COMPETITIONS Quarterlies

Three Finalists: Kaunas M.K. Čiurlionis Concert Centre

Location: Kaunas, Lithuania

Type: Open, international
Number of entries: 177
Process: As a result of the open competition, three finalists were chosen to refine their designs and submit them for final evaluation by the municipality of Kaunas.

The three finalists were:

UAB Paleko Archstudija and UAB Baltic Engineers (Lithuania)
Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios (United Kingdom)
Adam Khan Architects (United Kingdom)

The six practices given honorable mentions were:

Mark Foster Gage Architects (US)
Ja Architecture Studio (Canada)
William Olmsted Antozzi Office of Architecture, TARI Architects and Derek Pirozzi Design Workshop (US)
Ateliers O-S Architectes (France)
RARE architecture (United Kingdom)
Studija Heima, MB and Vaidas Saveikis (Lithuania)
The competition adviser was Malcolm Reading Consultants

OFFICE 52 at Carnegie Mellon

Form and Dichroic Light
Scott Hall at Carnegie Mellon University
Michelle LaFoe and Isaac Campbell
OFFICE 52 Architecture
Forward by Cesar Pelli, FAIA
Introduction by Michael J. Crosbie, FAIA
Leete”s Island Books, Maine USA
Hard cover; 96 pages in color
ISBN 9780918172709

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.

Repository Library as Public-Friendly Asset

Southern Branch of the National Central Library and National Repository Library, Taiwan

Image: courtesy Taiwan National Central Library ©BAF

The primary reason for establishing a “Southern Branch” of Taiwan’s National Central Library And National Repository Library was logical: the main National Central Library was running out of space to store an increasingly large quantity of physical and digital items. One might have assumed this could have all been accomplished by building a large warehouse-type storage facility. Nothing of the kind happened here. The site of the competition announced by the competition organizers for the design of a new building was in a small city of 80,000 in southern Taiwan.

The San Francisco Transbay Terminal Competition

City and Developer as
Infrastructure Catalyst

Aerial view of roof garden Photo: ©Jason O’Rear

Not since the Golden Gate Bridge and BART has San Francisco experienced an infrastructure project of the magnitude and importance as the recently completed Transbay Transit Terminal. The subject of a 2007 competition won by Pelli Clarke Pelli (PCP) with Peter Walker Landscape Architects, the project is only missing some rail connections, which will enable passengers to connect to many parts of the state in the foreseeable future.

Sandy Hook Memorial

Commemorating the deaths of 26 victims of a well-publicized school shooting is no small chore. But because of the tragic events at its elementary school in 2012, the village of Sandy Hook has achieved national prominence as a symbol of the gun violence afflicting the nation. Although it is almost impossible to bring closure to such an event, the community did determine that the establishment of a memorial would at least be a positive step in that direction. To arrive at such an important issue as a design for the memorial, it was determined that an international design competition was a logical path to follow.

Architecture as Political Statement in the Ukraine

After an extended and rigorous competition process, the winner(s) of the National Memorial for the Heavenly Hundred Heroes and Revolution of Dignity Museum in Kiev have been selected. They are:

1^st Prize – Kleihues + Kleihues Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Berlin/Germany
2^nd Prize – Burø architects, Kiev/Ukraine
3^rd Prize – Lina Ghotmeh – Architecture, Paris/France

This was the second competition in the process to determine the designs for both the site and the museum complex itself. The purpose of the project was to honor the victims of the attempted suppression of the protests, which ultimately ended with the deposition of the pro-Russian premier, Viktor Yanukovych.

Login

COMPETITIONS Quarterlies

Volume 1, Number 1 (Winter 1991)

Volume 1, Number 2 (Summer 1991)

Volume 1, Number 3 (Fall 1991)

Volume 1, Number 4 (Winter 1991/1992)

Volume 2, Number 1 (Spring 1992)

Volume 2, Number 2 (Summer 1992)

Volume 2, Number 3 (Fall 1992)

Volume 2, Number 4 (Winter 1992/1993)

Volume 3, Number 1 (Spring 1993)

Volume 3, Number 2 (Summer 1993)

Volume 3, Number 3 (Fall 1993)

Volume 3, Number 4 (Winter 1993/1994)

Volume 4, Number 1 (Spring 1994)

Volume 4, Number 2 (Summer 1994)

Volume 4, Number 3 (Fall 1994)

Volume 4, Number 4 (Winter 1994)

Volume 5, Number 1 (Spring 1995)

Volume 5, Number 2 (Summer 1995)

Volume 5, Number 3 (Fall 1995)

Volume 5, Number 4 (Winter 1995/1996)

Volume 6, Number 1 (Spring 1996)

Volume 6, Number 2 (Summer 1996)

Volume 6, Number 3 (Fall 1996)

Volume 6, Number 4 (Winter 1996/1997)

Volume 7, Number 1 (Spring 1997)

Volume 7, Number 2 (Summer 1997)

Volume 7, Number 3 (Fall 1997)

Volume 8, Number 1 (Spring 1998)

Volume 8, Number 2 (Summer 1998)

Volume 8, Number 3 (Fall 1998)

Volume 8, Number 4 (Winter 1998/1999)

Volume 9, Number 2 (Summer 1999)

Volume 9, Number 3 (Fall 1999)

Volume 9, Number 4 (Winter 1999/2000)

Volume 10, Number 1 (Spring 2000)

Volume 10, Number 2 (Summer 2000)

Volume 10, Number 3 (Fall 2000)

Volume 10, Number 4 (Winter 2000/2001)

Volume 11, Number 1 (Spring 2001)

Volume 11, Number 2 (Summer 2001)

Volume 11, Number 3 (Fall 2001)

Volume 11, Number 4 (Winter 2001/2002)

Volume 12, Number 1 (Spring 2002)

Volume 12, Number 2 (Summer 2002)

Volume 12, Number 3 (Fall 2002)

Volume 12, Number 4 (Winter 2002/2003)

Volume 13, Number 1 (Spring 2003)

Volume 13, Number 2 (Summer 2003)

Volume 13, Number 3 (Fall 2003)

Volume 13, Number 4 (Winter 2003/2004)

Volume 14, Number 1 (Spring 2004)

Volume 14, Number 2 (Summer 2004)

Volume 14, Number 3 (Fall 2004)

Volume 14, Number 4 (Winter 2004/2005)

Volume 15, Number 1 (Spring 2005)

Volume 15, Number 2 (Summer 2005)

Volume 15, Number 3 (Fall 2005)

Volume 15, Number 4 (Winter 2005/2006)

Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring 2006)

Volume 16, Number 2 (Summer 2006)

Volume 16, Number 3 (Fall 2006)

Volume 16, Number 4 (Winter 2006/2007)

Volume 17, Number 1 (Spring 2007)

Volume 17, Number 2 (Summer 2007)

Volume 17, Number 3 (Fall 2007)

Volume 17, Number 4 (Winter 2007/2008)

Volume 18, Number 1 (Spring 2008)

Volume 18, Number 2 (Summer 2008)

Volume 18, Number 3 (Fall 2008)

Volume 18, Number 4 (Winter 2008/2009)

Volume 19, Number 1 ( Spring 2009)

Volume 19, Number 2 (Summer 2009)

Volume 19, Number 3 ( Fall 2009)

Volume 19, Number 4 (Winter 2009/2010)

Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring 2010)

Volume 20, Number 2 (Summer 2010)

Volume 20, Number 3 (Fall 2010)

Volume 20, Number 4 (Winter 2010)

• Half price on 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Annuals.
• 2017 Annual now available in PDF format Look inside.

City and Developer as
Infrastructure Catalyst