2011 competitions annual

2011 Competitions Annual 1

2011 COMPETITIONS Annual

2011 Competitions Annual2

Published in the USA by The Competition Project, Inc.

Copyright 2012 by The Competition Project, Inc.1731 Fernwood Avenue, Louisville, KY 40205Tel: (502) 451-3623www.competitions.org

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without priorpermission in writing from the publisher. Requests to the Publisher should beaddressed to The Competition Project, Inc., P.O. Box 20445, Louisville, KY 40250,faxed to: (502) 451-3623, or emailed to [email protected].

Book orders may be placed at www.competitions.org

ISBN: 978-0-615-57181-2

Printed and bound in China by the Liaoning Science and Technology PublishingHouse, Shenyang, China

FRONT COVER

Wolfgang Tschapeller ZT GmbH ArchitektenThe Centre for the Promotion of Science, Belgrade, Serbia

PREVIOUS PAGE

Bjarke Ingels Group I BIGNew Mosque and Museum of TiranaTirana, Albania

OPPOSITE PAGE

MX_SI Architectural Studio The Serlachius MuseumMntt, Finland

PAGE 7Jil BentzEmblematic AdditionLaval School of Architecture, Montral


2011 COMPETITIONS Annual

Editor in Chief: G. Stanley Collyer, Ph.D, Hon. AIAAssociate Editor: Daniel Madryga, MS Arch.

With contributions by William Morgan, Ted Sandstra,and Eric Goldemberg


6 Introduction

8 Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Service Center TerminalCompetition

9 Reiser+Umemoto, RUR Architecture / Fei & Cheng Associates New York/Taiwan

14 Asymptote Architecture, New York 18 Ricky Liu & Associates Architects+Planners, Taiwan

with Takenaka Corporation/Masahiro Morita, Japan22 JET Architecture Inc./Edward Kim, Canada

with CXT Architects Inc./Dan Teh, and Archasia Design Group/Sao-You24 HMC Group Inc. / Raymond Pan, Los Angeles

with HOY Architects & Associates/Charles Hsueh, Taiwan

26 The Serlachius Museum Competition in Finland

27 MX_SI Architectural Studio, Barcelona, Spain30 Mikko Heikkinen and Markku Komonen, Helsinki 34 Riku and Katri Rnka, Helsinki36 Thomas Gebert, Sankt Gallen, Switzerland37 magma architecture, Ostermann & Kleinheinz, Berlin37 MAKS | Architecture & Urbanis, The Netherlands

38 A New Mosque and Museum of Tirana & Religious Harmony

39 BIG I Bjarke Ingels Group, Copenhagen44 seARCH with Lola Landscape Architects, Amsterdam 50 Zaha Hadid Architects I Zaha Hadid I Peter Schumacher, London, UK54 Andreas Perea Ortega & NEXO, Madrid

58 Daytona Museum of Arts and Sciences

59 VOA, Orlando, Florida64 Architects Design Group, Winter Park, Florida68 HOK, Tampa, Florida

72 Taipei City Museum of Art

73 Peter Boronski / Jean-Loup Baldacci, New Zealand/Paris76 Kengo Kuma / Kengo Kuma & Associates, Tokyo80 Federico Soriano Pelaez84 Sung Goo Yang with Oscar Kang86 Jafar Bazzaz, Iran88 James Law Cybertecture90 Ian Yan-Wen Shao with JR-Gang Chi, Ar-Ch Studio92 Ysutaka Oonari Masamichi Kawakami 101 Design

94 Fargo Urban Infill Competition95 Nakjune Seong Sarah Kuen, South Lake, Texas98 David Witham, Doug Meehan, Anna Ishii and Hannah Mattheus-

Kairy, Philadelphia100 Helenske Design Group, Fargo, North Dakota102 Russel Collin, Calgary, Alberta104 Ty Greff, Santa Fe, NM106 Ted L. Wright, Phoenix, AZ108 Cornell Design and Planning Group, Ithaca, NY

Contents


110 The Center for the Promotion of Science, Belgrade110 Wolfgang Tschapeller / ZT GmbH Architekten, Vienna, Austria118 Sou Fujimoto Architects, Tokyo124 ARCVS, Belgrade, Serbia128 Pesquera Ulargui Arquitectos, Madrid, Spain129 Durig AG, JeanPierre Durig, Zurich, Switzerland130 Vladimir Lojanica, Belgrade, Serbia

132 Barge 2011 Design Competition132 Rachely Rotem Studio and Phu Hoang Office, New York136 Anthony Di Mari, Boston138 Jason Ejzenbart and Kara Burman, University of Manitoba140 Blake Thames and Peter Broeder, University of Kansas142 Soohyun Jin and Talya Sandank, South Korea144 Jason Ross, University of Tampa

146 New School Vision: Cleveland Design Competition148 Michael Dickson, Brisbane, Australia150 Michael Robitz, Sean Franklin, Alexandra VanOrsdale, New York152 Drozdov & Partners Ltd., Kharkov, Ukraine154 Feld Architecture / Vincent Feld156 Wendel Architecture, Amherst, New York157 KGD Architecture, Rosslyn, Virginia158 Lateral Office, Toronto, Ontario159 Jedidiah Lau, Hong Kong, China

160 Fez, Morocco Infill Competition161 Mossessian & partners, London, UK164 Ferretti-Marcelloni, Rome, Italy170 Moxon Architects, London, UK176 Bureau E.A.S.T., Los Angeles, USA178 Kolb Hader Architekten, Vienna, Austria179 Hanse Unit, Hamburg, Germany180 Giorgio Ciarallo, Milan, Italy181 Arquivio Arquitectura, Madrid, Spain

182 Laval University School of Architecture Emblematic Addition

182 Sanghwan Park I JKSP architects, New York, NY186 Omar Aljebouri, Avery Guthrie, Steve Socha, Toronto, Canada190 Catherine Houle, Marianne Lapalme, Vanessa Poirier

Laval University, Qubec City, Canada194 ric Boucher, lisabeth Bouchard; Montral, Canada196 Odile Decq, Paris, France198 Julien Beauchamp, Romy Brosseau, milie Gagn-Loranger,

Alexandre HamlynLaval University, Qubec, Canada

200 Jil Bentz, Luxembourg202 Dominique Poncelet, Montral, Canada

204 Indianpolis Monument Circle Competition206 Jean-Baptiste Cueille / Francois David, Paris, France208 Tom Gallagher, Ben Ross and Brian Staresnick, Ratio Architects

Indianapolis210 Studio Three Architects - Brian Hollars, Lohren Deeg and Kerry LaPrees

Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana212 Greg Meckstroth, Philadelphia, PA

214 Gowanus Lowline Ideas Competition216 Tyler Caine, Luke Carnahan, Ryan Doyle and Brandon Specketer

New York, NY218 Aptum/Landscape Intelligence - Gail Fulton, Roger Hubeli, Julie Larsen

University of Illinois / Switzerland220 Agergroup I Jessica Leete, Claire Ji Kim, Shan Shan Lu, Winnie Lai, and

Albert Chung, Boston, Massachusetts222 Nathan Rich / Miriam Peterson, New York224 Austin+Mergold LLC - Jason Austin, Alex Mergold, Jessica Brown and

Sally Reynolds, Philadelphia, PA226 burkholder|salmons - Sean Burkholder, Dylan Salmons

228 Miami Seaplane Terminal Competition228 CA Landscape - Trevor Curtis + Sylvia Kim, Seoul, South Korea232 Stantec - Vicky Chan, Alex Zulas, Liange Otero Colon 234 Gerd Wetzel / Martin Plock, Basel, Switzerland236 Nikolay Martynov, Moscow, Russia237 JungSeung Young / Joo Hee Kim, Seoul, South Korea237 NC OFFICE- Nik Nedev, Peter Nedev, Elizabeth Cardona,

Cristina Canton and Jorge San Martin, Miami, Florida

238 Notable 2020/2011 Competitions


IntroductionThis 2011 COMPETITIONS Annual represents some of the more interesting competitionswhich have taken place over the past year, most of which have been covered on ourwebsite, www.competitions.org. It represents a mix of open, anonymous competitions,and restricted, invited competitions, whereby finalists in the latter have been shortlistedvia a screening process. Due mainly to a lagging economy, competitions for real projectswere almost absent in the U.S., and most of those that did take place almost invariablyinvolved an RfQ and shortlisting process. Instead, we saw a growing list of both limitedand open competitions in Europe and Asia. Most surprising were competitions takingplace in Serbia and Albania, two countries which had not opened competitions to for-eigners until very recentlypreviously commissioned projects to foreign firms notwith-standing. Also in Eastern Europe, Poland, a country which has been staging their owninternal competitions for several years, has opened some high-profile competitions tothe international community of design professionals.

But the big news on the global scene has been what has been happening on theisland of Taiwan, just off the coast of mainland China. Recently, major projects therehave been the subject of open, two-stage competitions. This has allowed medium-sizedfirms to participate on an equal footing with Pritzker prize winners. It has also allowedfor more experimentation than one would normally see when high-profile commissionsare at stake. Reiser + Umemoto, a New York-based firm which has not received thatmany major commissions in the U.S., won the Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Service CenterTerminal Competition not long after winning the Taipei Pop Music Cultural Center com-petition in Taipei. Studio Gangs second place in the latter competition marked the topranking of several U.S. firms in that contest, including Office d/A and Morphosis.

On the Chinese mainland, it has been a different story, where large firms with officesin several countries have dominated the competition scene. When experimentation hastaken place, it normally has been by firms with an innovative reputation: Office ofMetropolitan Architecture (OMA), Steven Holl, Herzog de Meuron, etc. The more trans-parent competitions there, although usually invited, have normally been those adminis-tered by foreign governments for their own legations, i.e., the American embassy compe-tition won by SOM.

Since so many competitions are now by invitation, participation by small firms andindividual architects has declined. This, as well as universal access to the internet, has ledto the explosion of ideas competitions, some legitimate, others quite frivolous. As to thelatter, the suspicion arises that some are simply looking to line their pockets at theexpense of the profession. Thus, it is always incumbent on those wishing to enter compe-titions to scrutinize the sponsors, as well as the jury.

As with any work of this magnitude we are indebted to many architects, competitionadvisers and institutions, not the least of which is the College of Design, Architecture,Art and Planning at the University of Cincinnati.


Many buildings in close proximity to bodies of water seem tohave that joie de vivre about them. Whether it is Sea Ranch, TheBilbao Guggenheim, Oslo Opera House or summer residences inthe Hamptons, the proximity of water somehow manages to stim-ulate designers to produce excitement in a relaxed atmosphere.

From the Greek temples to Spas in England, construction ofmajor structures on oceans and rivers was always more likely toreflect modern trends in architecture, rather than simply replicat-ing a style from the past. Recent waterfront projects such as theYokohama International Port Terminala competition won byForeign Office Architectsand Canada Place in Vancouver areexamples of cities recognizing the need to push the envelopewhen redesigning port terminal facilities. And so it was with theresults of the Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Service Center competi-tion .

Not only is Kaohsiung a major port facility on the island, it isseen as a major terminal for future water transit to the Chinesemainland. The goal of the competition was to identify a designthat will enhance the travel experience of passengers, make it aprincipal departure destination for cruise ships, and provide recre-

Kaohsiung Port TerminalWinner Fei & Cheng Associates/Reiser+Umemoto RURArchitectureTaiwan/New York CityABOVE

Birdseye view of siteOPPOSITE PAGE

Landside view of terminal

Background ational opportunities for the local populace. Moreover, it isunderstood that the new facility should add to the urban vitali-ty of the immediate vicinity.The Site

The entire Harbor site consists of an area measuring 6+hectares, of which only 2.6 hectares was designated as thecompetition site for the projects first phase. As might beexpected, the site included two berths for ocean liners. Sincethe program was quite extensive, the major challenge was todesign a facility which would fit well into a rather limited site,but present a friendly face both to the city and from the water.

Similar to many recent international competitions in Taiwanadministered by competition adviser, Barry Cheng, this one wasconducted in two stages, with five finalists advancing to thesecond stage for the ultimate prizean $80M commission. Theseven-member jury did have an international flavor, mostnotably Maximiliano Fuksas (Italy), Hisao Kohyama (Japan), andHitoshi Abe (USA). During stage two, only six jurors providedcomments, as Maximiliano Fuksas could not attend. The fivepremiated finalists chosen by the first-stage panel and their

Embarcation as the Ultimate Experience

The New Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Terminal in Taiwan


final rankings after the second stage were: First Prize:Fei & Cheng Associates/Philip T.C. Fei, Taiwanwith Reiser+Umemoto RUR Architecture, New York Second Prize:Asymptote Architecture, New York, NYwith Artech Architects/Kris Yao, Taiwan Third Prize:Ricky Liu & Associates Architects+Planners, TaiwanWith Takenaka Corporation/Masahiro Morita, Japan Honorable Mention-1:JET Architecture Inc./Edward Kim. Canadawith CXT Architects Inc./Dan Teh, Canada andArchasia Design Group/Sao-You, Taiwan Honorable Mention-2HMC Group Inc. / Raymond Pan, Los Angeles, CAwith HOY Architects & Associates/Charles Hsueh, Taiwan

The Winning DesignAnyone following the recent Pop Music Center Competition in Taiwan would haveimmediately recognized the resemblance between the winning design in that competi-tion by Fei & Cheng Associates with Reiser+Umemoto RUR Architecture, andtheir team entry here. In both cases the similarities in the curvilinear tower designcould hardly be ignored. Aside from that strong symbolic statement, the winningdesign had a lot going for it. Its circulation plan and interior got high marks from thejury:

The internal spatial and functional arrangement is simple and explicit. Specifically,the flow and fluidity of the main interior spaces is to offer a high-quality spatialexperience rare in local public buildings. The boardwalk created furnishes Kaohsiungsport area with important seaside open space, which can be integrated with the sur-rounding urban spaces into a series of waterfront amenities for the city. Althoughthere was a question concerning the hard facade of the building facing the citytherole of the structure as an interface between ocean and citythe inclusion of Arupas an asset on the team had to be a confidence builder: The combination of RUR,ARUP and Chang & Fei makes an excellent team with exceptional experience andexpertise. The proposal is both realistic and feasible with regards to budget, structureand construction. -Ed

The combinationof RUR, ARUPand Chang & Feimakes an excel-lent team withexceptionalexperience andexpertise.

10

Kaohsiung Port Terminal Winner

Fei & Cheng Associates/ Reiser+Umemoto RUR ArchitectureTaiwan/New York CityABOVE

View of boardwalk at nightLEFT

Interior perspectiveOPPOSITE, ABOVE, LEFTIllustrations showing circulation patterns forarrivals(upper)and departures(below)OPPOSITE, ABOVE, RIGHTLobby/Ticketing and security areaOPPOSITE, MIDDLE, LEFTGround level planOPPOSITE, MIDDLE, RIGHTLongitudinal sectionOPPOSITE, BELOW, LEFTMain level planOPPOSITE, BELOW, RIGHTG+3 level plan


Kaohsiung Port TerminalWinner

Fei & Cheng Associates/ Reiser+Umemoto RURArchitectureTaiwan/New York City

LEFT

Landside perspectiveBELOW, LEFTBirdseye view of modelBELOW, RIGHTApproach to entranceOPPOSITE PAGE

Exploded illustration of functions


Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Terminal


Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt a

nd C

ruis

e Te

rmin

al

2011 Competitions Annual

Second Prize

Asymptote ArchitectureNew York, NYwith Artech Architects/Kris Yao, TaiwanThe elegant Asymptote proposal mayhave only failed due to the two-toweridea. According to jurors, The terminalspace covered with an innovative, shell-like roof structure is distinctive andbeautiful, and the open public spacebelow also makes this scheme success-ful as a marine gateway. The fact thatthe main building establishes a goodrelationship between the urban blocksand the waters probably pushed thisdesign to the forefront of the adjudica-tion process. As always, there were dif-fering takes by the jury on the architec-

tural expression of the scheme.According to one, the design style isminimalistic and understated, but as anational gateway may be somewhatlacking in intensity.

Finally, there was a concern aboutseparating the office tower into twobuildings, creating an enclosing ges-ture, and the treatment of the plazaspace in relationship with the terminalfunction. All the jurors seemed to con-cur on this, that the east office build-ing blocking the view from the cruisearrival axis was a serious considerationin the final evaluation. Still, this entrywould seem to be the most poetic interms of architectural expression. -Ed



2011 Competitions Annual

OPPOSITE PAGE

Birdseye view of terminal from landsideLEFT

Pedestrian perspective from plazaBELOW

Arrival/Departure area


Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt a

nd C

ruis

e Te

rmin

al



Second Prize

Asymptote Architecture, New York, NYwith Artech Architects/Kris Yao, Taiwan

OPPOSITE PAGE

Interior view, drop off area, organization/program, and floor planBELOW

Urban perspective, seaside view, section


Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt a

nd C

ruis

e Te

rmin

al Third PrizeRicky Liu & Associates Architects+Planners, TaiwanWith Takenaka Corporation/Masahiro Morita, Japan

The entry by Ricky Liu & Associates won high marks on several counts fromalmost all the jurors. The site plan, its relationship to the urban context and beauti-ful building form were common observations. One found it superior to the otherschemes in terms of overall formal aesthetic and the geometric structural shell.Another observed, the most important part of the spatial design is the plaza spaceopen to the city, but possible confusion between the controlled zones, arrival anddeparture circulation and the public areas is a concern. Although the beehive-shape design was found to be especially interesting, there was an overriding budg-etary concern: But how will this structure realistically transform into the buildingskin, how will it be maintained, and under what scope will it be built? This critiquewas almost universal among the jurors, and it no doubt contributed to its lowerranking. Could it be that the Sydney Opera House budgetary debacle was lurking inthe back of the jurors minds? -Ed

RIGHT, ABOVEWaterside pedestrian perspectiveRIGHT, BELOWAerial view of site


Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt a

nd C

ruis

e Te

rmin

al



Third Prize

Ricky Liu & Associates Architects+Planners,TaiwanWith Takenaka Corporation/Masahiro Morita,Japan

TOP OF PAGEInterior with view of water featuresABOVE

Site/floor plansLEFT

Site plan in neighborhood contextOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEInteriior, arrival/departure areaOPPOSITE, MIDDLELandside view to entranceOPPOSITE, BOTTOMDesign strategies


Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt a

nd C

ruis

e Te

rmin

al



Honorable Mention - I

JET Architecture Inc./Edward Kim, Canadawith CXT Architects Inc./Dan Teh, Canada andArchasia Design Group/Sao-You, Taiwan

JET Architecture/Edward Kim from Canada proposed a spiral rampway as a majoraesthetic device and organizational concept. The rampway leading to the departurelevel dictates the spatial design of this proposal and at the same time dominates thebuilding elevations. However, this functional architectural element falls short of trans-forming itself into a built space that offers aesthetic quality and a pleasing experi-ence. Another juror put it this way: This is a scheme that presents an open publicplaza protected by an office building up in the air, supported by a structure. It createswonderful outdoor opportunities for the public. The scheme has handled the depar-ture/arrival circulation in a very articulate manner. However, bringing cars up to thefourth level creates various issues in the organization of the building. Also, a criticalpoint brought up in the jury process was that the terminal space, which is supposed tooffer the passengers a special experience, is fitted into a rather conventional structurein the podium. -Ed

ABOVE

Approach from eastOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEBirdseye viewOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWLandside perspective


Honorable Mention II

HMC Group Inc. / Raymond PanLos Angeles, CAwith HOY Architects &Associates/Charles Hsueh, Taiwan

The HMC Group led by Raymond Pan allowednature to play a big role in their design: Theypresented an in-depth exploration of greenbuilding issues and translated it into convinc-ing results. The building volume responds sen-sitively to the solar path. In other words, theform has been sculpted by sunlight. The roofdesign attempts to amalgamate the entirelandscape while creating a series of openspace for the public. However, the key require-ment of a memorable, charismatic nationalgateway may not have been given quiteenough emphasis. The jury evaluation of thisscheme was probably summed up best byJuror A: This unique scheme demonstrates aclear articulation and organization of the pro-gram. It presents several interesting ideas tomake the building feasible and ecological. It isregrettable that it is missing a strong partie totie all the ideas together. -Ed

LEFT, ABOVEView from bayLEFT, BELOWView to lobby from aboveOPPOSITE, ABOVEAerial view from seasideOPPOSITE, BELOWArrival perspective

25



But the new addition would be part of the manor that is set in one of Finland's rareexamples of an English park-cum-garden, with commanding view down to LakeMelasjrvi. The new 15 million, 3,000 square-meter block will add a main entrancelobby, conference rooms, a restaurant, offices, and collection storage, as well as exhibi-tion spaces. But "the natural connection of the proposed extension with the uniqueenvironment, and how well the solution is in harmony with the environmental values

of the manor grounds," was a key criterion for evaluation. And itis fair to say that those entries that lacked understanding of thelandscape issues were the first to be eliminated.

Even more important was the program's brief that the newbuilding must be "a high-quality representation of modern con-struction" and "provide the area with a new attraction whosevalues will stand the test of time." In other words, the "ideabehind the competition is that the new building shall be a workof art, not simply a functional framework for operations." Thejury included museum director Pauli Sivonen, the city architect,and three other architects. Henrik de la Chapelle, chairman ofthe museum's board, led the jury. The competition rules werethose of the Finnish Association of Architects. Demonstrating

the museum's serious commitment to the design, top prizes were 40,000, 30,000, and20,000, along with a commitment to erect the winning scheme. There were also threepurchase prizes of 10,000 each, and eight honorable mentions.

Because of the tsunami of entries, the jurors grouped the schemes according towhich side of the manor house the new museum was placed. This seemingly randomapproach was surprisingly helpful, even self-selecting, as architects who planned forthe eastern and southern approaches blocked views of the manor or obliterated theview down to the lake. Or else these designs required considerable construction under

BackgroundIn Finland, a land where architectural competitions are a way of life, a design contestfor an addition to a small art museum drew the greatest number of entries in Finnishcompetition history. That the Serlachius Museum in an out-of-the way city couldattract 579 entrants from 41 countries may say something about the flat world econ-omy. But it is more likely a measure of the attractiveness of the project, the reputationof the client, and the above-board way competitions are run in Finland. It also sayssomething about this Nordic country's expectations about thequality of life and the high esteem in which cultural institutionsare held. The art of architecture, too, is deemed essential to thefabric of national life, and it is not just the exclusive province oflarge cities or major corporations. Mntt is the 91st largestmunicipality in Finland, situated in the forest halfway betweenJyvskyl and Tampere, yet size and apparent obscurity do notdiminish the demand for architectural greatness.

As is with many mill towns in Finland, Mntt was dominat-ed by a single company whose owners took a benevolent inter-est in all aspects of the lives of the employees. The Serlachiusfamily were discerning collectors, primarily of Finnish art. So, thefactory owner's widow, Ruth Serlachius, opened the family's collection to the public in 1945, turning over Joenniemi Manor (1930, Jarl Eklund,architect) to the Gsta Serlachius Fine Arts Foundation.The museum was greatly enlarged in 2000 when the company headquarters buildingwas added to the Serlachius Museum. Originally called the "White House," this flat-roofed, stark Functionalist building of 1934 couldn't be more different from the grandGustavian manor next door. Demonstrating the avant-garde sensibilities of theSerlachius family, this cool piece of Modernism was designed by Walter and BertelJung, the latter an associate of Eliel Saarinen, as well as Helsinki's first city planner.

That the Serlachius Museum inan out-of-the way city couldattract 579 entrants from 41countries may not just saysomething about the attrac-tiveness of the project, but alsothe reputation of the client,and the above-board way com-petitions are run in Finland.

The Serlachius Museum Competition in Finland

Bucolic Site as Museum Contextby William Morgan


Overall, themuseum soughtthoughtfuldesign, withrespect for thelandscape andfor the museum'sneedsthe jurorswere looking forquality, not flash.

First Place"Parallels"

MX_SIArchitecturalStudio Barcelona, SpainTeamHctor MendozaMara Partida,Boris Bezan

ABOVE

SectionOPPOSITE PAGE

View from plaza

groundnot a happy occurrence in so mindfully a helio-centric northern country. Only one of the top designs wassuccessfully sited on other than the west side, making onewonder how the brief's "the spacious quality of the land-scape shall be the focal point for the design" could havebeen misunderstood by so many.Because of Finnish competition rules, jurors can only openthe name envelopes of the winnersthe others weredestroyed. So we do not know which if any superstars wereeliminated. We do know, nevertheless, that a third of theentrants were from Finland, a majority were European, andthere were less than half a dozen American entrants.The museum has published a comprehensive 67-pagebooklet about the competition, primarily extensive jurorscomments on ten per cent"the upper class"of theentries. Seen all together, these designs point to some gen-eral comments about the quality of Finnish and Europeandesign right now, and perhaps about how the architecturalworld thinks about Finland (the long shadow of Alvar Aaltohangs over several competitors' boards).

But the Alvaristi were outnumbered by the Zaha Hadidwannabes; Daniel Libeskind's violent angles also appeared.Round, organic, wiggly, and sculptural wedges dominated.Yet, classically modern simple rectangles fared well amongthe finalists (the winning design combines an organic planwithin a mostly rectangular container). Overall, the muse-um sought thoughtful design, with respect for the land-scape and for the museum's needsthe jurors wantedquality, not flash. A strong case could be made for most ofthe purchase prizes or the honorable mentions, althoughthat may reflect the huge applicant pool rather than justthe refined taste of the jurors.

Pseudonyms were required, and maybe because ofthe seriousness with which the competition was han-dled, they were less than inspiringoftentimes nameschosen by the architects can be fascinating, evenrevealing. There was a Saskia, for Rembrandt's mistress,and a few evocative and/or clever names, such asSound of Silence, Across the River and into the Trees,and Peppermint. Along with the ATM pinnumbersHP1002, 7D3A, MFRD1988were the pre-dictable Echo, Waltz, Square Mirror, and MountainPass.

The last word on the competition is perhaps bestspoken by the chairman of the Gsta Serlachius ArtFoundation and chairman of the jury, Henrik de laChapelle:

I am glad that we made the decision to run an opencompetition. When the entries started to go over 500,and we had to hire a huge warehouse to fit in all theentries, I had my doubts. But to be able to attractyoung architects around the world is important andalso very much in the spirit our foundation. TheSerlachius paper industry was created by brave men,and they supported young artists in the art they col-lected. Taking part in the selection process was a greatexperience. The time needed to go through all theentries obviously had to be extended by weeks but myfirm belief is that all 579 entries were treated fairly,even if it was impossible to comment on them all.After getting to know the architects, I am even moreconvinced that the end result will be great. -WM


Serla

chiu

s M

useu

m


Serlachius Museum

ABOVE

Site planLEFT, ABOVEGround level floor planLEFT, BELOW1st level floor plan

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEExhibit hallOPPOSITE, MIDDLESectionOPPOSITE, BELOW LEFTPedestrian perspective,modelOPPOSITE, BELOW RIGHTAerial view of model

First Place "Parallels"MX_SI Architectural Studio, Barcelona, Spain

The winning design by the Barcelona-based firm of MX_SI Architectural Studio,whose principals include two Mexicans, Hctor Mendoza and Mara Partida, andSlovenian Boris Bezan, was a splendid choice. Wrapped in a delicate wooden building,the museum seems genuinely quiet and in harmony with the landscape. Yet the roofgently sloping up at both ends and the vertical siding beautifully reproduces therhythm of the trees in the surrounding landscape. The walls do not reveal that theinterior plan is composed of several angles, allowing "a spatial experience wherein theindoor and outdoor spaces are in continuous dialogue." The new museum is sited insuch a way that would allow further extensions, something not possible with the moresculptural proposals. In an almost immodest comment from Finns, MX_SIs design ispraised for its demonstration of its knowledge of "the existing building stock, the his-tory of the location and the client, Finnish culture, and contemporary architecture."

For their part, the young Barcelona team, which had competed successfully in anumber of competitions, had only good words for the jury. Previously they were firstprize winners for the Garcia Lorca Cultural Center in Grenada in 2005, and three yearslater won the competitions for the Lucena Municipal Auditorium in Crdoba and theRog Art Center in Ljubijana, Slovenia. They regret having been unable to visit the sitebefore preparing their entry, yet they are eagerly looking forward to traveling toFinland, not least of all "to know personally Alvar Aalto's work." Even so, their designpicks up on the great Finn's poetic side, and in words that sound familiar, MX_SIdeclared, "We believe architecture is a professional service with an emotional touch."-WM


Serla

chiu

s M

useu

m Second Place: "Thyra"Mikko Heikkinen and Markku Komonen Helsinki, Finland

The runner up design is a magnificent piece of modernism by leading Finnisharchitects, Mikko Heikkinen and Markku Komonen. Employing their typical drywit, they called their entry Thyra (shoebox). This "splendid proposal is convincingwith its clarity and beautiful exhibition rooms." Recalling museum designs byHeikkinen and Komonen (the shoebox is one of their signatures), this "a classicpiece of modern architecture: plain on the outside but rich on the inside. Afterfeasting on all kinds of shapes, one returns to the basics." The jury called Thyra "afresh deviation from the mainstream of the competition." The basic black box,however, would have been enlivened with glass ramps on the park side. -WM


Serlachius Museum

LEFT

View of interior organizationBELOW

Elevation and sectionsOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEInterior viewOPPOSITE PAGE, MIDDLEsection showing light shaftOPPOSITE, BELOWView to entrance


Serla

chiu

s M

useu

m

Second Place: "Thyra"Mikko Heikkinen andMarkku KomonenHelsinki, Finland

ABOVE

Interior perspectiveLEFT

View to entranceBELOW

Exhibition floor plan

OPPOSITE PAGE

Site plan


Serlachius Museum


Serla

chiu

s M

useu

m


Serlachius Museum

Third Place: "Ruth S" Riku and Katri RnkaHelsinki

The third place finisher, Ruth S.(sweetly honoring museum founderRuth Serlachius) by Helsinki architectsRiku and Katri Rnka is the most radi-cal. Calling its sculptural pyramidalshape "as light and airy as Ruth'ssummer hat," the jury notes the "playon the forms of the roof is distinctive,delicate, and delightful," with clearprecedents in Swiss architecture (i.e.,Le Corbusier, say, his Firminy church).Clever, light-hearted, and functionallywell planned, Ruth S. is something ofa sleeperthe sort of way-out designthat appeals to a jury knowing that itwill probably never be considered as aserious possibility for this site. -WM

THIS PAGE

Aerial view of site (top) and eleva-tions (bottom)OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEPedestrian perspective (left) andInterior view (right)OPPOSITE, BELOWSection


Serla

chiu

s M

useu

m

Purchase Prize 1

"Piparminttu"Thomas GebertSankt Gallen, Switzerland

BELOW

Aerial view of model


Serlachius Museum

Purchase Prize 2

"HP1002" magma architecture Ostermann & Kleinheinz Berlin, Germany

LEFT


Purchase Prize 3

"MKS101" MAKS | Architecture &UrbanismThe Netherlands

LEFT



Tirana, Albania might be the last place that many would associatewith cutting edge architecture. The capital of a poor country stillstruggling to sweep away the lingering vestiges of the communistera, it is understandable that architecture and design have notalways been a top priority. Yet in the face of the citys struggles,Tirana is striving to reclaim and reshape its image and identity, andinternational design competitions are playing no small role in thismovement. And while Tirana has yet to be associated with contem-porary architecture, the implementation of these design competi-tions has introduced a handful of renowned architecture firms tothe city with high hopes of bolstering the international image ofAlbania.

In 2008, MVRDV won commission for a community master planon Tirana Lake that will herald forward thinking, ecologically mindedurban development. Earlier this year, Coop Himmelb(l)au won acompetition for the new Albanian Parliament Building with a designintended to symbolize the transparency and openness of democracy.Most recently, Tirana can now add BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) ofDenmark to these ranks as the winner of the New Mosque andMuseum of Tirana & Religious Harmony Competition, an ambitiousproject aimed to further rekindle a tattered Albanian cultural identity.

The recent efforts to renew and improve the physical image ofTirana can be attributed in large part to the citys three-term mayor,Edi Rama. With his background as an artist, Rama has launched anumber of initiatives over his decade in office, intent on improving

Restoring and Reinventing Albanian Identityby Dan Madryga

A New Mosque and Museum of Tirana & Religious Harmony


Hence emphasis in the brief concerning the size of the building: agrand mosque that can adequately serve 1000 prayers on normaldays, 5000 on Fridays, and up to 10,000 during holy feasts.Supporting this mosque, the program also specifies the design of aCenter of Islamic Culture that will house teaching, learning, andresearch facilities including a library, multipurpose hall, and seminarclassrooms.

Another component of the competition program, the Museumof Tirana and Religious Harmony, moves beyond the realm of theMuslim community in an explicit gesture to bring together citizensfrom all faiths and backgrounds. Aside from presenting the generalhistory of Tirana, the museum will focus on the citys religious her-itage, highlighting both the turbulent moment of suppression undercommunism as well as the religious harmony that has since beenreinstated. Educating the public about Islamic culture and promot-ing religious tolerance at a time when relations between religiouscommunities are strained throughout the world is certainly a nobleobjective.

Underlining the importance of this project is its prominent siteon Scanderbeg Square, the administrative and cultural center ofTirana where major government buildings share an expansive publicspace with museums and theaters. The square itself was the subjectof a 2003 design competition that will eventually reclaim the urbancenterat present a rather chaotic vehicular hubas a pedestrianzone with a more human scale. Situated on triangular site adjacentto the Opera and Hotel Tirana, the Mosque and Cultural Center willbe a highly visible component of Tiranas urban landscape.

First Place

BIG I Bjarke IngelsGroupCopenhagen, Denmark

ABOVE

Birdseye viewOPPOSITE, ABOVEFundamental approach toproblemOPPOSITE, BELOWSite plan

the aesthetic image of Tirana. The design competition for themosque and cultural complex can be viewed as the latest compo-nent of his Return to Identity project, which has gone to greatlengths to remove the many unsightly and illegally constructedbuildings that plague the city and help provide a clean slate formore progressive architecture and urban design.

The Mosque and Museum competition focuses on reclaiming akey religious and cultural identity that was long suppressed by com-munism. While Albania claims three chief religionsa Muslim major-ity alongside significant Orthodox Christian and Catholic communi-tiesa strict communist regime ruthlessly banned religion. For overfour decades, Albanians were under the thumb of an atheist regimewhere religious practitioners could face humiliation, imprisonment,and even torture and execution. The anti-religious campaign reachedits zenith in the 1960s, when most Mosques and churches weredemolished, and a select few with architectural significance wereconverted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and youth centers.

The revival of religious institutions began with the 1990 collapseof the communist regime. Yet decades of oppression took their toll,with the vestiges of Albanias religious heritage essentially reducedto rubble. While the two Christian religions have since regained cen-ters of worship, after twenty-one years of restored religious freedom,Tirana still lacks a mosque suitable for serving the sizable Muslimpopulation. Only one mosque still stands in the central citythe his-toric Ethem Bey Mosquecertainly a potent symbol of TiranasIslamic heritage, but particularly inadequate in size to accommodatethe large numbers who would want to worship there on specialoccasions.


The two-stage, international competition was organized by theCity of Tirana and the Albanian Muslim community andadvised by Nevat Sayin and Artan Hysa.Over one hundred teamsthe vast majority Europeansubmit-ted qualifications for the first stage. In early March, the short-listing committee selected five teams to receive an honorari-um of 45,000 Euros each to develop designs: Bjarke Ingels Group I BIG Copenhagen, Denmark seARCH Amsterdam, Holland Zaha Hadid Architects London, UK Andreas Perea Ortega with NEXO Madrid, Spain Architecture Studio Paris, FranceThe designs were judged by a diverse European panel: Edi Rama - Mayor of Tirana, Albania Paul Boehm architect, Cologne, Germany Vedran Mimica Croatian architect; current director of theBerlage Institute Peter Swinnen Partner and architect at 51N4E, Brussels Prof. Enzo Siviero engineer; Professor at University IUAV,Venice Artan Shkreli architect, Tirana, Albania Shyqyri Rreli Muslim community representativeOn May 1st the panel announced Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG)as the winner.

The singular form of BIGs design, "A Mosque for All," isdriven by a simple yet effective concept. The project derives itswarped aesthetic through the accommodation of two signifi-cant axes: the city grid that conforms to Scanderbeg Squareand the necessary orientation of the Mosques main wall toface Mecca. While the parapet and upper portions of the wallsalign to the street, the ground level twists to orient itself andthe main plaza towards the Muslim Holy City. Thomas

Christoffersen of BIG explains this key decision: The align-ment towards Mecca solves the dilemma inherent in the mas-ter plan: in its triangular layout the mosque was somehowtugged in the corner; now it sits at the end of the plaza,framed by its two neighbors. The resultant architecture evokesthe curved domes and arches of traditional Islamic architec-ture, for both the mosque itself and the semi-domed spacesaround it.

A series of plazas result from the master plans layout andmassing: two small plazas on either side of mosque and onelarge gathering space in front punctuated by a minaret. Theseplazas are arranged to help accommodate the large groups ofworshippers during holy days while also providing compellingspaces for more secular daily use. The facades of the buildingsare riddled with a fine pattern of small rectangular windowsinspired by Islamic mashrabiya screens. This pattern of glazingcoupled with the curving walls will allow for ever-changinglight patterns within the worship hall.

BIGs design is a success in its ability to address and mergea number of contextual and cultural concerns. As Mayor Ramanoted: The winning proposal was chosen for its ability to cre-ate an inviting public space flexible enough to accommodatedaily users and large religious events, while harmonically con-necting with the Scanderbeg square, the city of Tirana and itscitizens across different religions. -DM

BIGs design is a success in its ability toaddress and merge a number of contextu-al and cultural concerns.

First Place

BIG I BjarkeIngels Group Copenhagen, Denmark

ABOVE

Plaza as prayer venueLEFT

Plaza viewBELOW

Participant view

OPPOSITE, ABOVEDaytime view of plazaOPPOSITE, BELOWPlaza at night

Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

First Place

BIG I Bjarke IngelsGroupCopenhagen, Denmark

Partners-in-Charge: Bjarke IngelsThomas ChristoffersenProject Leader: Leon Rost

Project TeamMarcella Martinez, Se YoonPark, Alessandro Ronfini,Daniel Kidd, Julian Nin Liang,Erick Kristanto, Ho Kyung Lee

Collaborators:Martha Schwartz LandscapeBuro HappoldSpeirs & MajorLutzenberger & Lutzenberger,Global Cultural AssetManagementGlessner Group


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

Winning Design

BIG I Bjarke Ingels GroupCopenhagen, Denmark

KEFT

View of museum from plazaBELOW

Library perspectiveOPPOSITE, ABOVEMosque interiorOPPOSITE, BELOWSite in urban context with mosque incolor


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

Finalist

seARCHwithLola Landscape Architects,Daan Roosegaarde en PietersBouwtechniekdesign teamBjarne Mastenbroek, Kathrin Hanf,Peter Veenstra,With Andrea Verdecchia, PabloDomingo, Teresa Avella, SimonaSchroder, Manuel Granados, JosRodriguez Amsterdam, The Netherlands

LEFT

View to entranceBELOW

PlazaOPPOSITE PAGE

Celebraion venue


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

Finalist

seARCH with Lola LandscapeArchitects, Daan Roosegaarde enPieters BouwtechniekAmsterdam, The Netherlands

LEFT

SectionBELOW

FoyerOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEView to northeastOPPOSITE, BELOWaerial view of site


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony

Finalist

seARCH with Lola Landscape Architects,Daan Roosegaarde en Pieters BouwtechniekAmsterdam

LEFT

Mosque interiorBELOW

Museum hallOPPOSITE ABOVE

Aerial view of modelOPPOSITE, BELOWMosque floor plans


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

Finalist

seARCH /Lola Landscape Architects, DaanRoosegaarde en Pieters BouwtechniekAmsterdam, The Netherlands

Specifically aiming to avoid a birds eye view architec-tural solution in favor of the experiential, AmsterdamsseARCH generated a design that reveals itself gradually butrewardingly. The museum for example, is a carefullydesigned journey. From the below grade lobby accessedfrom a sunken square, visitors take escalators towards theexhibition spaces housed in a dramatically cantileveredvolume. There they are presented with a panoramic win-dow that looks out over Scanderbeg Square.

The architecture of the mosque places a clear priorityon the interior experience. Appearing as a stylized yetunassuming cube from the exterior street facades, theentrance approach from the partially sheltered main plazareveals a series of shimmering, irregular domed ceilingscarved out of the rectangular volumes. These domes, alongwith an interspersed grove of trees, give the plaza andmosque interior an intimate spatial quality despite thegrand scale. While this inside-out approach does diminishthe mosques external presence from certain street-sidevantage points, seARCHs entry offers one of the morespiritually intriguing worship spaces of the finalists. -DM


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony Finalist

Zaha Hadid ArchitectsLondon, UK

DesignZaha Hadid with Patrik Schumacher

Project DirectorsViviana MuscettolaMichele Pasca di MaglianoLoreto Flores, Effie KuanProject TeamAlvin Triestanto, Philipp Ostermaier,Hee Seung Lee, Gerry Cruz, XiaChun, Ergin Birinci, SantiagoFernandez Achury, RochanaChaugule, Soomeen Hahm, ChungWang, Kanop Mangklapruk, LuisMiguel Samanez, Alejandro Nieto

CollaboratorsGrant Associates LandcapeArchitects, Buro Happold

LEFT AND BELOWAeriel view of siteOPPOSITE ABOVEPedestrian arrival perspectiveOPPOSITE, BELOWElevations


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

The complex imagined by Zaha Hadid Architects takes theform of two seamless masses wrapping around the siteperimeter, gradually growing in height from the museum tothe mosque and culminating in a towering minaret. This layoutcreates an internal courtyard, an intimate valley, a secludedgarden for art, meditation and civic life that also gives accessto both the mosque and the museum.

The project, with its streamlined, curvilinear forms, bearsthe unmistakable aesthetic stamp of its renowned designer. Infact, Hadid even revisits one of her previous design concepts,the urban carpet. Utilized in Cincinnatis Contemporary ArtsCenter, it is employed here on a grander scale, as the westfaade of the museum folds outwards onto ScanderbegSquare, merging the two entities in a Garden of ReligiousHarmony. These familiar attributes, while well employed here,walk a fine line between effectively establishing an iconiclandmark and merely applying the veneer of a famous archi-tects brand a risk that is understandably common to anyarchitect with a strongly refined, internationally recognizedaesthetic.


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

FinalistZaha Hadid ArchitectsLondon, UK

DesignZaha Hadid with Patrik Schumacher

Project DirectorsViviana MuscettolaMichele Pasca di MaglianoLoreto Flores, Effie Kuan

Project TeamAlvin TriestantoPhilipp OstermaierHee Seung LeeGerry CruzXia Chun Ergin BirinciSantiago Fernandez AchuryRochana ChauguleSoomeen Hahm Chung WangKanop Mangklapruk, Luis Miguel SamanezAlejandro Nieto

CollaboratorsGrant Associates Landcape ArchitectsBuro Happold

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEAeriel view at nightOPPOSITE BELOWFloor planTHIS PAGESections


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony

Finalist: Andreas PereaOrtega & NEXOMadrid, Spain

DesignAndreas Perea OrtegaNEXO: Ivan Carbajosa Gonzalez,Lourdes Carretero Botran, Manuel Leira Carmena

CollaboratorsP.E.Z.+Adriana Giralt Landscape

Architects, Mecanismo (structralengineers), Valladares (engineers),Aurora Herrera (museum curator)

LEFT

Aerial view to entranceBELOW

Landscaped area and gardenOPPOSITE PAGE

Botanical garden


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony


Mos

que

and

Mus

eum

of

Tira

na &

Rel

igio

us H

arm

ony


Mosque and M

useum of Tirana &

Religious Harm

ony

Seemingly in opposition to Hadids entry, theOrtega/NEXO team adopts a decidedly anti-style stance in an effort to [transcend] thosecurrent architectural fashions that compete ina tiring parade of progressively more banal andpuerile floral floats. The team posits thatarchitecture is not a problem of representingspace. It is not a case of solving architecturalproblems with rhetorical solutions or formal ortechnological special effects doomed to out-date.

With this position established, the teamconceived a single volume cutting a strongdiagonal across the site. In order to increasethe volume of the public space a large portionof the complex is lifted from the ground tocreate a partially sheltered plaza that features asunken, glass-covered garden. Inside, the

mosques vast prayer hall uses asystem of tiers, oriented towardsMecca, that help gain the maxi-mum amount of interior worshipspace with an efficiency that sur-passes the schemes of the otherfinalists. The interior of the wor-ship space eschews anecdotic andobsolete domes and other tradi-tional Islamic signifiers for a moreabstract spiritual space en-velopedby slender roof beams and trans-parent roof filtering sunlight.

While this no-nonsenseapproach to avoiding the use ofephemeral, in-vogue styles isadmirable, one wonders whetherthe overall result diminishes theexperiential and emotional quali-ties of the worship hall. Althoughthe interior of the mosque is arefreshing, light-filled, albeit uni-versal-leaning space, the highlystructural aesthetic of the exteriorgives few recognizable clues to itssacred function, and presents arather steely coldness that isarguably ill matched to the objec-tives of the competition. -DM

Finalist: Andreas PereaOrtega & NEXOMadrid, SpainOPPOSITE PAGE

Mosque interior and sectionLEFT AND BELOW

Pedestrian perspectives


A dding space to an existing museum to improve its functionality can be adaunting challenge. Confronted with such a scenario, the Daytona Museum ofArts and Sciences turned to a competition to arrive at an innovative solution toits expansion plans. Limited to architectural firms based in Florida, the competi-tion was conducted in two stages the first stage consisting of a short list basedon expressions of interest, followed by a submission of designs by finalists.

The history of Daytona Museum of Arts and Sciences (MOAS) is similar tomany museums, in that new wings were added to accommodate a larger collec-tion. The level of the West Wing of the museum, located 30 below the mainstructure, can only be reached by a ramp, and is prone to flooding. To eliminatethe need to move exhibits from this wing every time it is threatened by water,MOAS decided to demolish the existing wing and build a slightly larger structureto replace it at the same level as the rest of the museum complex. At the sametime, they wanted to address the expansion of an entrance lobby, with the inten-tion that it also be used for special events. The latter was considered to be a sec-ond phase if sufficient funding did not become immediately available. However,this latter phase of the program is certainly important to the image of MOAS,because it would provide it with a new sense of arrival for visitors.As a multi-functional museum, MOAS is home to various types of activities andexhibits. In addition to a planetarium, its collection includes natural history, arche-ology, science, and art Cuban, American, Afro-American, crafts and even a CocaCola exhibit. As such, it has a major educational component as its mission.Combining so many different agendas might be considered a weakness of missionby many museum administrators; but here it can also be an advantage, bringingmany visitors to a site where they can be exposed to a large variety of subjectsthat otherwise might not be high on their list of priorities.

The museums $7.5 million budget for this expansion might be consideredmodest by comparison with expansion plans of some museums: the San FranciscoMuseum of Modern Arts expansion will be in excess of $200 million; LouisvillesSpeed Art Museums expansion budget is $79 million. Still, for a relatively smallcommunity, where snowbirds make up a considerable segment of the local popu-lation, this plan is ambitious in its own right. The budget for for new West Wing,including demolition is approximately $6 million. If the new entrance, GrandLobby design and Observatory are added to the mix, the total will be slightly over$7.5 million.Initial presentation drawings by VOA. The design was refined after jury input.

To administer the competition, MOAS engaged James Bannon, AIA, RIBA ofDACORI Design and Construction, as a consultant. The subsequent RfQ limited toFlorida firms resulted in three shortlisted firms as finalists: VOA , Orlando, Florida office HOK, Tampa, Florida office Architects Design Group, Winter Park, FloridaUpon submitting their proposals, each firm was to receive $5,000 in compensa-tion. Granted, this was a small sum to cover the costs of entering an invited com-petition, considering a required minimum of four boards with site plan, floorplans, elevations, sections, and perspective views. There was provision for the dis-play of models; but this was not a requirement.

The jury was composed of 3 museum board members, the museum director,and an invited individual. The initial presentation by the teams was accompaniedby comments from the jury, and the firms were then asked to refine their designs.When the final presentations took place, VOA was declared the winner, with ADGranked second. -Ed

Expansion as an ArtDaytona Museum of Arts and Sciences

LEFT

View to entrance of present Daytona Museumof Arts and Sciences (MOAS)


The Winning Design(Initial presentation)

VOAOrlando, FloridaDesign TeamJonathan Douglas, AIAJohn Page, AIADaryl LeBlanc, Jay Jensen, Stephanie Moss,Juan Gimeno, Rob Terry, George Mella,Veronica Zurita, Fred Rambo

LEFT

Axonometric perspectiveBELOW, MIDDLEPedestrian perspectivesBOTTOM

Section

These images from the original competitionshow the planetarium next to the entranceof the building, instead of its present loca-tion in the interior.


Day

tona

Mus

eum

of

Arts

and

Sci

ence

s

The Winning Design(Initial presentation)

VOAOrlando, Florida

By moving the Planetarium from the interior of theMOAS to the entrance, the initial winning VOA proposalnot only created an iconic arrival feature, but allowed forit to stay open for visitors when the rest of the museumis closed. When comparing VOAs original presentationwith its final plan, the most notable change at the frontentrance is the lower visibility given to the Planetariumdue to its incorporation into the main structure, but stillmaintaining its own private entrance. According toJonathan Douglas, VOAs team leader, the jury thoughtthat VOAs initial presentation placed too much emphasison architecture to the detriment of the art collection.Also, the interior street extending from the entrance tothe new wing appears to be less grander in scale in thefinal scheme. In comparing the two presentations, thefinal design would seem to provide a more intimatespace for viewing. One might also assume that incorpo-rating the Planetarium within the main structure mighteven reduce the budget. -SC


Daytona M

useum of Arts and Sciences

LEFT

GalleryBELOW

Floor plan

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEEntry hallOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOW LEFT TO RIGHTPhases I & II construction


Day

tona

Mus

eum

of

Arts

and

Sci

ence

s


Daytona M


Further development proposal

VOAOrlando, Florida

LEFT

Floor planABOVE, LEFTAerial view of modelABOVE, RIGHTMain hall

OPPOSITE PAGE, TOP AND MIDDLEViews to entranceOPPOSITE PAGE, BOTTOMSection


Day

tona

Mus

eum

of

Arts

and

Sci

ence

s Second Place

Architects Design GroupWinter Park, FloridaDesign TeamKeith Reeves V, FAIA Principal in ChargeSusan Gantt, AIA Project ManagerDavid Crabtree, Assoc. AIA ProjectDesign ArchitectDenis Vitoreli, - Intern Architect

Second Place Architects Design Group(ADG) from Winter Park concentrated theprogram along a central spine, being theonly competitor to locate a major part ofthe program on a second level. Thisincluded a gallery for temporary exhibi-tions perched above the main entrance part of the second phase expansion of anew entrance. Also, by including a secondlevel, it also provided for access to arooftop sculpture garden. The planetariumremained in the interior of the building,and, by using the two-tier plan, addedspace to the outside where the previousWest Wing had been located.

By using the central spine as an activi-ty generator, this plan is notable for itscompact nature, concentrating the pro-gram into a smaller footprint. By doing so,the ADG team was apparently looking fora way to arrive at a higher energy quo-tient. On the other hand, the compactnature of the plan would hardly have pro-vided an ideal space for large gatherings;the alternative being staging such eventsin the gallery for temporary exhibitions.-SC


Daytona M


Second Place

Architects Design GroupWinter Park, Florida

FAR LEFT

modelsLEFT, ABOVEPlanLEFT BELOW

Aerial view of modelBOTTOM, LEFTfirst floor planBOTTOM RIGHT

Second floor plan

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEAxonometric and sectionsOPPOSITE PAGE, BOTTOM LEFTView to entranceOPPOSITE, BOTTOM RIGHTMain hall


Second Place

Architects Design GroupWinter Park, Florida

ABOVE AND RIGHT

Competition boards


Daytona M



Day

tona

Mus

eum

of

Arts

and

Sci

ence

s


Daytona M


Third Place

HOKTampa, Florida

HOKs plan was probably the moststraightforward in that it made thefewest internal changes, designatingthe former West Wing area as a largeexhibition space. The idea here wasflexibility, as the exhibition space couldbe configured to accommodate eitherone large, or several smaller exhibits.The iconic architectural feature of theHOK plan was a Sun Tower at theentrance, intended to raise the muse-ums visibility in the neighborhood andfrom the distant road. The Sun Toweralso had an instructional purpose, witha small opening in the ceiling allowingsunlight to penetrate, not only indicat-ing the time of day, but also seasonsof the year. A fiber-optic design of thecosmos in the floorpossibly poweredby solar energywas part of this edu-cational concept directed to the largenumber of students visiting the MOAS.-SC

70

Day

tona

Mus

eum

of

Arts

and

Sci

ence

s


Daytona M


Third Place

HOKTampa, FloridaDesign TeamYann Weymouth, AIA, LEED AP, SeniorVice President, Design PrincipalMichael Harris, AIA, LEED AP, Associate,Project Designer

ABOVE

SectionsLEFT

Site planOPPOSITE PAGE, AGOVELobby viewOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWFloor plan


To arrive at a design for a new art museum in Taipei, the organizersdecided to allow the participants more flexibility than usual indevising their planning concepts for the new institution. Accordingto the design brief, the planning and design guidelines in this pro-gram are for reference only. The designer must proposenew possi-bilities for modern art museums, define the exhibition method, andpropose new space requirements, then proceed (in) the planning anddesign based on the new required spaces and design guidelines.The Jury Process

It is not unusual to find different personnel involved in differentstages of the selection process. Normally this change of faces occursafter an RfQ screening committee process, whereby a limited num-ber of finalists are shortlisted for a single-stage presentation of pro-posals. In this case, the competition was open to international par-ticipants, with a first-stage jury made up of local design profession-als. In the second stagedecided in Octoberwe see three outsidejurors, Peter Cook (UK), Norihiko Dan (Japan), and Julien de Smedt(Denmark) joining four local professionals on that panel, the localsbeing in the majority. The question remained, would their enthusi-

Museum as Sustainability Model

asm for the selected finalists rise to the level of that exhibited bythe first stage jurors?

As for the finalists, all three had quite different approaches,albeit leaning heavily on sustainability as a major tenet. The choicesvaried from the linear and vertical to historicism: wrapping, buryingand rooftop park were the schemes that caught the jurys eye. Thefinalists were:* Peter Boronski / Jean-Loup Baldacci, New Zealand/France* Kengo Kuma / Kengo Kuma & Associates, Japan* Federico Soriano Pelaez, SpainFive honorable mentions who did not take part in the second stagewere:* James Law Cybertecture International Holding (Hong Kong) Sung Goo Yang with Oscar Kang (USA)* Ian Yan-Wen Shao with JR-Gang Chi, Ar-Ch Studio (Taiwan)* Jafar Bazzaz (Iran)* Ysutaka Oonari Masamichi Kawakami, 101 Design (Japan)There were also ten merit awards.

The Taipei City Art Museum Competition


First Place

Peter Boronski / Jean-Loup BaldacciNew Zealand/France

Composed of a layered, undulating configuration tied together by thetopography, one wonders if the jury had the firm, Foreign Office, or evenZaha Hadid in mind when it selected this design for the final round.Despite such superficial comparisons, this entry suggests a strong con-nection to a park-like setting, a place to be visited on weekends and holi-days with the entire family. As an extension of the park, It is completelyaccessible for people to walk and even ride bicycles all over. Accordingto the authors, This is not a museum as singular object but rather a fieldof overlapping volumessurfaces that form compressing and expandinginterior and exterior spaces, a quasi-urban field to wonder on. It ismore a stream of consciousness to dive into than a building as signa-ture object.

The thought driving the configuration and circulation was a rather

simple idea resulting in a complex solution: Like the various historical,political and cultural influences that have been converging and workingto sharp the moderate democracy of Taiwan, this museum sweeps up outof the ground in a dis-array of fluid elements. Curving and crossing likethe waters of converging Yingge & Dahan rivers below. There elementsare containers that struggle to contain, as they themselves slip, bulge andemerge. There are compartments but they are not regular, and there arevolumes and voids. Their understanding requires movements, a changingof positions, like a cinematic experiences. Stasis is not comfortable in thishouse.

A landlocked version of the Oslo Opera House? Visitors to this museumwill no doubt want to return; for they probably missed something the firsttime around. -SC


First Place

Peter Boronski / Jean-Loup BaldacciNew Zealand/France

RIGHT AND BELOW

Interior and exterior viewsBELOW, MIDDLEFloor plansBOTTOM

Sections


LEFT

Night view from cityElevationsBELOW FROM LEFT CLOKWISE

Birdseye viewMuseum interiorApproach at nightView to lobby


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m Second Place

Kengo Kuma / Kengo Kuma & AssociatesTokyo / PariswithMasato Araya / OAK Structure Design Office (Japan)Atsuro Oka / P.T. Morimura & Associates, Ltd.

Here the similarity to Frank Gehry can hardly beavoided, apart from the material nature of the wrappingenclosing the structure. As icon, this entry represents atruly strong urban statement. Organized around a greencell system consisting of diverse materials and aggregat-ed in different functions to match the programmaticrequirements. The double skin is to play a principal role inthe sustainability process providing an interesting in-between space. Here again, the notion of erasing theboundaries between private and public space is strong,the idea being to provide the citizens with an informalexperience of contemporary art.

There can be no doubt that the idonic nature of thisdesign would merit a first-class attraction. Similar toCalatravas Milwaukee Art Museum, the very nature ofsuch a structure would, in itself, be a world-class attrac-tion. Forget the art.Although sustainability is high on the list of prioritieshere; lurking in the background will always be the ques-tion of budget viability. This may have been one of thereasons this rather daring proposal was on the outside,looking in. -SC


Taipei City Art Museum


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m



Second Place

Kengo Kuma / Kengo Kuma &AssociatesTokyo / PariswithMasato Araya / OAK Structure Design Office(Japan)Atsuro Oka / P.T. Morimura & Associates, Ltd.


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m

Third Place

Federico Soriano PelaezMadrid, Spain

LEFT

Collage of existing museum plansOPPOSITE, ABOVEView of above-grade structures toward themuseum entranceOPPOSITE, BELOWSections

The Federico Soriano Pelaez entry isbased in part on the idea that bits andpieces of past museum plans can be adaptedto a new museum. Fitting some of these iso-lated parts into a cohesive whole may be afascinating exercise, but it does beg thequestion: Who can possibly view these plansother than a construction project manager.Since most of the museum is buried under-ground, one might imagine that this issomething Peter Eisenman might cook up,whereby the organizational idea is hiddenfrom the view of the average pedestrian.

Another problem is the non-iconic natureof the proposal. Considering that the initialimpression of the visitor upon arrival (forgetthe signage) might be that of a campusoreven some modern version of an Italiancemetery, what a surprise to find that every-thing is located in one continuous under-ground structure.

There can be no doubt that this buildingwould have attained a high LEED rating byvirtue of being primarily below grade, lead-ing to a very low energy consumption. Howdid this entry make it to the final round? Ittook a set of unlikely pieces to a puzzle andsomehow managed to fit them togetherconvincingly enough to grab the jurysattention. -SC

82

Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m

Third Place

Federico Soriano PelaezMadrid, Spain

LEFT

Grade level planBELOW, LEFT1st level below gradeBELOW, RIGHT2nd level below gradeOPPOSITE, ABOVEBirdseye view of museumOPPOSITE, BELOWElevations


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m

85

Taipei City Art MuseumHonorable Mention 1

Sung Goo Yang with Oscar Kang USA

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITEImages from competitionboards


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m


Honorable Mention 2

Jafar Bazzaz Iran

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITEImages from competition boards


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m



Honorable Mention 3

James LawCybertectureInternational Holding Hong KongTeamFeisal NoorAndy LeungMelvin Pong Charles Chu

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITEImages from competitionboards



Honorable Mention 4

Ian Yan-Wen Shao withJR-Gang Chi, Ar-Ch StudioTaiwan

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITEImages from competi-tion boards


Taip

ei C

ity A

rt M

useu

m

Honorable Mention 5

Ysutaka OonariMasamichi Kawakami 101 Design Japan

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITEImages from competi-tion boards


Focusing on the Center

A s the largest city in the U.S. state of North Dakota, Fargo canafford to speculate about a redesign of its downtown core.Considering the state of the U.S. economy, one might question theplanning of such an ambitious venture. But, in contrast to the restof the nation, North Dakotas economy is experiencing boom-likesymptoms, supported mainly by the energy and agricultural sectors.Until recently, most outsiders regarded Fargo as a sleepy, northern,small city. Now, with a metropolitan population of 200,000 andgrowing, the community can think bigger and better. Choosing adesign competition for a downtown plan is an interesting move inthis direction, even though this was only an ideascompetition, and there is no guarantee any of theideas from this event will be used.

The competition was sponsored by The KilbourneGroup, a progressive local developer specializing in abroad range of urban projectswith concentrationon the preservation and reuse of existing structures,as well as new construction. The site of the competi-tion was a city block located in the very center of thedowntown, with the focus on creating a multi-usespace that could accommodate retail, residential,parking, office and open space for civic use, bringing new energy to the downtown. The idea for a competition arose in 2009 when a dated parking garage occupying one-quarter of the U.S. Bankblock was demolished. Rather than see this garage simply replacedby a new parking structure, The Kilbourne Group felt that a compe-tition could generate a more progressive solution for the site.

As an ideas competition for a specific site, open to students aswell as professionals, it attracted 160 entries from 23 countries.Because its schedule coincided with the academic semester, a num-ber of studios at schools of architectureThe University of Cincin-nati is one example were able to include it in their curriculum.

The jury panel consisted of:Bob Stein Senior planner, City of FargoCindy Urness Associate Professor of Architecture, North DakotaState UniversityDoug Burgum Founder, Kilbourne GroupKathleen Pepple Professor of Landscape Architecture, NorthDakota State UniversityMary deLaittre City plannerRonald P. Robson US Bank

Of the total prize money of $29,000, there were two first placeawards of $10,000 each. One went to "Fargo 365" by adesign team from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (DavidWitham, Doug Meehan, Anna Ishii and HannahMattheus-Kairy), and the other to "Ebb and Flow,"designed by Nakjune Seong and Sarah Kuen, two collegestudents from South Lake, Texas. Second place *($5,000)was awarded to the local Helenske Design GroupsVertical Plain. The jury also awarded three honorablementions of $1,000 each. Of three Peoples Choiceawards, the most popular received $1,000.

Many of the teams chose a similar approach to thesite, featuring a large atria as an entrance feature bounded by retailand a high-rise. Here one invariably has to think of Berlins SonyCenter by Helmut Jahn. Although this block is considerably smallerthan the Sony site in Berlin, lessons can be learned from Sony thatare in part implemented here, the most important being multiplepenetrations into the sites interior. The competition produced anumber of interesting ideas, from parking structures to soaring tow-ers challenging the eye. A number of very doable ideas resulted, andone can only wonder if the powers that be might engage one of thewinners to provide Fargo with a new downtown look. -SC

Many of the teamschose a similarapproach to thesite, featuring alarge atria as anentrance featurebounded by retailand a highrise.

FarFargo's Urban-infill Design Competitiongo's Urban-infill Design Competition


First Place (2)

Ebb and FlowNakjune Seong Sarah KuenSouth Lake, Texas

LEFT

Birdseye view and illustrations fromthe competitions board


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n


Fargo Urban-Infill Com

petition

First Place (2)

Ebb and FlowNakjune Seong Sarah KuenSouth Lake, Texas

The main attraction of the Ebband Flow entry was a generousglass atrium. Its retractableentrance could remain open inwarmer weather and closed in thewinter. A winding path through aplaza to the entrance from themain street was a reference to thenearby Red River. Not only was thesite highly visible from the south-east corner, where the main inter-section is located; pedestrians caneasily enter the site from three dif-ferent points on all the surround-ing streets. -SC


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n

First Place (2)

"Fargo 365" David Witham, Doug Meehan, Anna Ishii and HannahMattheus-KairyPhiladelphia, PA

LEFT AND OPPOSITE PAGE

Illustrations from competitionboards indicating seasonalchanges


virtue of the functional nature of the site.Moreover, by partially enclosing the plaza, a cer-tain level of intimacy is present, without creat-ing a barrier to the outside pedestrian. With theexception of the high-rise structure, the build-ings all were adorned by green roofs, certainadded protectionand an energy saverin viewof North Dakotas severe winters. -SC

Fargo 365 emphasized the multi-purpose use ofthe site throughout the year. Here the plazassemi-interior form was created by locating amodest triangular element at the corner, featuringa green roof, gradually sloping down to the interi-or. Punctuated by two main entrances from thetwo adjoining streets, the partially hidden plazareceived a strong focus, drawing people in by


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n



petition

Second Place Vertical PlainHelenske Design Group Fargo, North Dakota

Vertical Plain, was mainly about the treatmentof a high-rise structure which was supposed tosymbolize elements of the plain. By includingsolar panels and wind turbines in the mix, thisdesign strived to give the impression of a highlyenergy-efficient structure. However, without thenarrative on the symbolic connection to the NorthDakota plain, this would probably be lost on thecasual observer. -SC

102

Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n



petition

Honorable Mention

More BroadwayRussel CollinCalgary, Alberta

THIS PAGE AND OPPOSITE

Competition boards


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n



petitionHonorable Mention

Icon Ty Greff Santa Fe, New Nexico


Competition board with illustration and plan


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n Honorable Mention

Seed Ted L. WrightPhoenix, Arizona


Competition boards

107


petition


Farg

o U

rban

-Inf

ill C

ompe

titio

n

Peoples Choice1st Place Award

BroadwayMarketCommons Cornell Designand PlanningGroupKevin GillDasha MikicChuijing KongHeather BlaikieRobert KrumhanslIthaca, NY


Competition boards


In the process of reinventing itself, the Serbian capi-tal of Belgrade, once the political center of Yugoslaviabefore its dissolution into a number of smaller nationstates, is steering away from its obsession with itsnationalist past, and, with its application for entryinto the European Community, is promoting culturalas well as economic progress as its top priorities. Aspart of this new direction, the City staged recentcompetitions for two city projects, bringing attentionto the needs of Belgrade as a large city that not onlycontinues to grow, but is soliciting ideas that speak toa civic and national identity that is intended to rede-fine significant historical locales within its geography.Thus, in the tradition of the Grande Projets, theSerbian administration announced competitions for aCenter for the Promotion of Science; and also theHala Beton Waterfront Centre 2011 and KalemegdanPark on the Danube, the former located in Block 39 ofthe New Belgrade plan, the latter located just acrossthe Sava River from it.

New Belgrade was originally designed in the 1950s asthe connective tissue between two cities - Belgrade to theeast and Zemun to the west. Belgrade was the furthest pointwest of the Ottoman Empire while Zemun represented theAustrian-Hungarian empire to the west. By finding a way tobind these two cities with a new, modern housing district,Tito s regime intended to indicate a direction forward for anascent nation.

Why the city regarded a new Centre for the Promotion ofScience, as one of its top priorities for an international com-petition, is clear from the competition brief:Science Centers inspire curiosity and support learning aboutscience from early ages. In the area of knowledge-basedsocieties a modern science centre can play a central role indissemination of scientific culture and the strengthening ofresearch, not only for young generations, but also for adults.

There can be little doubt that an eye-catching design waswhat the city was after, and the winning design by theAustrian architect, Wolfgang Tschapeller, certainly fulfilledthat requirement.

Ambitious Plans for a New BelgradeThe Centre for the Promotion of Scienceby Ted Sandstra

Background


First Prize

Wolfgang Tschapeller ZT GmbH ArchitektenVienna, Austria

By locating the program above the street with remarkable structuralsimplicity and clarity, one can surmise that this approach caught theattention of the jury over other, less successful attempts to reach forheight and visibility in an urban landscape dedicated to the automobile.Elevating the program also frees up space for the development of addi-tional amenities for pedestrians at street level.

Raising the exhibition area above the ground plane, according to theauthor, follows the principles of the Athens Charter as set out by CIAM(International Congress of Modern Architecture). This ties the design tothe history of the site, which was conceived at a time when the AthensCharter held sway over urban planning. The competition brief stated:

At that time, futuristic urban planning was carried out, with a clearorthogonal street system, wide boulevards, fast traffic, open and half openblocks with macro and micro ambiences and appropriate following con-tent, green zones and good environmental qualities.

Once one ascends up to the main level, the remainder of the designpossesses a functional and very restrained distribution of the program.

The shell of the building clearly delineates the architectures internalfeatures: the hemispherical planetarium, tubes describing vertical circula-tion, raked seating for the auditorium and a large, unbroken box for ahighly flexible exhibition space. This rational utilization of space is consis-tent throughout the structural solution as the author outlines the use ofvoid forms in the concrete slab to reduce deadweight. Although there is areward in the ever-improving view over New Belgrade as the visitor as-cends the ramps and moves into the underside of this spaceship, theunsheltered vertical circulation path would seem to demand some endur-ance of the user in inclement weather. Perhaps some enclosure (similar tothe Pompidou?) will be developed in order to protect visitors from thewinter wind.

The criteria for the jury s evaluation of the winner are clear from itsconcluding statement:Yet even as the building s form appears radical, the construction is simple,straightforward, well-considered and well-calculated. The Jury has cometo the conclusion that this project precisely fits both the requirements,and aspirations, for the proposed institution, as well as for the city inwhich it will provide a new, welcome landmark. -TS


Belgrade Centre for the Promotion of Science

First Prize


RIGHT

LayersBELOW

View underneathOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVECentre detailOPPOSITE, BELOWClose-up detail



First Prize


RIGHT AND BELOW

SectionsOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEView to arrival at CentreOPPOSITE, BELOWAxonometric


Belg

rade

Cen

tre

for

the

Prom

otio

n of

Sci

ence First Prize


THIS PAGE

Elevations (from top to bottom):NortheastNorthwestSoutheast

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEStructural systemOPPOSITE, BELOWGrade level plan



Second Prize

Sou FujimotoArchitectswithOve ArupTokyo

THIS PAGEFloor plan, parkingOPPOSITE PAGECompetition boardsindicating the topo-graphical/landscapeapproach of theauthor.


Belg

rade

Cen

tre

for

the

Prom

otio

n of

Sci

ence



Second Prize

Sou Fujimoto Architectswith

Ove Arup Japan Pty. Ltd.Tokyo

Second prize went to Sou FujimotoArchitects of Japan for a schemethat is similar in many ways.Entering the Forest of Science, thearchitects also highlight the land-scape and form structural elementsaround groups of trees to hold upa canopy above the program. Someof the program is then sunken intothe landscape with this canopy andforest of trees towering above. Thisscheme suggests a change in ourunderstanding of the landscapeand our domination of nature sincethe regular grid of New Belgradewas first laid o

2011 competitions annual

Documents

serlachius museum competition

competitions annualeditor

competition project

zaha hadid architects

museum of tiranatirana

japan22 jet architecture

lola landscape architects

canadawith cxt architects