 |
||||
|
Type: Open, RfQ, two-stage Location: Sydney, Australia Number of RfQ submissions: 74 teams entered Winner: Moreau Kusunoki (Paris) and Genton(Sydney)
Finalists: • AL_A (UK) and Architectus (Australia) • Bernardes Architecture(Brazil) and Scale Architecture (Australia) • BVN Architecture(Australia) and Carlo Ratti Associati (Italy) • CHROFI (Australia) withReko Rennie (Australia) • Steven
The open two-stage competition welcomed both national and international integrated design teams, with competitors encouraged to demonstrate exceptional design talent, creative flair, sensitivity to the heritage context and expertise in sustainability. Seventy-six teams from 19 countries comprising 241 firms entered the competition’s first stage.
The shortlisted teams are (in alphabetical order):
• Login to see more (login problems? E: scollyer@competitions.org or http://competitions.org/contact/)
Type: Open, International, RfQ Number of Expressions of Interest: 68 Shortlisted for second stage: 6 Professional adviser: Dovetail Design Strategists Winner Coldefy & Associés with RDAI, Xavier Veilhan, dUCKS scéno, Agence TER, Prof. Laila Farah Finalists Diller Scofidio + Renfro and Rene Gonzalez Architects with Raymond Jungles, Inc. heneghan peng architects, Gustafson Porter +
Location: Kiev, Ukraine Competition Organizer: Phase eins, Berlin Number of entries: 165 Type, Open, international Winner Querkraft Architekten with Kieran Fraser Landscape Design Vienna, Austria 2nd Prize Dorte Mandrup A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark with Martha Schwartz Partners, New York 3rd Prize merz merz gmbh & co. kg, Berlin, Germany with Topotek 1 Gesellschaft von Landschaftsarchitekten
Sponsor: University of Leeds Administration: RIBA Type: EOI, Invited Language: English Location: Leeds, UK
The five shortlisted teams are:
• Cullinan Studio with Turkington Martin • Evans Vettori Architects with Re-Form • Nicholas Hare Architects with Fabrik and Hesketh Hayden Architects • O’Donnell + Tuomey with Dermot Foley • Reiach and Hall
From 121 teams comprising 354 individual firms, four teams were shortlisted to provide concepts for the final stage of the competition. They are:
Deborah Berke Partners with DAVID RUBIN Land Collective and Atelier Ten Kevin Daly Architects with TLS Landscape Architecture, Productora and Transsolar Olson Kundig with Surfacedesign, Inc Schaum/Shieh Architects with HKS
1st Place – Infinity Airport Winner: Daoru Wang, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
2nd Place – Newark Airport Biophilic Headhouse and Community Nexus Winner: Samantha Pires, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA
3rd Place – LondonHeathrow2075 Winner: Christopher Johnson, University for the Creative © 2019. Project by AVA ARQUITECTURA TECNICA Y GESTION (official name) – RAFAEL DE LA-HOZ ARQUITECTOS (business name), Perkins+Will UK Limited, LATZ+PARTNER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN PLANNING, TECNICA Y PROYECTOS S.A. and MC2 ESTUDIO DE INGENIERIA; licensed under conditions to the EU.
1st Prize Winner Architect + Team leader AVA ARQUITECTURA TECNICA Y GESTION,
Organized by the Finnish Heritage Agency, the National Museum of Finland open competition received 179 entries, from which five were selected to take part in a second stage. This was entirely and anonymous competition—even in the second stage. The architecture competition is conducted according to the competition rules of the Finnish Association of Architects |
Xingdong New Area Urban Design Competition: City of the Future
Master plans have been around for ages; but master plans for very large cities with all their support systems are relatively new. Milton Keynes (MK), located in Buckinghamshire in southern England, and begun in the late 1960s, is one of the most successful of the new cities, now having a population of almost 250,000. Its success lies mainly on the lessons learned from the establishment of the planning which generated the new towns in the U.K. during the 1940s and 50s, many of which have not fared well in the test of time. MK’s success was based primarily on the careful separation of high density from residential where the influence of the “garden city” could be seen. Here the idea of a live/work environment was even incorporated.
OFFICE 52 at Carnegie Mellon
Form and Dichroic Light
In his introduction to Form and Dichroic LIght, Michael Crosbie never mentions the term, “wild card,” to describe Office 52’s participation in the invited competition for the Carnegie Mellon Engineering Building. The four finalists, picked from a list of 17 firms, also included three household names: ZGF, Wilson, and BCJ (Bohlin Cywinski, Jackson). So what possible chance could a firm, which had just recently opened a small office in Portland, Oregon, have against a competition lineup of this magnitude? But as OFFICE 52 Principal, Isaac Campbell explained, as a small firm, “we were quite nimble,” and the $50,000 stipend the firms all received to produce a design could allow OFFICE 52 more time to undertake the research involved than might be the case with a larger office, where a cost controller is constantly focusing on the operation.
Investigating Chicago’s Most Complex Infrastructure IssueThe O’Hare International Airport Competition
Winning entry – Studio-ORD
The updating and modernization of Chicago’s O’Hare Airport has been well overdue. Aside from occasional problems caused by Chicago’s winter storms, congestion at the airport has led air travelers to avoid the airport when catching a connecting flight is on the agenda. So Chicago, noted for its modern architecture and the home of several high-profile architecture firms, decided to turn to an invited competition for a solution to these issues.
Competitions in Chicago in the recent past have been anything but encouraging, especially when transparency is an issue. During the competition for the Obama Center on the South Side, the Obama Foundation, which was responsible for the administration of that “competition,” was anything but a model of transparency; and to this day, none of the finalist designs, other than that of the winner, have seen the light of day. In the case of the O’Hare project, videos submitted by the five finalists teams were on public display, and the public was even asked to vote for their favorite.
A Quest to Memorialize a Serious Hate Crime: The Pulse Memorial Competition
In these times when political emotions run high and gun violence is the norm, not the exception; and when emotions no longer are held in check, but encouraged by our leaders, minorities become easy targets for those who adhere to ideologies based primarily on exclusivity and hate.
The LGBT community has long been the target of various segments of our society; but the massacre that took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a favorite hangout for gays, elevated this phenomenon to a new level. After an event that claimed the lives of 49 victims, injured 68 others, and left hundreds permanently traumatized, it should come as no surprise that a memorial to this tragedy has been front and center in the minds of the community ever since. Because the very nature of this event has drawn nationwide attention, the community wanted to get it right. So it was only logical that they would turn to a competition as the most viable vehicle for arriving at a solution for the design of a memorial, as well as a museum. For this, the onePULSE Foundation was formed, to memorialize this tragedy and “ensure that Pulse”s legacy of love, acceptance and hope will never be lost.”
A New State Archive in Kitzingen, Germany
As part of a policy to relocate archives of local interest outside of major Bavarian cities, a competition was staged for the design of a new archive in Kitzingen, 12 miles from the provincial capital city of Würzburg, Germany. The competition was open to qualified teams in the EU, with 25 firms identified to take part in a competition. Since five firms were preinvited, 20 openings were available for the 79 applicants that vied for participation in the competition. In the end, 23 firms submitted designs for the final adjudication process.
Vilnius Concert Hall Competition
In July 2019 the Vilnius Concert Hall competition jury began its deliberations to identify a suitable design for this major performing arts project. As one might have anticipated, two of the jurors on the seven member panel, Ole Gustavsen (Snohetta) and Andreas Cukrowicz (Nachbaur Architekten) had won high profile competitions for similar music center projects—in Oslo and Munich. The jury was confronted with a formidable task, as the competition, organized according to UIA regulations and anonymous in its format, had attracted 248 entries from around the world. For this one-stage competition, the organizers listed the following evaluation criteria, whereby the order of the criteria was not to reflect any priority: |
|||
|
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 |
||||
