The UK team of Chris Hardie, Andrew Groake and Kevin Carmody won the 2004 burhnam prize last night in chicago. 2nd place went to the Chicago team Digital DOA. www.chicagoarchitectureclub.org
The phase one jury commented on the professional binding of the submittal [HUH??] which greatly influenced the selection.
Generally, no scheme challenged the brief, all schemes physically worked within the project boundaries, however, none truely addressed the concept of reclamation of the river. Yawn.
Projects will be exhibited begining 1 July at Ispace Gallery, Chicago.
Very low turnout to announcement and lecture.
Nothing posted as of yet, but give it a week or so.
51 Comments
Ted, if you have the details, please post the exhibition info to the Event Calendar.
hey, Ted. still vividly remember your submission..airport landing for Ted airline. that was a great post on archinect v.1.
Wasn't the lecture supposed to be the 17th (as previously stated on the website)? Maybe that is the reason for the low turnout.
both club and archinect http://archinect.com/events/detail.php?id=E423 had it right at the 16th. club never updated their web site for the details[and still dont], but i am am member so got a card in the mail and posted details on archinect events. lecture was pretty good, surprised after some 20+ years in practice [as they said] R+U didnt show anything built[bet it doesnt exist].
thanks d-t. they jury for this was not the right group and if R+U were on phase i i would have been selecteted. not visionaries.....boring...one would say. they had shortlisted 10 people and 2 submissions did not make it to the deadline [which between phase I and Phase II was not even 1 month with the requirement to produce 3 boards]. most entries just put their book images on a larger boards.
certain the TED image will re-emurge at some time in the life again of these boards......
I'm upset that I missed it. The event two years ago was worth the trip over there and there were a couple of submissions that were pretty good. It's too bad it was so dissappointing this year.
yah, if i remember two years ago the lecture was absolutely packed [was it sorkin?]. he lectured way too long.....on mappping of isreal i think?
even when the brief came out this year, lots of typos, inconsistancies, spelling crap mistakes [not that i should talk], but really it didnt seem the organizers put what they needed to do to make it sing[the obviously just edited the brief doc from 2 years ago. never posted details of the lecture on the website...never announced the full jury make up....took over 2 weeks to post the finalist...but on the flyer[which i only got last saturday]t said there would be an overflow space with telecast of the lecture. if it wasnt for the 10-12 jury members that showed up, the room would have been virtually empty. Ah, chicago and competitions.....need i say more?
although the R+U lecture was pretty good, half of it was appeared to be from lectures they give to students. reiser puts too many words in his statements to make it sound more conceptual than it is and umemoto's english [after some 20-25 years here] is quit broken but she is far more articulate that he is. probably wears the pants in the family......they showed 4 projects, a house [not built], a competition they won in taiwan and 2 bmw comps in germany, one they said they lost and the other they did not say what the status was.
Hey there was some Japanese girl on that team that won. AG it wasn't that great of a lecture except for the brief intro on RUR's own work. The whole river taxi thing is, well a stupid idea to me.
yah, your right. i didn't write down the names and she wasnt listed in the phase I team on the web site. couldnt also remember which ones were the 3rd prize and 2 honorable mentions [5 prizes for 8 submissions?]
on archinect v1, i said the same thing regarding the ill concieved brief. they should have just said 'do a project about / at the river' -- and leave it at that. the river is important and reiser said the winning scheme address the transistion between street to river. great.
I personally like the submission which cleaned the river. I don't know what the whole thing was about exactly because I was in no mood to read it, but I liked the idea of a structure which cleans up the ills of the past. even though the scheme was a little overbearing on the site at a formal level.
To further my point on the water taxi thing its just another reaffirming of Burnham's foolish idea of recreating chicago into a venice of the midwest. I mean give it a rest chicago! It was a cheesy idea when it was first conceived.
jj, i think it was the first sub near the door? a jury member from the first jury said that one was changed considerably from P1 to P2 and to their dissappointment, became much more conservative. the P1 submission extended the cleanning elements throughout the river etc., and the P2 became much more linear.
with all the bs going on by daley now regarding beach closing and milwaukee, still the river of venice is a sewer. our discharge goes into the deep tunnel and to mississippi. not in our back yard, perhaps not as bad but still you cant just point to the cheesehead of the north for pollution of our waterways.
We didn't bother to submit our 2nd round entry because a.) There should have been a $150-$250 stipend to cover additional rendering/printing/mounting/freight costs. b.) If we had won (which we had planned on doind [no ego intended]), that would be three months that our (NYC) office would have lost momentum. We are now getting quite busy w/ real projects in NYC/Europe. Would've been nice to get an official finalst's letter to frame...
your probably better off only one person can go to the american academy in rome. I think that UK team with four members will have a hard time choosing who should go.
Trudat. Did anyone else end up getting the official finalist's letter?
i did miss yours jetcetera. looked for it. asked why only 8 of 10?
really they should publish all the comps, and really 6 of 8 of the submission were just board hard copies of the books submisssion.
people have delayed [up to a year] going so next time maybe dont believe what they say about when you can go. i dont think the competition i saw was strong.
maybe you should write to the club. it just reflects even more the dis-order of the order.....
i still think they only really went through the motions because it 'was time' to do the competition, and didnt have the energy to do it right. in fairness to weese[who didnt show up], \just had twins. perhaps someone else should have stepped up for the guy who really had too much on his plate.
correction TED... "weese" was in attendance for both the exhibition and the lecture.
there seems to be a bit of sour grapes here guys! although it was a disappointment that more people didnt turn up, there is no denying that the winning scheme was streets ahead of anything else there!
i thought the lecture was o.k. rieser suffers from verbal diarrhea of the highest order sometimes.....dont talk just build!
TED, we were Finalist #7, in book form for the 1st round submission. If we had known in specific terms re: the option the defer the fellowship, we sure as hell would have submitted for the 2nd round. Dems da breaks...
sorry bobby b. didnt see weese. my mistake.
i know jetcetera, by your member id and web link. i think jetcetera, they might have implied in the q&A about 'an exact' time frame. i know one burnhnam winner in the past that did defer. we can make you a finalist certif if they dont come through or why not make it yourself....it would probably look great then.
bobsven, i thought the lecture was good, did say so. since the competition was on the river, i would have like to have seen R+U van allen insti fellow research they did on east river[?] in new york. it would have been good to see it and perhaps connect their study to the comp some how[thinking that perhaps maybe this is why they were invited in the first place as jury chairs...] and after all, if we cant bitch and moan on archinect [with some positive suggestions which are in each of the post] where can we bitch?
too little was said by the jury comments. that is clearly a big disappointment. good to see the books for P1 there.
R+U was selected precisely because of relevant river work.
i witnessed both juries for the BP and can state that the level of discourse was exceptional. great care was taken in determining which projects should advance and be recognised. the comment about the binding on the first round was merely anecdotal...
bitching and hopefully constructive criticism is always welcome. The CAC will be working continuously on improving competitions as well as events.
look for the chicago prize early next year... to be announced well in advance of the due date... with a tightly written program and a high profile jury...
Bobby B, Do you know if any official letters have gone or will go out?
The CAC will be issuing certificates to the winners ... there has been no discussion about official letters for finalists beyond what was already sent. i will address that issue in the next coordination meeting.
sounds like partisan jive talk to me. what are you the future CAC president or something? nice try with the fake user name "bobby b." And what relevant river work are you speaking of that garden for Kipnis? or their Yokohama Port Terminal. Why don't you just admit that Jesse Reiser and Ben Nicholson went Cranbrook together - it’s perfectly fine to do so they are a good firm which does good work and are perfect judges for your competition. Just relax guy.
uh...i believe bobby b is a co-president for the next season
Never got a letter, just a phone call, which was cool too...!
well he should state that - especially if he is going to use this as a forum for CAC.
bobby b.....get a hold of yourself....or perhaps let yourself go cuz your holding too tight man!!
my comment with regard to discourse was that i wish i could have heard more meaningful comments from the jury members on the submitted schemes, the finalist, the winner, etc, there was far too little comment given to the lecture group with regard to jury comments and i thought that would be great to here. reisers comments [lack of them] left left me thinking [and yes it is my opinion only but i am human last i looked!!!] he wasnt connected with any of the submissions. the club is the venue where that type of discourse should happen like crazy.
i never stated as you are implying that within the jury sessions they didnt have a good back and forth and the thing was flawed in some way. gosh. :-) take a bit of pressure off your hold man.
its miller time.
and by the way, just send a f'ing letter to jetceter, he worked like a dog on his submission and 'its a good thing' to do as martha would say......
hey jj,
R+U were van allen institute fellows and did this big year study on the east river and relationship to NY, the FDR, cars next to river, people next to river, etc. i saw it in NY but my mind is a bit foggy now; publication is out of print. THAT project would have connected the BP competition better. a loss for us, i guess.
perhaps with next years 'high profile jury' we can look forward to something special!!! yes. well, ok. sounds like the cubs....maybe next year.....
just kidding bobby b.
we love ya!!
the thing is every year they do these elaborate spectacles (the spertus and this year the water taxis). with all the "problems" chicago has - the contiued change of the city, the division between the south side and the north side, public housing etc, the club doesn't address anything on the city of greater social need. What will the next year's competition bring a casino on meigs field? I'm sure Chairman Daly would love that! with that oen you could send two or three people to rome.
why not projects which have a deeper social resonance instead of highbrow design projects. why not take one of Nicholson's architectonic visions and make it a competition or something. The bottom line is who needs water taxis when the city continues to be segregated?
That small school competition a few years back was one of the best things I've ever been a part of - even though my jobby job prevented completion - going down there to 123rd and wentworth and talking to the students, having them draw pictures, and wandering the dangerous streets of the wild hundreds (where I didn't see one white person till 95th and dan ryan) was amazing and enlightening. What is enlightening about creating a tourist trap? I have no idea.
BEcause that was run by a group of folks what understood what you need to give and get to the competition entrants to run a truely fair international comp. they published a great document [which you could get for free if you called them ]and another document on the project, process, etc. and the south side school IS BEING BUILT as we speak! that is the bench mark for comps.
the biggest problem with the club comps is 1)that they are not endowed, and perhaps dont understand the really big effort to do it right. i understand that. however, they have tended to be toy boys for the mayors agenda sometimes this past year [central area plan lectures/testing via the chicago prize, the river] 2) i would say at the present, there are few active members of the club that 'practice' a strong social agenda v. marketing it and want to focus on that[sam m is all about that and pete l. although not presently on the board, he was president in the past]. there is a continuous recycling of the same board members over the last 4 years so the agenda is self promotion to the mayors fetishes [do you think bobby b will kick me out?]
i dont know what influence ben had on the brief agenda as i dont see him alot at club events. they didnt mention him on the big committee credits.
the river is an important issue, the city with its 'DEsign guidelines' continues to compromise the river edge. blow it up i say. dont just put a 50' box around the edge and say go for it, put your best foot forward and put a piece of decorated crap on it with sexy 'isms and say 'got it!' if it was an idea comp it should have allowed us to create those ideas not just the fancy wrapping of someones idea. the river edge present and as planned is a disaster and takes the lowest of priorites within its place of the city. its about creating a new vision not just decorating the past mistakes. not to knock the winning entry, but why not. there wasnt an enviromental reclamantion idea presented nor river walk....but it did have an absolutely beautiful bound book and the images were very pretty as the jury said. referenced Judd, but from a materiality standpoint it was only an ism, a wedge in the edge of some unknow thin filled nurb surface.
We had some flawed 'social' comps like the CHA comp near UofI and of course the Cabrini comp, not the club.
if you saw my post on archinect v1, my vote is for a casino on northerly. then again, richie is my uncle.
i couldn't make it this time round. did anybody take any photographs of the submissions that can be posted on the site?
ted and john
the biggest problem with the club is that this sort of discussion does not happen during club events. we will make a concerted effort to change this for next season.
I don’t agree that the river comp was too "highbrow" for social relevance. The river has serious potential and the club wished to study that potential before the city committed the opportunity to private enterprise. one hope was to put the competition before the city to assist the thought process of future development. I believe the short duration of the competition made entering much more difficult.
You are right about a lack of endowment, but the board is very aware of the budget and fundraises continuously. This has become a major issue for the future of the club and will be discussed openly next season.
“Chairman Daley†that is classic…
I also think the river is and should be part of the club agenda and potential has a very strong social agenda; not in the context presented by the competition brief. lets go deeper, how could we architects let the city miss an a great opportunity to rethink the river edge when wacker was rebuilt? it was very telling at the river lecture of 20 april when the PM for the city stated 'we were working with this real estate developer[who btw are big rich political contibutors] to think thru how to program eating spots on the river'!! wrong!! the department of transportation just because they have a big budget shouldnt be the lead agency in setting the priorities of future infrastructure developement. cars v. people, cars will and have ruled under any DOT decision making scenario. clearly that person, by the way they spoke, had no clue what was needed in this process so this is the person making the decisions / recommndations on how to go forward with river front development? give me one reason why wacker drive between columbus and LSD is three levels and almost 20% wider than LSD itself? creates a complete disconnection to the park and river.
we at the club should not only put forth an agenda that continues to support the cities / mayors single agenda formed by transportation engineers without serious planning / involvment of the architectural community except when its time to add the decorative bits.
its never too late to correct the mistakes of the past and to be idealist. that should be the first and formost mission of the club and the greater chi town architectural community. not just rubber stamping after the fact.
i know i am preaching to the choir.
ill give my best to uncle richie for you......were headed to kominsky i mean 'the cell' next week.
for one...
architects need to be involved in the political leadership of the community, city, state and federal entities...
cleary bobby b, you havent been around chi town that long.
i grew up in the 11th ward, am headed to the democratic convention as a delegate so please, off the soap box. im ABB and have extremely strong acted upon opinions; been arrested by da mayor in the LSD march, marched in wash, etc.
within the borders of our city, money and groups to some regard have some voice. quasi architectual voices exist in groups i am a member in such as CNT, MHPC, FofR, campaign for sensible growth, metropolis 2020. each of these groups have specific agendas that i align with but are not necessarily specific with regard to architecture. why shouldnt CAC challenge planning[or the true lack of it] / zoning / codes/ with meaningfull discourse about new directions. set a new threshold. look at groups like van allen, not the club, well endowed, but pushes the direction of architecture, for public, for government, for the practice into new directions.
i truely doubt with those i know in the club that their vision of the club is to accept and rubber stamp what goes on in the city.
off my soap box? surely you dont mean discourage opinion in an open forum.
ted... while you may be a shining example of the future, architects in general are not well represented politically.
the van alen institute is good inspiration for the club. this past spring the future direction of the club was debated sincerely by the board. this summer, via email, and early sessions next season this topic is likely to be opened up for debate with the entire membership.
personally, i agree with you. the competition programs must be written with enough focus to make an impact. then the subsequent exhibits, press and open debates surrounding the competitions must support the club's initiatives.
to the toronto team......
i did get your message today....archinect mails default to my 'junk mail' and doesnt go to outlook so i went to check hotmail today and saw it.
i do remember your entry, it was great. one of the phase I jury members commented to me that they were supprised you had developed the scheme much further. it was the first set of boards i was attracted to because of the strength and scale of the renderings on the top of the board was drawing.
but i think you might have gotten an honorable mention.....maybe others mentioned it to you?
perhaps bobby b. can post all the winners names [4th member from 1st prize] and the 3rd and honorable places.
the winning scheme also, didnt change the basic design but had some developed some of their drawings a bit more. they had these lovely hand / photoshop enhanced sketches in their P1 book that they didnt include in the boards. i liked them better in the P1 book than the final.
the boards should be up at Ispace on the 1st of july and i am going to guess that they are up for a month or so.
the one comment from phase i jury was that they choose a diverse range. dont take what is said on this thread seriously, sometimes it is to stir conversation and a bit of debate.....
Here is the list of winners:
honorable mention
kevin patrick mcclellan
honorable mention
gibson, katz and shearer
grant gibson
gila katz
steve shearer
third place
thomas de monchaux
second place
digital - doa
jeffrey sipprell
michael mcatee
first place
carmody groarke hardie
chris hardie
kevin carmody
andrew groarke
kaori oshugi
bobby b., i ownly took your comment of 12:02 directing our attention to places outside the club for 'action' as meaning 'the club is not the place to stir the waters'.......the same bs that the AIA believes....
as you know, their are many many architects in the city that disassociates anything and everything from architecture unless it comes out of the clients mouth directly or our of Sweets Catalogue no. 8.
the club is the right place for it to happen and they members are the right group to make it happen[they want it].....just set the bar as high as possible as a goal.
earlier i wrote about my issue with the club was that there was not enough debate..dialogue etc. and that we hope to adjust that in the future. the club is exactly the right place to start. but the club is NOT enough. the public obviously must be engaged directly and led.
agreed
btw [god i hate that abbrev] we had a rip-roaring good discussion [some 100 post] on archinect v. 1 on the burhnam prize and as you are a new surfer, bobby b, maybe just put a few of the comments....not mine but....
from 'foxy fox'....
There are so few submissions because people know they never pick a good project, and beyond that.. its a two round competition where they ask quite a bit from the second round entrants (usually 4- 24x36 boards) but they give you zero money for a second round stipend... i think this is prob the only competition where they dont compensate the second round entrants...chicago seems to just be lousy with competition management..
Chicago is going to really alienate architects with this kind of behaviour...
Someone once told me the burnham prize really is just to bring a famous architect to chicago so the Arch Club can meet him and feel important...i wonder if thats true.
from the ever clever ;your name'
fox fox - are you kidding? Are you making that up? Last year's winner was awesome and they weren't famous. They require 4 boards not 6. The winner gets a 3 month stay in Rome with everything paid for plus $3000. Do your research bud.
from daniel b.
What I have always found is that 'size doesn't matter' with regard to competitions. you really have to put as much thought into 10-8.5x11 sheets of paper as the big boards. The little format is deceiving. It is an idea competition and the club is not as well endowed as Van Allan Institute or other NY institution are. I suspect your comment regarding ‘famous’, is the key jury member, not the winner. Well that’s really a bizarre comment and there are more meager methods to meet ‘famous architects’. Chicago, like many major urban areas, has Zoning and no planning, the competition allows visions about the future of the city to come forward for discussion, like Michigan Avenue in 2002 and the Rivers this year. I'm glad they take the time to do it
foxy fox again
Maybe,
But it seems a bit ridiculous to ask for so much for a 2 stage competition without compensation...
They can run their competition however they choose, but there is a reason why so few enter..
your name again.....
So few enter because it is an ideas competition. Most people cannot afford to enter unbuilt competitions and even if they do win, most people can take 3 months off to travel to Rome. Only certain types of people really want to win this type of competition.
daniel b again.....
I agree with the point of amount they ask for without compesation. when it was a 'midwest only' competition, to do a short charette was easy because it think people were somewhat familiar or had attitutes formed with the urban issues. i think they need to re-think the whole structure a bit more by opening it up to an international audience. it will always be about a 'chicago issue' but both time [1 month] and the information they give are a bit lean to compete unless they are really familiar with Chicago. Considering that less than 1 month is given for the second part, that is a lot of work. I seem to remember one burnham in the past that the second part was only one board [maybe 1998]
from 'sugar loaf'
that's why it's worhwhile to enter ideas competitions. even if it's rigged, or biased or poorly run- it's still a forum for new ideas and it gives some structure for the kind of creative work that rarely happens in offices.
the problem is having enough time and energy to devote to it when you're trying to earn a living. I agree that the hosts of these kind of competitions should be required to produce an exhibit and a publication of the better entries. Jurors could also be called upon to produce essays that describe how the process went, and where their own commitments and pre-dispositions lay. In this way the all or nothing aspect of winning and losing would be circumvented in the direction of a more meaningful public dialog.
from karen...
I agree with the sugarloaf post. The WTC has a website with all of the memorial entries, and there are many others that either publish the entries or have them on exhibit. The emphasis should be less on prizes and more on the work.
and from TED....
I just looked a bit at the graham site, they had 104 entries on LP and exhibited some 24 [from all over the us] and are publishing a document with 12 entries. that's amazing!! It would be great if the club can consider find some money for a publication of the finalist because the ideas will be lost in the virtual world or worse in the dust bin; sometimes i know it 1 may end up in the journal, but if the competition is to have the conversation, to develop visions and to inspire not just us architects who choose to participate but also the gobbs of those who actually are shaping the world we live. it would be great if a physical product was out there and not just the virtual world. Maybe graham can cough up some funds.
well
no question that the club must do better in the post competition department. as a finalist/ 3rd place finish in last year's chicago prize, i felt the club did not do enough to publicise the results. the website is an obvious first step. we will make that happen. exhiibits are harder than one would think...here we will have to be creative. most of the obvious places schedule exhibitions years in advance and right now are not willing to show club competitions. we are searching for viable opportunities. they are likely to be unconventional but that is okay.
i am interested in the idea of adjusting the competitions... but there is a convenience to doing the 2 stage version. the books are easy to put together, time and money, and are easier to jury in large quantities. then, only the finalists must pay for large board set ups. perhaps we should no longer allow members to submit for free...and then offer a small stipend to finalists. furthermore, as i wrote earlier, time is an issue. we must give more time for the competition...more entrants means more money and more ideas...more choices for jurors.
thanks for posting the other comments. i have directed the entire board to this site... the feedback is quite helpful.
i would suggest you write off and get a copy of the UIA international competition guide from paris. i have a copy; its quit good.
not to follow all uia points completely, but i think it is a mistake [as uia recommends] not to have the same jury for both phases. the selection of R+U for the chief jury members was brilliant and most appropriate, however, the competition did not benifit from this selection in anyway as the the knowledge and study they gained thru the van allen fellowship was meaningless because the the phase i jury had already determined an agenda in place.
its miller time again. ill give my best to uncle richie for you when i see him at monday's game.
yeah... give my best to uncle richie.. tell him i miss the airport. (i really do)
with the sox out of sorts this pm, definitely not time to bring that up.....he does have a bit of a temper.....but wait till you see what maggie has in mind......
the winning project can be seen here
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.