 |
||||
|
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 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), |
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: Uusi Kansallinen – National Finnish Museum Competition: Following a Time Honored Paradigm
When major cultural institutions in Finland plan a new building project, one can almost always assume that an open competition will be the vehicle by which the client settles on the building’s design. The only question is, will this be organized in a format open to local, Scandinavian, or international architects. In the case of the National Museum of Finland annex competition, it was open to architects throughout the world — resulting in 185 entries.
Senses and SensitivityThe Opening of Taichung’s Central Park by Catherine Mosbach/Philippe Rahm
 View from the south with downtown Taichung in the distance image: ©Mosbach/Rahm
The abandonment and closing of airports, including decommissioning those that were used for military purposes, has presented design communities with several opportunities to convert them entirely to civilian purposes. Notable among those which have been the result of competitions are Orange County Great Park, Irvine, California (Ken Smith Landscape Architects), The Estonian National Museum (Dan Dorell, Lina Ghotmeh and Tsuyoshi Tane), and Toronto’s less successful Downsview Park competition, whereby the winning design by OMA, with trees as the primary feature, has been basically ignored. Instead, the area has become the site of numerous commercial and residential projects.
Ground Breaking at Science IslandSMAR’s Winning Entry Gets the Green Light
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 from a competition can often take much longer—sometimes up to 8-10 years.
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. |
|||
|
Copyright © 2021 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 |
||||
