Opera House of the Future, Düsseldorf
Sponsor: City of Düsseldorf, Germany
Facilitator: [phase eins], Berlin Email: datenpool@phase1.de
Type: Invited, RfQ with open session for additional qualifiers
Language: German (documents also available in English on request)
Qualifications:
Architects in collaboration with landscape architects, engineers for technical equipment and engineers for structural design. For more details, see Annex 1 to the competition announcement (under 2.1.1), available at www.odz-wettbewerb.de.
Firms already invited to participate:
– Snøhetta, Oslo
• gmp International, Berlin
• Henning Larsen Architects, Copenhagen
• HPP Generalplanung GmbH, Düsseldorf with Rehwaldt Landschaftsarchitekten, Dresden
• Christoph ingenhoven architects, Düsseldorf with West 8 urban design & landscape architecture, Rotterdam
• Prof. Jörg Friedrich Studio PFP GmbH, Hamburg with Rainer Schmidt Landschaftsarchitekten GmbH, Munich
Timetable:
31 July – 4 September 2024 – Online forum
11 September 2024 18:00:00 (UTC+2) – Receipt of requests to participate:
Awards:
1st prize – €250,000
2nd prize – €185,000
3rd prize – €125,000
4th prize – €60,000
Expert Jury:
Ulrike Böhm, Landschaftsarchitektin, Berlin
Univ. Prof. Brian Cody, Ingenieur, Graz
Andreas Cukrowicz, Architekt, Graz
Prof. Hannelore Deubzer, Architektin, Berlin/München
Heiner Farwick, Architekt, Ahaus
Jochen Kral, Stadtplaner, Beigeordneter für Mobilität, Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf
Prof. Regula Lüscher, Architektin, Winterthur
Prof. Hilde Léon, Architektin, Berlin
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Peter Mark, Ingenieur, Dortmund
Wesko Rohde, Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik, Oldenburg
Dorothée Schneider, Architektin, Stadtkämmerin, Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf
Prof. Katinka Temme, Architektin, Augsburg
Prof. Anca Timofticiuc, Architektin, Berlin
Prof. Jörn Walter, Stadtplaner, Hamburg
Robin Winogrond, Landschaftsarchitektin, Zürich
Cornelia Zuschke, Architektin, Beigeordnete für Planen, Bauen, Wohnen und Grundstückswesen,
Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf
Position of the prize recipient in the ranking list: 4
Additional information: A total of EUR 2,640,000 (net) is available for prizes and expense allowances. Of this amount, EUR 620,000 is for prizes and EUR 2,020,000 for expense allowances. If participants in Germany pay VAT on the services provided in this competition, this will be reimbursed in addition to the prizes. In the 1st phase, a total sum of EUR 1,320,000 (net) will be paid out in equal shares as a lump-sum expense allowance to all participants who submit a verifiable work in accordance with the required competition services in the 1st phase. In addition, a total sum of 700,000 euros (net) will be paid out in equal shares as a lump-sum expense allowance to all participants in the 2nd phase who submit a verifiable work in accordance with the required competition performance in the 2nd phase.
Process:
Description: IPM is conducting a restricted, two-phase realization competition in accordance with Sections 69 ff, Sections 78 ff VgV and Section 3 (3) and (4) RPW 2013, followed by a negotiated procedure without a call for competition in accordance with Section 14 (4) No. 8 VgV. The competition is aimed at general planners (architects and landscape architects together with specialist planners) and will be held anonymously. The competition will be organized in coordination with the North Rhine-Westphalia Chamber of Architects and the North Rhine-Westphalia Chamber of Civil Engineers. In a first step, the awarding authority will select 24 to 30 participants for the realization competition. 6 of these are the authors of the designs mentioned under 5.1.12 that were awarded prizes in a preceding urban planning ideas competition. Up to 24 further participants will be selected via the open competition. For criteria for the selection of participants, see Annex 1 to the competition announcement (under 2.2), available at www.odz-wettbewerb.de. Once the participants have been selected, the organizer will ask them to complete the competition task of the 1st phase. After completion of the 1st phase, the jury will select 6 to 8 participants for the 2nd phase of the competition.
The jury will select the winners from among the participants in the 2nd competition phase. The selection of the jury is based on the criteria specified in Annex 1 to the competition announcement under 2.7, available at www.odz-wettbewerb.de. The language of the procedure is German; the client reserves the right to provide individual documents in the competition procedure in English (as a service). In this case, the German version remains binding. If instructed to do so by the LHD, the IPM will enter into a negotiated procedure without a call for competition with the winners of the competition for the award of the contract. Here, it will first examine the suitability of the prizewinners in accordance with the criteria set out under 2.2.2 and 2.8 in Annex 1 to the competition announcement. The prizewinners must submit the documents listed there following a separate request. The organizer will then enter into negotiations with all suitable prizewinners and, following an indicative bid phase, invite them to submit a final binding bid. IPM will take appropriate account of the ranking in the competition when evaluating bids. Further information will be made available during the course of the competition or the negotiation procedure.
Website: www.odz-wettbewerb.de
Email: kontakt@ipm.nrw
|
San Jose’s Urban Confluence Winner Cancelled
This week we received the news that the winning design for San Jose’s Urban Confluence competition by SMAR Architecture Studio has been cancelled. This comes after the original competition site was abandoned in favor of one more centrally located in downtown San Jose, Plaza de César Chávez. We can only assume that even this wasn’t enough to generate enough interest from major donors. From the very beginning of the competition, it appeared that the enthusiasm of those sponsoring the competition might be lacking links to potential donors with deep pockets—the hi-tech firms in Silicon Valley. After the competition resulted in a design that certainly entailed a major budget, the project had to be in trouble. The competition did produce a remarkable design; but this turned out to be another case where a competition, intended to generate enough public interest to fund a major project, came up short. -Ed
“A Museum for All”
Winning entry by Weiss/Manfredi Landscape Architecture and Urbanism
Background
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art’s slogan “Creating a Museum for All” certainly reflects the efforts of many art museums to counter the notion that art museums exist primarily to cater to an elitist few. But one should note that this competition for an expansion of the museum’s capacity to serve a wider audience saw an initial step in this direction with the 1999 competition resulting in the Steven Holl addition, a series of pavilions stretching down one side of the large lawn area..
Read more…
Preparation and Organization of Design Competitions
[phase 1] Benjamin Hossbach / Christian Lehmhaus / Christine Eichelmann
210 × 230 mm, 192 pp.
over 600 images
softcover
ISBN 978-3-86922-316-2 (English)
ISBN 978-3-86922-240-0 (German)
Dom Publishers
€48 in EU (For price abroad, see below)
Founded in 1998 in Berlin, Phase 1 has been a principal player in the organization and facilitation of design competitions, not only in Germany, but abroad as well. The accomplishments of the firm have been well documented in three volumes—The Architecture of Competitions—beginning in 2i006. Whereas these books mainly focused on the results of the competitions they have administered, the present work, Fundamentals of Competition Management, takes one from the very beginnings of the competition process to its conclusion. The authors envisioned the publication as “three three books in one: one „blue book“ with example projects, one „yellow book“ with statements and the „white book“ with the actual guideline to competition management.”
Although there have been a number of handbooks covering the administration of designcompetitions a study covering the entire process in such detail is a welcome addition to the the literature in this field. As a contribution to this important democratic process that has yielded exceptional design for decades, this volume is not only valid for Europe, but a current overview of the process for those globally who wish to raise the level of design by virtue of a design competition. -Ed
Foreign institutions wishing to obtain a copy of the book will recieve a discount to cover the cost of foreign shipping.
To obtain a copy for that offer, go to: accounting@phase1.de
Since the recent realization of SMAR Architecture’s winning design we have now received images from a professional photo shoot. As an open competition for one of the more important projects in Europe at the time, we feel that full documentation of the process from start to finish was an important page in the history of architecture in the early 21st century. Documentation by us during the 2017 competition, with images from all finalists from the 144 entries is available at:
/competitions-static/2020/11/science-island-design-competition-finalists/
See more images…
Completed IMEX by Tuck Hinton Architects. Photo courtesy Anecdote
It is not often that we look back to a competition that occurred three decades ago that was also covered in detail by COMPETITIONS (Vol. 4, #4; pp. 14-27). What made the Chattanooga IMAX different back in 1994 was that the article covering that competition was authored by Prof. Marleen Davis, then Dean of the University of Tennessee’s School of Architecture and a member of the jury panel. This was not just a short article, covering the high points of the competition with a few talking points about the winning design. This 4,000+ word document also described in detail the jury’s observations about all the finalists, including the honorable mentions—one of the few times we have gained such a detailed glimpse in this country from the inside of the competition process.
Read more…
Winning entry by Luca Poian Forms Image ©Filippo Bolognese images
Good design seldom happens in a vacuum. And so it was with an international competition for a new mosque in Preston, U.K. A mid-sized city of 95,000, and located in Lancashire near the west coast and almost equally distant from London and Glasgow, Preston has a storied past, going all the way back to the Romans and the late Middle Ages, where it was the site of significant battles. During the Industrial Revolution, the city prospered, and it was not until after World War II that Preston experienced the British version of the U.S. Rust Belt. In the meantime, the city has experienced an upswing in economic activity, with an unemployment rate of only 3%. Aside from the appearance of new industries, the city has benefitted from the establishment of Central Lancashire University (CLU), which employs over 3,000 faculty and staff, and, as such, is one of the regions major employers. Any new university requires new facilities, and one of the most outstanding examples of this at CLU was the new Student Centre and Plaza, a result of a 2016 RIBA-sponsored competition won by Hawkins/Brown
Read More
Changdong Station winner – image ©D & B Partners Architects
Whereas international competitions for real projects have become a rarity lately, Korea is a welcome exception. Among the plethora of competition announcements we receive almost weekly, several have ended with foreign firms as winners. But the history of welcoming international participants does go back several years. One notable early example was the Incheon Airport competition, won by Fentress Bradburn Architects (1962-70).
Among the more recent successes of foreign firms was the Busan Opera House competition, won by Snøhetta (2013-) and the Sejong Museum Gardens competition, won by Office OU, Toronto (2016-2023).
Read more…
1st Place: Zaha Hadid Architects – night view from river – Render by Negativ
Arriving to board a ferry boat or cruise ship used to be a rather mundane experience. If you had luggage, you might be able to drop it off upon boarding, assuming that the boarding operation was sophisticated enough. In any case, the arrival experience was nothing to look forward to. I recall boarding the SS United States for a trip to Europe in the late 1950s. Arriving at the pier in New York, the only thought any traveler had was to board that ocean liner as soon as possible, find one’s cabin, and start exploring. If you were in New York City and arriving early, a nearby restaurant or cafe would be your best bet while passing time before boarding.
Read more…
|
