Posts tagged with "Competitions":

Placeholder Alt Text

Here are the winners of L.A. County’s accessory dwelling unit competition

In recent years, L.A. County’s homeless population has elevated by astronomical levels, climbing over 23 percent in just 2017 alone. As part of the county’s overall Homeless Initiative, last September, the L.A. County Arts Commission launched Part of the Solution: Yes To ADU, a design competition soliciting innovative uses for accessory dwelling units (ADU) in single family lots. The winners were announced late last month. There are up to 1.3 million dwellings in the county that could accept such lots, points out L.A. Country Arts Commission Civic Art Project Manager Iris Anna Regn. Officials hope the competition winners will get designers more involved in policy strategy, and help homeowners visualize how to develop ADUs on their properties. Competition winners were selected anonymously from a pool of 43 professional and student entries. First place went to recent graduates Lilliana Castro, Allen Guillen and Cheuk Nam Yu, who suggested eliminating dwellings’ fences and walls to create more open neighborhoods and better integrate dwellings into the city. Their pre-fabricated constructions, imbedded with green wall panels, solar roofs, and art walls, would be cheaper, easier, and faster to install. Two teams —Anonymous Architects and Esther Ho — tied for second. Anonymous proposed a modular solution built around recycled plastic packaging that could be customized with elements like solar balloons, water tanks, gardens, and even bird houses. Ho proposed another modular solution, called the Barcode House, which could be easily adapted to varied uses, from dorm rooms to small businesses. Two Honorable Mentions went to Bureau Spectacular and Wes Jones Partners. Bureau Spectacular's Backyard Urbanism suggested that ADUs could perform other uses besides housing, like recreation spaces or laundromats. Jones suggested the use of shipping containers, their designs kept simple but elegant to fit into their contexts. The competition-winning proposals, and a handful of others, will be exhibited throughout the county for the next few months, including a panel discussion at Downtown LA's Institute for Contemporary Art on May 24. Already the Arts Commission has shared the visions via events at East LA College and the AC Bilbrew Library. “This is an important new typology that people are being asked to do all time now,” pointed out Regn. “It won’t just provide new housing options, but it could help people stay in their neighborhoods and keep communities together." Of course ADUs will not provide the only solution to L.A.’s homeless and affordable housing crisis. It’s just one of many strategies, added Regn. “Everything needs to be thought about now—supportive housing, mental health, social enterprise, much more— to solve this humanitarian crisis.”
Placeholder Alt Text

ACSA cancels controversial detention center competition

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) announced today that it has nixed a controversial student competition to design an immigrant detention center. The brief asked participants to design a "Humanitarian Refugee (Detention) Center." When it was announced, the competition received an avalanche of negative feedback, which the ACSA called "justified​ criticism" in its statement. "[While] the organization is committed to engaging important issues in our society, we ​regret our decision to publish the category," it added. ACSA deleted its own publicity tweet about the competition, and subsequent tweets from @ACSAUpdate on the topic redirect to broken URLs. A new building category for the spring semester will be announced in a few weeks.

Design By Your Side – Medical furniture contest

New product design contest on Desall.com: Missaglia and Desall invite you to propose a new family of cabinets designed for medical environments, with an innovative design and contemporary style, equipped with state-of-the-art technologies aimed at enriching and facilitating the user experience.

For more info: http://bit.ly/DesignByYourSide

Contest timeline

Upload phase: 27th September – 20th December 2017 (1.59 PM UTC)

Community vote: 20th December 2017 – 11th January 2018

Client Vote: from 11th January 2018

Winner announcement: approximately before the end of February 2018

Total awards

€3000

Participation is free of charge and open to all creative people (at least 18 years old).

Placeholder Alt Text

Architecture at Zero’s net-zero energy competition winners announced

The 2016 winners for the Architecture at Zero competitionand the competition’s up-to-$25,000 prize—have been announced. This year’s competition focused on the development of zero-net energy (ZNE) student housing for the San Francisco State University campus in California. Entrants were asked to create an overall site plan to accommodate the erection of 784 housing units and attendant programs like a student services center, food hall, and child care facility. The schemes were also asked to address parking issues. Further, the competition brief compelled participants to develop the design of one particular building from their proposal to a greater level of detail in order to convey ZNE performance compliance and to provide documentation attesting to these performance standards. The competition is focused on fostering the development and proliferation of ZNE design due to an impending California state law requirement calling for all new single-family residential construction to be ZNE by 2020 with all new commercial construction to follow suit by 2030. Competition winners were appropriated based on two categories: those submitted by professional architecture firms and those submitted by students. Within each applicant category, winning entries were selected at the “special recognition,” “citation,” “merit,” or “honor” awards levels. Winners for student entries: Special Recognition Award: Sharing and Living by a student team from Tamkang University in Taipei, Taiwan.   Merit Award: Communal Operations by Steven Loutherback, Texas Tech. Honor award: Energized Canopy by Romain Dechavanne, Ecole Nationale Superior d’Architecture in Grenoble, France. Winners for professional entries: Citation Award: Piezien Circuit by Modus Studio, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Merit Award: Nexus by Dialog in Vancouver, Canada. Merit Award: Fog Catcher by LITTLE in Los Angeles. For more information on the Architecture at Zero competition, see the competition website.
Placeholder Alt Text

The Architect’s Newspaper reports from Archmarathon in Milan

This week I am representing The Architect’s Newspaper as a juror at Archmarathon an international architecture competition in Milan. The international jury is organized by Milanese critic Luca Molinari and has members from Lebanon, Europe the U.K., and AN from North America. Like many other juries, it quickly became clear from the projects represented—and how their designers represent them—that architects are among the most socially responsible professions. They often work for the smallest fees for religious institutions updating their mandate to become more relevant social centers (Valer Church, Espen Surnevik Architects), NGO's building housing in Africa (SOS Children’s Village, Urko Sanchez Architects) and private clients working in sensitive landmarked buildings (Houtloods, Bedaux De Brouwer Architects in Holland). But at the same this competition brings me back to AN's own Facades conferences. In more than half the presented projects (we saw 15 today) it is apparent that it is often the facade that is the key to the design, use and meaning of a structure.  Several of the presented projects are renovated landmarked structures that need contemporary uses and meanings and it is glass walls that the designers want to use to open them up to the outside. Today two projects were new glass facades built alongside existing ones that are kept and repurposed. Several of these buildings are in northern Nordic countries (Ålgård Church by Link Arkitektur, Norway) and even here these colder climates the desire is to open up new structures to the outside and that requires sophisticated glass facade wall systems. It reminds me even more that glass walls are not just for corporate towers but small buildings in every imaginable climate from South to North and that both architects and their clients want glass facades. We will report on this international competition as it happens in the next three days.
Placeholder Alt Text

AIA Chicago announces Tiny Homes Competition winners

AIA Chicago has announced the winners of the Tiny Homes Competition. Launched in November 2015, the competition solicited entries to address young adult homelessness in Chicago as part of the Tiny Homes Summit. The winning entry was designed by a Chicago-based team of Notre Dame graduates. Terry Howell, AIA, LEED GA, Lon Stousland, both associate architects at Antunovich Associates, and Marty Sandberg, AIA, partner at Via Chicago Architects, site their connection to the Bronzeville neighborhood, location of the proposed project, as a driver in their design. The team commented in a press release, “Terry’s parents are long-time Bronzeville residents, and have hosted us for countless barbecue nights just two blocks from the competition site. Designing for a location with such a personal connection provided extra incentive—a chance to create something not simply beautiful, but also practical, contextual, and potentially transformative.” The winning entry, “A House for Living In,” is comprised of 11 336-square-foot units and one interior community space gathered around a central courtyard. At an estimated $73 per square foot, the design is substantially less expensive than typical affordable housing, which is typically in the range of $200-400 per square foot, according to the AIA’s press release. The central courtyard is entered through a locked front gate, and is envisioned as a gathering spaces and communal garden. Juror Benet Haller commented, “The submission’s site and floor plans are very efficient. Locations for storage are well thought out and the sleeping area is nicely separated from the living area. The use of brick on the exterior is a nice touch. Everything about this submittal works well.” Chicago-based Wheeler Kearns Architects was awarded second place with their design “Tiny Town.” Third place was awarded to another Chicago–based team made up of Joe Villanti, AIA, senior project architect at Pappageorge Haymes, Tyler Hopwood, and Ryan Arnaudov, also of Pappageorge Haymes for their project “Box House.” Honorable Mentions were awarded to New York City–based David Bravo Salva and Blanca Rodriguez Peis, and Chicago–based team Georgi Todorov of Pappageorge Haymes and Petya Petrova of Pierre-Yves Rochon. A prototype of “A House for Living In” will be constructed for the Tiny Homes Summit at the University of Illinois at Chicago on April 18 to 19. Organized by AIA Chicago, the AIA Chicago Foundation, Landon Bone Baker Architects, Windy City Times, and Pride Action Tank, the competition drew 250 submissions from 12 countries. Funding for the competition was provided by the Alphawood Foundation.
Placeholder Alt Text

Three finalists named in PXSTL design-build competition

The Pulitzer Arts Foundation and the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts at Washington University in St. Louis have announced three finalists for the second iteration of the design-build PXSTL competition. The three finalist were culled from a list of 35 artist, architects, and designers, who were solicited by the organizer. The list includes: —Randstad, NL and Istanbul-based architects Merve Bedir and Jason Hilgefort —New York/Houston-based artist Mary Ellen Carroll —Chicago-based architect Amanda Williams and artist/educator Andres L. Hernandez PXSTL (David Johnson) Canopy of the 2014 PXSTL structure. (David Johnson) All of the finalist will travel to St. Louis in mid-February to conduct detailed site analysis and give public presentations on their previous work and interest in PXSTL. The winner will be announced in March. Along with an $80,000 budget to complete the project, the winner will teach an architecture studio as visiting faculty at the Sam Fox Graduate School of Architecture & Urban Planning in Fall 2016 semester. With commentary from community stakeholders, cultural organizers and local artist, the winner will work with their students to develop the project over the semester. PXSTL (an acronym for Pulitzer, Sam FoX School, and ST. Louis) is a competition for a design-build commission to build a temporary structure on an empty lot near the Pulitzer Art Foundation in the Grand Center arts district. The fist iteration of the PXSTL was completed in 2014 by the Brooklyn-based Freecell Architecture. Their project comprises of a large canopy under which dance, music, and community events were held throughout the summer of 2014. This year’s competition will conclude in the pavilion construction in spring of 2017 and community programing through the summer of 2017. The goal of PXSTL is in engage the community with small-scale intervention to encourage urban transformation. As part of this, the public will have a chance to offer feedback in public forums to be held in the fall. “Since its founding, the Pulitzer has been dedicated to creating opportunities for art and culture to have a positive impact on the broader St. Louis community. As PXSTL demonstrates, this means working closely with and listening carefully to both our community and cultural partners.” Remarked Cara Starke, director of the Pulitzer Arts Foundation, in a press release.
Placeholder Alt Text

Letter to the Editor> Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

[Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions or sentiments of the newspaper. AN welcomes reader letters, which could appear in our regional print editions. To share your opinion, please email editor@archpaper.com] Ready for some tough love, some bitter medicine? Looking back, we architects got our profession into some bad places with some serious mistakes. We were often so eager for fame and celebrity that we sometimes behaved irresponsibly. We did not use design in its best sense; we gave away our treasure. We were not always reliable regarding time and money. We handed over the leadership role in building to others who lacked the necessary skills and training, and who held no responsibility or liability. Left with less authority and control, architects instilled fear and distrust in our clients. We aided and abetted clients with unrealistic and unworthy ambitions. Specifically, when clients proposed projects where the scope, budget, and schedule didn’t fit together, we were so eager for the assignments that we did not blow the whistle, but jumped in feet first. I can think of three fine institutions with worthy missions and stellar reputations that committed virtual suicide. Those institutions (almost) betrayed their missions by creating inappropriate, overpriced Silly Buildings. The architects and the leadership of those institutions were co-conspirators and bad stewards. Their actions in pursuit of fame and recognition did irreparable harm to their institutions. We foolishly participated in competitions, an insulting process for selecting architects. What wise partnership was ever created by such a superficial beauty pageant? What smart client chooses an architect simply by how a building looks, without knowing what that architect is like to work with, or if they can execute the project well? What other profession gives its work product away for free? What bettor places a two dollar bet when the prize is two dollars? (And here often there is NO prize!) The field is littered with competition winners who end up losers: no built project, no fee, no valuable relationship. Competitions may have been a reasonable selection process in another time and place. They don’t work here and now. Competitions are abusive and counterproductive for everyone. The lack of self-worth actually begins with poor professional habits. Hiring young professionals without pay, or calling them consultants rather than employees, is illegal and unethical. We are not properly compensated for our services: we provide unpaid speculative designs for clients to try to secure assignments. We are not being paid on a timely basis. (These are circumstances under which no client would expect their contractor to continue working, but we do. Are we richer or dumber than the contractors?) We compete for projects by simply offering to do them for the lowest fees. This practice is unsustainable: if we continue to undersell ourselves, the profession will become a commodity. We allowed, even encouraged, the media to publicize projects whose main value is novelty and eccentricity, not quality. Maybe novelty is easier to spot and sell. While pandering to the public’s desire to stare ghoulishly at a highway accident, novelty hasn’t improved the work or the profession. Encouraging this bad behavior leads clients to ask for more silly buildings, which they (and society) often can’t afford. As young professionals, we are often eager to get a fast start, to break out of the gate early. We start before we have fully mastered the complex task of making buildings. It takes time to learn how to deal constructively and fairly with parties who have other agendas or financial interests. From these errors, we can learn what will lead us to a better future. First, let’s use design in its best, most holistic sense. Design is not simply about how the building looks on the outside (for that is simple). Design dictates how buildings are planned, and how they use resources (materials, energy, space, money, and time). Design informs efficiency, durability, and beauty. Let’s get the design and construction of our projects done on time and on budget. Let’s return to being our clients’ trusted advisors and partners. Let’s be more creative, not just about designing what we are asked to design, but in making new building types for the present and the future, not just the past. Let’s be inventive about the process of building, the largest segment of the American economy. The way we build now is antiquated and doesn’t work well, which leaves room for major improvements. Can you imagine a car produced the way we make buildings? You’d hire a designer, while another company puts together the components of body, engine, brakes, transmission, all made by other companies. You’d end up with a $3 million car that has never been prototyped or tested, and it wouldn’t run as well as a $20,000 Volkswagen. Yet this is how we make buildings! Let’s demand the fees that it takes to do great design. It does cost more to study more alternatives to get the very best one. It takes money to create better, more thorough, and accurate documents to build our designs, and to provide strong services in the construction phase. The client benefits. Better services result in better buildings, lower construction costs and fewer extras. Clients will learn that paying for increased services will make the buildings they own more appropriate and more durable. When we received the fees we deserve, we run better offices, with better staff and equipment, and fewer worries about money. Let’s sell these more relevant building types and these construction and fabrication processes not just to our clients, but to crowd-funding and to venture capitalists. Instead of working for a one-time fee, we would maintain ownership of our ideas and the income streams they produce. Our professionalism should be recognized. Why are we intent on measuring the energy a building uses (not even the energy materials and the building process consume), rather than the professional practice that created the metric? Let’s start a professionalism rating system to gauge architects’ service: firms would be rated by the appropriateness and usefulness of their designs, the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of their process, and the reduced risk to their clients. Let’s take back the leadership we once had in the building process, and again become our clients’ trusted, and compensated, partners. Paul Segal, FAIA Columbia University Adjunct Professor, author of Professional Practice: A Guide to Turning Designs into Buildings.
Placeholder Alt Text

Taking Buildings Down: Storefront provokes ideas on the built environment in new competition

Perhaps following up on its Halloween Party this year that explored the theme "DEMO," as in DEMO-lition among other words sharing the root, the Storefront for Art & Architecture has launched a competition called "Taking Buildings Down," where “removal is all that is allowed.” The competition takes what is usually considered to be a violent act and calls upon “anyone interested in articulating visions for the future of our built environment” to submit proposals for “the production of voids; the demolition of buildings, structures, and infrastructures; or the subtraction of objects and/or matter as a creative act.” The intent of the “competition of the competition of competitions” is to elicit ideas about demolition, to provoke criticism, and to speculate. Judges include Jeff Byles, author of Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition; architect and professor at Yale University, Keller Easterling; associate professor and associate dean at the New School’s School of Media Studies and adjunct curator of new media arts at the Whitney Museum of American Art, Christiane Paul; and principal of  Selldorf Architects, Annabelle Selldorf. Monetary prizes will be awarded to first, second, and third place winners; winning entries and “any additional entries deemed to be worthy of publication” will be published by Storefront for Art & Architecture. Entries are due on January 20th. More information, including specific eligibility and criteria, can be found here.
Placeholder Alt Text

SOFTlab’s “Nova” pavilion brightens cold New York nights with psychadelic light

Suburban folk mark the change of seasons with spring peepers, the sound of leaf blowers, and first frosts. City dwellers rely on other environmental cures: pumpkin spice lattes, heat season, and festive public art installations. Last week, the Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership Business Improvement District (BID) and the Van Alen Institute welcomed crowds to SOFTlab's Nova, the 2015 winner of the Flatiron Public Plaza Holiday Design Competition. Perched inside North Flatiron Public Plaza at the intersection of Broadway, Fifth Avenue, and 23rd Street, Nova invites passersby into a kaleidoscopic interior to view area landmarks—the Empire State Building, the Flatiron, and the Met Life Tower—on its mirrored surfaces and through its many exposures. When activated by sound, LEDs pulse to intensify the psychedelic visuals. The design has definite antecedents in SOFTlab's pavilion at this year's SXSW music festival in Austin, Texas. Here too, the firm partnered with 3M to create a multicolored neon canopy that showcased the company's products. Van Alen and the Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership invited New York–based architecture and design firms Bureau V, Method Design, Sage and Coombe, Studio KCA, and SOFTlab to submit proposals for the competition. Competition jurors included Van Alen and the Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership directors and board members; Michael Bierut, partner, Pentagram; Aleksey Lukyanov, partner, Situ Studio; and Wendy Feuer, NYC Department of Transportation's Assistant Commissioner of Design + Art + Wayfinding. "The installation illustrates how interactive public art can change the perception of an environment thereby allowing people to experience it in a new way," Feuer explained in a statement. "We count on organizations like the Partnership to commission these exciting installations making NYC streets ever more inviting." This is the holiday design competition's second year. Last year, INABA won the competition with their installation, New York Light. See the gallery below for more images of Nova.  
Placeholder Alt Text

Eavesdrop> Everyone’s a winner? Mitchell Joachim and Michael Sorkin square off with rival anti-Guggenheim competitions

What is it about architect Mitchell Joachim that he cannot let go of his Oedipal desire to go after his former "father" employer Michael Sorkin? Not happy about the direction of Sorkin’s non-profit Terreform, Joachim went out and founded his own 501c3, Terreform ONE. Most recently, Sorkin co-organized and sponsored The Next Helsink—with Checkpoint Helsinki, Terreform, Occupy Museums, and Global Ultra Luxury Faction (G.U.L.F.)—a protest “call for ideas” to the high profile Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition. This alternative competition received hundreds of entries and allowed multiple voices to critique the official Guggenheim one. With Sorkin’s project about to publish a book of its entries, Joachim has now posted online a page of his own where he declares Terreform One the winner of “The New Official Alternative Award Winners of the Guggenheim Helsinki architecture and urban design counter-competition.” It is hard to tell how Mr. Joachim wants us to take the competition. His "winning" design features a bare rear-end with windows. Also, the “competition” seems not have had jurors and or even a call to submit. He claims it was co-sponsored by Anonymous Finland, the Libertarian Anti-Ellsworth Toohey League, Occupy Helsinki, and Eco-communalism. This anti-anti-competition seems to believe it is showing up Next Helsinki, but who can save Sorkin from Joachim? Politico doesn't seem to mind all the fuss, however. The online magazine recently profiled Joachim in the video below.
Placeholder Alt Text

Registration Open! Here’s what you need to know about AN’s 3rd Annual Best of Design Awards

The Architect's Newspaper is thrilled to announce its 3rd Annual Best of Design Awards. It’s a unique opportunity to showcase your great buildings, building elements, and other architectural-based categories that are not covered by other competitions. This year, AN's Best of Design Awards has expanded to include 18 categories. Here are just a few of the new additions to this year’s categories: Building of the Year Since AN publishes four regional editions—East, West, Midwest, and Southwest, we’re seeking the best new building in each of these regions. Architectural Models Whichever form is your favorite—virtual or analog, interior or exterior, landscaping or urban— show the world how you build, just at a smaller scale. Your model does not need to have come to fruition. All scaled architecture types are eligible. Temporary Installation Whether your installation is a site-specific exhibition or it created an entirely new site, enter your work that showcases materials, techniques and invention. Urban Design Built or unbuilt, enter your design plans that focus on groupings of buildings, street and public spaces to create a more sustainable and functional neighborhood or city. Young Architects Award Emerging architects or firms often have the talent but don’t always get the glory. This category seeks to celebrate the work of young practices (10 years or less) or professionals (35 years or less). All project types are eligible. Competition entrants will be judged by a jury that includes Craig Dykers, founding partner of Snøhetta; Julio Braga, principal of IA Interior Architects; and Ana Garcia Puyol, computational designer at Thornton Tomasetti and winner in the student built work category of last year's Best of Design Awards. For each category winner and honorable mentions, the jury will be looking at a project’s strength of presentation, evidence of innovation, creative use of new technology, sustainability, and, most importantly, good design. Registration is open through October 9th and the submission deadline is November 2nd. Much more information about the competition, including past years’ winners, see the Best of Design Awards site.