Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...
Competing for an Arrival Experience and Plan at UCD
Winning design: Image:©Steven Holl Architects and Malcolm Reading Consultants
A designer of hospitals once remarked that a full vacant floor should be added to every new hospital facility to accommodate the rapid changes in the technical demands of the industry. Although on a different scale, the same might now be said of architecture programs at universities, as the addition of everything connected with computer technology—i.e., computer 3D modeling—has led to changes in instruction and curricula in academic architecture programs. Providing empty space in a new building without a true purpose would run into problems with the people controlling the purse strings, as they want to see the justification for every square foot of programmed space. But the recognition of this factor was foremost in the minds of the client and many of the competitors in the Future Campus UCD competition in Dublin. While some left space for future expansion, others revealed less emphasis for flexibility in their approach to the challenge presented by the Center for Creative Design at the campus entrance—and this included the winner.
The emphasis on an arrival feature was clear from the competition brief:
“The brief to competitors was to draw up an urban design vision that foregrounds a highly-visible and welcoming entrance precinct, and create a concept design for a charismatic yet integrated new 8,000 sqm building – the Centre for Creative Design – that expresses the University’s creativity. The Future Campus project is intended to create a stronger physical presence and identity for the University within Dublin, and raise the profile of UCD nationally and internationally.”
The purpose of the competition was to expand and update a rather nondescript area with an arrival feature for campus expansion, with strong emphasis given to site planning. The appearance of an “arrival experience,” both symbolically and spatially, was to provide the campus with an unmistakable landmark to deal with the current “underwhelming experience.” The selection of the six high-profile finalists for this invited competition was also a certain signal that this building was to be anything but traditional in character. Thus, the competitors did not have to consider the possibility of a local jury insisting on “context” as a primary guideline for architectural expression—although context curiously did enter the discussion.
The Interdisciplinary Issue
As has often been the case with the programming of recent academic facilities throughout the world, interdisciplinary contact between different majors was also in the forefront here. Thus we see many of these designs locating architecture and engineering programs on the same floor. An exception here was the winner, who located engineering on the bottom two floors of the building, with architecture on above floors.
Studios for recent architecture programs at numerous universities have been located on one, large level, often at grade—promoting interaction between students at different levels as well as faculty. This includes recent U.S. schools of Architecture, i.e., Florida International University, Ohio State University, Kent State University, University of New Mexico, etc. The logic of making a major arrival statement with a significant building in this case suggests a multi-story building with limited square footage at each level. Thus, many of these competitors could be seen following the high-rise formula—resulting in more fragmentation in the organization of the teaching areas.
Winning design: Image:©Steven Holl Architects and Malcolm Reading Consultants
The competition was organized under the supervision of Malcolm Reading Consultants, London. Ninety plus firms submitted qualifications in the RfQ process, which resulted in the shortlisting of the six finalists. They were:
• Diller Scofidio + Renfro, New York
• John Ronan Architects, Chicago
• O'Donnell + Tuomey, Dublin
• Steven Holl Architects, New York
• Studio Libeskind, New York
• UNStudio, Amsterdam
Each finalist team received an honorarium of €40,000 for their competition work, and the international teams were required to team up with a local executive team for the second stage.
Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...
Winning entry by Morphosis (image ©Morphosis)
Whether it was the establishment of a shrimp industry, general water and flood abatement, or a site for bird migration, the Hsinta Ecological Power Plant competition produced a plethora of interesting approaches to mitigate the negative effects normally associated with the introduction of a power plant. With one possible exception, each of the five finalists in this international, two-stage competition showed an extensive amount of research to support their design strategies and the underlying sustainability features.
Entry by Diller Scofidio + Renfro (© Diller Scofidio + Renfro)
Six design teams have been selected as finalists in the Future Campus – University College Dublin International Design Competition.
The teams’ urban design visions for an Entrance Precinct Masterplan and concept designs for a new circa €48m Centre for Creative Design are now available to view on the competition website at:https://competitions.malcolmreading.com/universitycollegedublin/shortlist
The brief ... Read more...Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...Login to see more
(login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Read more...
|
Young Architects in Competitions
When Competitions and a New Generation of Ideas Elevate Architectural Quality
by Jean-Pierre Chupin and G. Stanley Collyer
published by Potential Architecture Books, Montreal, Canada 2020
271 illustrations in color and black & white
Available in PDF and eBook formats
ISBN 9781988962047
What do the Vietnam Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, and the Sydney Opera House have in common? These world renowned landmarks were all designed by architects under the age of 40, and in each case they were selected through open competitions. At their best, design competitions can provide a singular opportunity for young and unknown architects to make their mark on the built environment and launch productive, fruitful careers. But what happens when design competitions are engineered to favor the established and experienced practitioners from the very outset?
This comprehensive new book written by Jean-Pierre Chupin (Canadian Competitions Catalogue) and Stanley Collyer (COMPETITIONS) highlights for the crucial role competitions have played in fostering the careers of young architects, and makes an argument against the trend of invited competitions and RFQs. The authors take an in-depth look at past competitions won by young architects and planners, and survey the state of competitions through the world on a region by region basis. The end result is a compelling argument for an inclusive approach to conducting international design competitions.
Download Young Architects in Competitions for free at the following link:
https://crc.umontreal.ca/en/publications-libre-acces/
Professional winner: Brooklyn Bridge Forest (image © Pilot Projects Design Collective)
While looking for new adventures on a visit to New York City, friends suggested that I take time to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge—certainly a New York icon. For those intending to undertake this trek across the bridge for the first time, the bridge consists of layers, with a large platform for pedestrians on top of a lower level for cars and the metro system. Traversing this connection for the first time between Manhattan and Brooklyn is not just about getting from one place to another, but experiencing a great scenic view of both boroughs and occasionally interacting with other bridge crossers. As for the latter, they provide a flavor of the city’s demographics, as opposed to similar experiences one might have of the city’s inhabitants when riding the city’s subway system.
Read more…
Another Competition for Moscow’s Expanding Subway Network
Image © Zaha Hadid Architects
Even under Stalin, Moscow subway stations represented the crown jewels of the city’s projects when it came to design. In more recent years, the emphasis placed on modern design in the city’s expanding metro rail network has resulted in some major new projects, and this year’s competitions for two stations was no exception: the Klenoviy Boulevard Station 2 won by Zaha Hadid Architects (London), and the Prospect Marshala Zhukova station, won by the ASADOV Architectural Bureau (Moscow).
Read More…
Hangang District Urban Design International Master Competition
1st place entry by Dominique Perrault Architecture (image ©Dominique Perrault Architect)
China’s planning priorities for their urban areas experienced a sharp turn after the post-Mao reforms took place. During the early post-WWII period, when Soviet influence in the early urbanization of China dominated, industrial development took precedence over all other issues, with heritage, conservation, residential planning, and the amenities associated with it, being almost entirely neglected.
Read more…
 Winning design by ©Moreau Kusunoki /Genton
Although one might normally assume that local firms participating in a competition might have a clear advantage over foreign competitors, this has seldom been the case: just see Sydney’s Opera House, won by a Danish architect, and Toronto’s City Hall, won by a Finn—as evidence that well devised competition briefs as adequate documentation can create a level playing field for potential competitors, regardless of their location.
Read more…
Jensen Architects – Winning entry (Honor Award)
Beginning in 2011, Architecture at Zero, a collaboration between the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the California chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIACA), was established to investigate the role architecture might play in reducing energy consumption in the built environment. Since then, every year has seen a new site and building type selected as a design challenge in what has become one of the world’s most interesting international competitions.
As a sign of its mounting popularity, the competition received 237 registrations from 49 countries and, according to the professional adviser, about 150 entries— all this during the Covid-19 virus pandemic, when all were compelled to work from home.
Read more…
|
