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.
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...

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.
Read more...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...A Famous Name Attracts 674 Entries
Winning entry by Sini Rahikainen, Hannele Cederström, Inka Norros, Kirsti Paloheimo, Maria Kleimola
Images courtesy ©Alvar Aalto Foundation
Extensions to buildings are normally regarded as significant projects by most architects, whereas linking two existing structures might appear as a lesser priority. On rare occasion of such a significant linkage, which took place ... Read more...
|
A Quest for that Elusive Connective Formula

First Place: Pedestrian perspective from Parliament – Zeidler Architecture in association with David Chipperfield Architects
How do you find a common thread that can connect an eclectic collection of buildings, visually as well as physically, all located within a one-block site, located just across from Canada’s Parliament building in Ottawa. To identify this common thread that could tie everything together, the client turned to a design competition for answers. With the aid of consultants, [phase eins] from Berlin and experts from Canada’s’ own Université de Montréal’s School of Architecture, the client turned to an invited international format to finally settle on six teams that could rethink the site.
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/
Vilnius Railway Station and Public Square Competition

Vilnius Station competition Image: ©Zaha Hadid Architects
How do you find a common thread that can connect an eclectic collection of buildings, visually as well as physically, all located within a one-block site, located just across from Canada’s Parliament building in Ottawa. To identify this common thread that could tie everything together, the client turned to a design competition for answers. With the aid of consultants, [phase eins] from Berlin and experts from Canada’s’ own Université de Montréal’s School of Architecture, the client turned to an invited international format to finally settle on six teams that could rethink the site.
Read More…
AL_A Prevails over a Star-studded Cast

After over a year of planning, the choice of a site, and the establishment of criteria for the staging an international competition for a new concert hall, the process recently culminated in the choice of an architect for the design of the new Philharmonic in Belgrade, Serbia. Once a rather drab, nondescript city under the Tito regime, Belgrade has been reimagining itself to take its place as a major European city, including cultural attractions one might attach to such a claim.
Read more…

After narrowing the field to three finalists and reviewing their presentations via ZOOM, the competition jury gave the nod to KUTONOTUK of Charlottesville, VA as the winner. The winning team is led by principals, Leena Cho and Matthew Jull, faculty members at the University of Virginia’s School of Architecture.
Second place went to FORMA from New York City, and third place was awarded to Lewis Williams with Hudson Architects from Norwich, England.
Presentations of all three finalists can be seen here:
https://competitions.org/2022/03/atlantic-beach-nc-boardwalk-design-competition/

BIG’s proposal, led by partners-in-charge Bjarke Ingels and Brian Yang, was selected from a pool of 19 entries as the winner of the competition. The rankings were as follows:
1st Place
Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) with Brian Yang
Copenhagen, Denmark
2nd Place
Barozzi Veiga with Atelier M1
Barcelona, Spain
3rd Place
Bevk Perović Arhitekti
Ljubljana, Slovenia
4th Place
Petr Hájek Architekti
Prague, Czech Republic
5th Place
Snøhetta
View previous shortlist…
|