writing, we can assume that the winning design was somewhat of an outlier in the minds of many. But sometimes it takes a totally different approach to win a competition. The final ranking of the participating teams was:

 

 

• First place – Joe Shih. Architects + Riken Yamamoto and Field Shop (Japan)
Second place – Ricky Liu & Associates
Third place – JJPan and Partners, Architects and Planners + MVRDV (The Netherlands)
Fourth place – Q-LAB + menacoo architecten (The Netherlands)

 

 

 


Images: courtesy TMOA ©Joe Shih. Architects + Riken Yamamoto and Field Shop

 

 

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: Axel Schultes (Spring 1997)

 

with Stanley Collyer

 


Bundeskanzleramt Berlin Competition (1996); Completion (2000) Photo: courtesy Schultes Frank Architekten

 

COMPETITIONS: In our last conversation, we talked about the whole issue of Berlin's identity and what approach one should use in reconstructing the urban fabric between East and West—where the wall used to be.

 

Axel Schultes: Maybe I learned something during a recent lecture I gave in Palermo (Italy). Afterwards, some German specialists in philosophy and German thinking—brilliant people, I must say—came up to me and said, 'What you said about Berlin and what you are doing there with the Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleiamt), for us is what Ernst Bloch and Walter Benjamin talked about, especially when they looked at Italy and the cities in Italy. We noticed immediately in your work that (same) issue of porosity.' Both used this term: Benjamin wrote a small article on Naples, and Bloch wrote about Italy as a whole.

 

We always had a tendency to avoid the term, 'transparency.' Transparency is usually the use of glass to make buildings less alienating to someone outside. But for us, glass is no material to create spaces; so transparency as we see it is depths of spaces or layering. Porosity is something much more precise—what we strive for. We wanted the same effect in Friedrichstrasse (Interior Mall): it should not be this close-up thing of the Galeries Lafayette (Jean Nouvel) or Ungers, where you only have some holes in it. Porosity for us is like a sponge—to enable a building to fill up with life, to turn a private space into a public one by penetrating it with a public space. The old buildings in Berlin are examples of this, with two, three, sometimes even four interior public spaces.

 


Berlin Baumschulenweg Crematory (1993)

 

 

COMPETITIONS: You are referring to the interior courtyards (Hinterhöfe)?

AS: Yes. Nothing of this sort exists anymore in Berlin. Most buildings (at the street) are flat, sometimes elegant, sometime ugly. The Galeries Lafayette, with all its glass, is as closed (to the outside) as one of Unger's sandstone buildings. It's the same issue in the construction of every building. Take, for instance, the Berlin Schloss (the palace in the center of Berlin), which was completely demolished after WWII, and which some people think should be resurrected. This has been on our mind constantly.*

 

It would be such a contrast to urbanism—needing to punch holes in it to get inside—open to all the people and all walks of life. I can give many examples of this, for me very northern, very restrained, very alien to everything which infuses a culture with life. All the people here like Kohlhof, Ungers, Kleihues, etc.; all have that tendency of closing. Even Libeskind—and maybe he doesn't think about it or want to have it appear in such a manner—does it with the Jewish Museum where there is no penetration. There is always this hiding, this animosity to the urban fabric. They are not interested in breaking it up.

 


Bonn Art Museum - Competition (1985) Completion (1992)

Read more...