 |
||||
|
Organizers: Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles Location: Los Angeles, CA Type: International, open Languages: English Fees: None Timetable: 12 February 2021 – Submission deadline Awards: In each category, cash prizes will be awarded as follows, for a total of 12 winning proposals: First place – $10,000 Second place – $3,500 Third Place – $1,500
Organizers: Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Space Improvement Team Competition Management: Jeong-Joo Lab (zederolab@gmail.com) Location: Seoul, Korea Type: International, open Languages: Korean and English Fees: None Timetable: 10 December 2020 – Registration deadline 23 December 2020 – Submission deadline Project dimensions: Site area: 506㎡; Scale: Total floor area 680㎡, 1 basement level / 3 Sponsor: Project Seoul Location: Seoul, South Korea Type: International, one-stage Languages: Korean and English Eligibility: Architects Timetable: 23 November 2020 – Registration deadline 24 November 2020 – Submission deadline Awards: (USD approximate) Winner – Right to negotiate for the contract 2nd Prize – KRW 23,400,000 (USD 20,000) 3rd Prize – KRW 17,400,000 (USD 15,000) Sponsor: AG VESPA Type: EU, RfQ limited competition Eligibility: (EU) Architects, Landscape Architects, Engineers, etc. Timetable: 29 January 2021 – RfQ Deadline Language: Dutch (for submission of tenders) Description of Project: Design of public domain Pilotage site and design of WWII Memorial on the Scheldt quays in Antwerp. The subject includes the preparation of
Sponsor: American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Coordinator: ACSA Type: Student, open Eligibility: Undergraduate and graduate students in architecture programs Fees: none Timetable: 7 April 2021 – Registration deadline 2 June 2021 – Submission deadline Awards: $20,000 in cash prizes Design Challenges: Two categories – Workplace Wellness and Open Category I – Workplace Wellness
SMAR’s Winning Entry Gets the Green Light Image: ©SMAR Architecture
The winning competition entry in the 2016 Science Island competition in Kaunas, Lithuania by SMAR Architects may only take five years to realize—from the date of the competition to completion. This is encouraging news, as the duration of such projects resulting  The Eisenhower Memorial: Sending Mixed Messages? by Stanley Collyer
Preface Since this article was written, several events have occurred which have changed our perception of the final design process. Frank Gehry went back to the drawing board and has modified his memorial design, eliminating some of the columns which we objected to at the edge of the site (January 2011, see above). One may only hope that the tapastry design element, which the Arts Commission still has some reservations about, can be resolved successfully. More recently, a group called the National Civic Art Society in Washington has issued a call for another Eisenhower Memorial competition for the same site. Apparently stuck on the idea that everything in Washington near the Mall should be in the Beaux Arts traditional style, they take offense that the Gehry design does not meet their standards of what a memorial to Ike should look like. Although probably well-meaning, this group evidently would like to turn back the clock on progress in this field. They would like to erase from memory all the advancements in new materials and ideas which have surfaced and been implemented over the past century. Is it then surprising that not one architect on their board is a national name (Most of their members are laypersons). Although their competition will undoubtedly draw some entries, it should hardly be taken seriously, much less receive any attention from the press. What they are doing is adding nothing to a positive dialogue about architecture in this country—only attempting to set it back by decades. -Ed Frank Gehry’s preferred idea for the Eisenhower Memorial was one of three proposals which the firm presented in March 2010 to the Eisenhower Memorial Commission after prevailing in the earlier selection process. Although not touted as a pure competition by the Memorial Commission, the original selection process in 2009 was typical of the General Services Administration’s Excellence in Architecture program, often used to adjudicate the design process for government projects such as federal courthouses.
Sponsors: UC Berkeley Type: open, international, three-stage Eligibility: Students in undergraduate accredited architecture programs Language: English Fee: none Timetable: November 1, 2020 – (Stage One) 500-word essay proposal due. Mid-December, 2020 – Essay Semifinalists announced. February 1, 2021 (Stage Two) Essay Semifinalists’ 2,500-word essays due. February 8, 2021 – Launch of Community Service Fellowship
Sponsors: City of Rahovec, Kosovo and UN Habitat Type: open, international, anonymous Location: Rahovec, Kosovo Language: English Fee: none Eligibility: Architects, Landscape architects, Planners, students Timetable: 20 September 2020 – Q & A deadline 30 September 2020 – Publication of Answers 16 November 2020 – Registration and Submission deadline 7 December 2020 –
Type: open, international, anonymous Location: Berlin, Germany Language: German Fee: none (€10 for non-EU members for documents) Eligibility: Architects and Landscape architects (Winning architects/landscape architects must show a minimum of qualifications with experience in order to receive the commission) Timetable: 12 October 2020 – Q & A deadline 7 December 2020 – Submission deadline |
Young Architects in CompetitionsWhen Competitions and a New Generation of Ideas Elevate Architectural Quality
by Jean-Pierre Chupin and G. Stanley Collyer
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:
Explaining the contributions of a World War II hero and later President of the United States on a very modest site on Independence Avenue just off the Washington Mall is tantamount to asking an author to describe the life of this person in no more than one paragraph. But on September 17th, after a long and bumpy journey, lasting almost 20 years and navigating a warren of the DC approval processes and public scrutiny, the Eisenhower Memorial finally was dedicated and opened to the public. Designed by Frank Gehry, it has received mixed reviews, the majority being more positive. But most have pointed out that the memorial is more impressive at night than in full daylight. This is due primarily to the illumination of an almost block-long metallic tapestry—featuring a sketch by Gehry, which depicts his interpretation of the cliffs of the Normandy coastline where the Americans landed on D-Day. Reimagining Brooklyn Bridge: The Reinvention of a 19th Century Icon
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. Another Competition for Moscow’s Expanding Subway Network
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). A Modern Upgrade for an Industrial Urban SectorHangang 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.
Powerhouse Precinct at Parramatta
 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.
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2020 Competitions All Rights Reserved Competitions-Archive LLC, Ph: (502) 451-3623; Fax: (502) 451-3623 Website: https://competitions.org E: scollyer@competitions.org Privacy Policy: CP-Privacy-Policy.pdf IMPORTANT NOTICE : Unless otherwise indicated, photographs of buildings and projects are from professional or institutional archives. All reproduction is prohibited unless authorized by the architects, designers, office managers, consortia or archives centers concerned. The Competitions-Archive LLC is not held responsible for any omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that will permit necessary modifications during future updates. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||
