 |
||||
|
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 The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is pleased to announce the six practices shortlisted to participate in phase 2 of the Great Places Lakes and Dales Partnership (GPLD) flexible housing competition which seeks flexible housing designs for two sites within the GPLD area. GPLD is a partnership of Craven District Council (lead authority), Richmond Council and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) are pleased to announce the five teams shortlisted to create potential designs for the future of Twickenham Riverside.
The shortlisted teams are: • Allies and Morrison • Baynes and Mitchell Architects • Cullinan Studio • Haworth Tompkins • Hopkins Architects Keeping Current: Repetitive Loss Properties is an international Van Alen competition for interdisciplinary teams to re-imagine public uses for flood prone vacant lots, tens of thousands of which are now present in the Florida region. On May 26, the RFQ closed, receiving submissions from 3 continents and 16 different cities, accounting for 128 participants from onePULSE Foundation, the nonprofit established by the owner of Pulse nightclub following the June 12, 2016 tragedy, announced the six renowned, architect-led design teams shortlisted in the open, two-stage international competition to design the National Pulse Memorial & Museum. The six teams will now advance to the second and final stage of the unique competition, |
A Cultural Cluster as Community AssetDIA Plaza: Detroit’s Midtown Cultural Connection Competition
Detroit’s Dia Plaza competition is hardly unique in initiating a search for urbanistic solutions to a cultural cluster. Vienna, Berlin, Mesa, Fort Worth, Chicago’s Millennium Park and Paris’ Parc de la Villette are just a few examples of projects where the focus on spaces between buildings, and arriving at a connective plan to infuse new energy into the site, has been the primary goal of other projects. All of these have been faced with their own challenges: solutions for some have been relatively simple—Vienna’s Museum Quarter and Berlin’s Forum—while others such as Paris’ La Villette and Mesa’s Downtown Plaza represent a more challenging subject spatially. In the case of Detroit, the aim of the competition was clear: “The design competition centers around enhancing and enlivening the DIA’s exterior campus and aims to connect all the institutions with a beautiful series of settings that support all types of programming and public art.”
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.
A New City University Takes ShapeMK:U’s Forward Looking Model Explored in Detail
Milton Keynes, known simply as MK, represented one of the more significant results of the UK’s “new town” programs from the 1950s and 60s. Situated almost equidistant between Oxford and Cambridge, and within easy access from London, the city had everything one might expect from a modern community—except a university. For a city having a population exceeding 250,000, and projected to have 500,000 inhabitants by 2050, that will all change, as a competition supported by the MK Council (MKC) and Cranfield University has resulted in five firms competing for the opportunity to design a higher educational institution to eventually accommodate 15,000 students.
Chicago Disruptive Housing
If cities in the U.S. are anticipating funding from government entities to solve a dire need for affordable housing, they should be prepared for a long wait. The national government, a traditional source of funds for such projects, has shown little if no interest in the issue, and state and local sources are at a minimum. To exacerbate the problem, the construction cost of affordable housing has risen exponentially the the past few decades. Gone are those days when architects such as Oakland-based Michael Pyatok could build affordable housing for $100 a square foot.
Transforming Buffalo’s DL & W Rail CorridorReconstituting an Abandoned Rail Line
The Rails to Trails program, which gained momentum after the1984 Federal Land Banking Law—supported by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy—has seen over 24,000 miles of trails established where rail lines once existed. Some sites were strictly urban, while others, sometimes over 100 miles in length, were primarily rural, while others combined some of both.
Spreebogen Takes a Final LapPlans for the Final Expansion of Schultes’ Federal Chancellery Building
The reunification of Germany in 1989 not only had a great impact on the lives of many Germans, especially those living in the former DDR, but together with the decision to move the nation’s capital from Bonn to Berlin resulted in two major international design competitions in 1992: the first was to convert the existing Reichstag building into a home for the German parliament, the second being the Spreebogen planning competition, which included a chancellery for the head of state as well as needed buildings nearby for the Federal government. |
|||
|
Copyright © 2019 Competitions All Rights Reserved COMPETITIONS, P.O. Box 20445, Louisville, Ky 40250 U.S.A 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 Competition Project, Inc. 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 |
||||
