- Cityscape of knowledge (???) -- great scheme -- book system works
The above is from my first comment. How ridiculous. I thought … maybe, I’ll try to sneak my entry into the forum discussion, and then everyone will start commenting like “Wow what a project”, or “City Of Knowledge will certainly win”. I thought the members of the jury would certainly google looking for forum discussions, and find this forum. And, I thought, when that had occurred, the jury would consider my project. “Look at this City Of Knowledge … what a book distribution system, etc. …”
This didn’t happen. Instead all I got -- and I asked for it – was Filver’s comment:
-city of knowledge I can not even look at that plan, to me those kind of plans that are lecturing Asplund how to make a rotunda are of the worst kind. Maybe a very personal critic.
One thing that I think would be of interest to you all, is that I had conceived the book distribution system with the company that did the Seattle Library full support, which I deeply appreciated. But I can’t even get into it. I’m too depressed.
i like the view inside the ellipse a lot - reminds me of that building in japan i can't put my finger on at the moment. or maybe the new gm headquarters building (who new gm could build something stunning. go figure.)
if i had a suggestion, it would be to simplify the plan, and intensify the relationship between the ellipse and the bars it crosses over- let that become your parti diagram. That would help your organizing concept to focus more.
sorry omen, had no idea people here where posting their own plans, later found out that was the case. being critised harshly is not very inspiring. To me, looking at the winners knowing that the jury is letting me know my plan was less is even harder.
Many authors of the submissions had decided they won the first stage and moved on to the second stage all by themselves showing their great skills in drawings and floorplans. The jury however was still at the first stage looking for ideas of a more poetic and basic kind. In that sense the winners can be understood om the point of view of the organiser who feels deeply connected to Asplund and at this point much less with the extension. Wish I had this wisdom while working on the extension. But I had seen Seattle, Black Diamond and the work of SANAA and others....
The good thing is next time I will be more sensitive to the ruling sentiment and less skillful. Skilfull is not how you want to be qualified. Skillful is also very time consuming...
well plans of the subarquitectura are nice and masterized, sections too, but the volume result is just weak guys... book stack for a library is just a marketer's gesture.....banks looking like safes, hospital looking like red crosses and all that biomorphism stuff ( shells, snails, and various wildlife shapes made into buildings...their website is also driving me nuts lol damn cant catch that image ;)...
aspect: big offices are not necessarely always the best projects around! Its not because oma went there that they spent the same time as on seattle ....
omen: i looked at your project:
To be frank plans are very confusing, and i have hard time understanding what u intended in a few secs...i think keeping the annexes was a mistake, and you struggled with them. Your idea would have been better as a solid form without them to my opinion...
As for the detailed plans, and the fact that the book system works... you see like us that the jury did not care at all...
stage 1: simple urban gestures ( with hidden possibilities of evolution in stage 2
stage 2: fit the damn program into the chosen shape.
subarquitectura reminds me of the LV building (somewhere i saw in the magazine, probably in japan) with shoe box stack on top of each other...
what bores me are the selected projects seems to have this fetish of display of book with miles long book shelves!!
is library a mere display of books?? what about the vast growing of othere types of medium?? these type of scheme are already obsolete model by today's standard.
...indeed Nils...but you did well. i don't think that nosce te ipsum (NTI) will survive the 2nd stage and i'm saying that without taking into account its obvious lack of...name it...
also after watching your project and 0586-tillsamans i thought that plugging yourself to the 4th wing didn't sound as bad as i thought first...but definitely not the jury's cup of tea... volumetrically i also like the balanced tower at the opposite of the site...but towers again...Nils...C'MON! YOU FORGOT TO PUT A HUGE STUPID CLOCK!!! :D
Filver, as you said it for yourself...yeah probably too big...i think your building BY ITSELF is good and shows lots of potential...but then you look down at this ridiculous little temple next to yours...and wonder "Hey...i don't need this little guy...anymore"
...so then maybe you should have gone to that silly but somehow logical conclusion..."well...let's just get rid of it "...you would have definitely be the only one there...and i'm sure Nils would have lent you his project's name ;P ...demystifying icons is definitely what most competitors forgot to do...and i include myself here...twice :D
surely names were on when pdfs were received on cd since this is the source of all files;
I noticed a number of visible names on some pdfs I looked at before the judging; of course I didn't notice these specific ones among hundreds of slow downloading files, but possibly yes (at least for a few days before they took some files down and resampled to reduce size, and possibly even after)
this is however a potential problem in the 2nd phase since it should have been anonymous 'till the end
I guess what you are meaning, and I agree: how can we trust the judging was really anonymous if all the world was able to see names on files?
not a big problem..nothing is securely anonymus..style..pdf names whatever reason and the project gives away its identity. The jury would never let this be a problem and just won't respond to or aknowlegde any identity.
thanks ulanbator for looking into my plan. you probably spend more time on it then the jury ever did. you are right about the size. I realized that the moment I saw the fist downloaded submissions of others. But looking at the size of for instance dikthornan the opposite is the case. The jury feels that in the second stage that plan can be brought within the bouderies of area 2 and as well expanded to fit the program. That's harder to do than to bring my plan or concept as you will in a more modest fashion or scale.
Its clear that Stockholm and this jury has a totally different view on the site than I have. No problem and I wish them luck. I do agree with you that I personally don't think Asplund excelled with the library and the messy 4th wing. I think his quality is better served with his later work. I would have liked to see the Asplund library as a tiny temple, well restored and used a learning zone as we suggested. The new library in my ideas would have been the place to be in Stockholm with majestic views over the city and making the underground's reason to have such a big station there. The winners choosen don't work for me. But thats not my frustration. I feel mocked in this competition because a half baked idea on the back of a post card could have done too. If its brilliant yes, if its shows the program is intelligently covered, if the competition goals where amazingly incorperated yes. Not if the jury defend its decision by letting us now they just liked the image and hopefully the second stage proves the program will fit or any of the goals can be reached. They would have saved us all a lot of time to have left out the program, the competition bounderies and the statements about world class and told us the main idea is to expose Asplund the fullest, no floorplans needed and to provide for basic suggestions for the elevations or birdseye views. I am sure they would have had much more interesting out of boundery ideas and plans to expose Asplund. Maybe 800+ inferior plans overwhelmed the jury.
I have to admit that the 5 or 6 competions the winners where never convincing. The one I won some years back was made in an hour on one letter sized piece of paper and consisted of a quick draft showing a single cross section. I was embarred to see the hard work of the other architects and to come up with my simple idea that was not at all the organiser had stated as their goal and program. They thought about it for months and gave us the project. I think we should all be happy to know time consuming competition designwork is counter productive and the silly foamboard models Koolhaas made in his earlier days made him bigger than any other office. I am convinced there is a pattern, a continous flow of underlaying forces that makes the juries decision understandable and even right. It could easily be that all who critised the juries outcome as a jury member would also vote for this unanymus desicion. The jury never submitted a plan and so never studied the program as such and where in constant contact with the organiser, their decision can be understood in that context.
Actually, the Dirk Brockman incident could turn out to be a problem. According to Google Earth, the office Brockman works in is only 2.2 km from the offices of Caruso St John - literally just around the corner. Given the prominence of either firm, it seems unlikely that there is no personal connection or contact there.
With the anonymity rule being broken that could be messy.
Why spoil things for others. We must applaud those who won for the good work they did. If you succeed in ruining the winner’s chances to move ahead, what would you gain? And what stress you would cause, all because the competition was made available on line, which was wonderful.
Okay,
Thanks for the comments, Nils, Filver, Form 1 … honest criticism of course is always helpful.
My vote Is for Book Hill. Or perhaps, the hills of book … or, another name please …
it would have been kinder to try to notify the competition folks first, but on the other hand, that cat would have likely gotten out of the bag sooner or later.
perhaps better to handle the issue sooner rather than later ?
well, the jury can handle it how they please - my point is only that, while the manner wasn't particularly kind, the fact that this was revealed early is better than getting all the way to the end and finding this out.
omen, sorry...
i am ready to lose if judged on project quality but the organizer MUST follow its own rules (anonymity but -even more important - design rules), i think their behaviour is unfair, and so i am
i mean - from an architect's point of view - if we were told that functions were not important, grade I buildings could be demolished, boundaries could be trespassed... we wouldn't have spent months trying to fit all those required things on a tight site
we would have spent our time on impressive renderings on the first stage, leaving all problems out for the second phase
dear jury, i don't like very detailed design rules too - they limit new ideas in architecture - but please the next times do not specify them at all if you intend to break them
A loser...i think you have a clear answer on how the organizers want to handle the anonymity case...ignoring it... by modifying the blanket and cut pdf files online they proved you right...
should we as participants and now observers try to make this case bigger...like bringing it to the press or any authority?
eventhough it would be legitimate...i think it will just give more chances to weaker finalists to make it...also personnally it's the 1rst time on a 2 rounds competition that i get to see all entries before judgement...they took quite a risk...i respect that... eventhough they obviously blew it this time :D
as for the design rules...well i don't know if you read the Q&A...but it was often stipulated by the organizers that the boundaries, programs surfaces...etc were not that important for the 1st stage...that's it...drop it...you have a MUCH bigger case with the anonymity bug...
Omen...thanks for your sincerity about your project on this forum...talking about that...did anyone see alessi recently? :P
yes, q&a were far more blurry than the brief - i should have imagined there was a change in line
knowing this bug, i couln't simply ignore it, i had to inject some (true) noise into the system... if someone wants to, he/she's welcome but i will not continue this case, as a losing participant it may be just like a revenge
i have experienced some "bugs" in nearly every competition i took part in (and some were more than just bugs, it was deliberate - of course this is not the case, i hope)
now i will look forward to the next competition although when i think of it...
Everyday I love you less and less
You’re turning into something I detest
And everybody says you look a mess
Since everyday I love you less and less
Each and every one of the buildings is of high cultural value.... The topography and visibility of Observatory Hill are significant and together with the park landscape are
IMPORTANT TO SAFEGUARD....
The very significant cultural values of the area are reflected in the way the area and individual buildings are
PROTECTED.
The entire city center is of national interest as regards the PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE and this early university college district of Stockholm with the Observatory, Public Library, part and university buildings is highlighted as an area that reflects the historical growth and expansion of the city.
As per answer to the queries:
Answer 20: The questions refer to what is said in the competition brief "National Interest and Cultural Values"
page 19, "New Qualities and the Value of the Site" page 21 and "The new library" page 28. Sufficient
answers to the questions in this first conceptual phase of the competition are to be found there (see
also answer 16). To further in short explain the legal aspects of protection in the area there are two
basic levels according to the Swedish Planning and Building Act.
First: The entire city centre is of national interest regarding the preservation of cultural heritage. The
competition site is located in an area which is highlighted as an early university district. Responsible
for this level of protection is the Local Government Board (or the City itself). Second: The library and the two older annexes (2 and 3) have the highest classification of cultural
historical values assessed by the City Museum according to the same legislation. The newer annex (1)
has the second highest classification.
The assignment in the competition, according to what is clearly stated in the brief, is to create
solutions with so high new qualities that they can be weighted against the existing values of the area.
To be underlined here: The protection of the Asplund Library is absolute. The final decision on what is
the proper balance between preservation and demolition will be taken by the city and the local
government after a detailed planning process based on the winning concept of the competition.
See also answer no 16.
5 out of 6 delete the annexes which is of high cultural value as per brief.
6 out of 6 intrude into the slope which suppose to safteguard as per brief.
One even exceed the destinated site boundary all the way up to the top of the hill.
i am not judging whether is good design or not to keep the annex or intrude to the slope... however if jury has strong preference to delete the annex/cut the slope and not to follow the brief, by not fully informed all competitors their hidden agenda and mislead them to keep annex then i must say this is the worst competition i have ever entered.
By your putting the names of two of the finalists onto this forum you have screwed up the entire competition. Have you imagined the time and effort the finalists have put into their entries? It seems to me that these two competitors may now be disqualified because their entries are no longer anonymous.
As an architect and a participant in many competitions I just cannot believe that a colleague would damage the advancement of architecture in such an important competition by publishing names as you have done.
One thing this competition has taught me after seeing the results and reading some of the above posts:
We should all have the balls to disregard competition rules and strongly question the brief if we think it benefits the design process and allow us to produce the project/building which we believe is the best for a given site. Constraints are usually a good thing but sometimes we should just follow our instincts... For in the end what matters most? A boring project that follows the rules but fails to deliver a truly interesting result or a manifesto that might get disqualified but gets a lot publicity and sparkles a debate??
Apparently most of those who made it to the second stage took a gamble and it paid off in the end and i can only applaud them for that...
I hope we get back to design issues and what can be learned and how juries in general deal with these competitions. I used to think local architects among the finalist where a sign of corruption but found out later that those designers simply had a better understanding of what was going on, their designs just communicated better on issues as budget and local politics. Annoying but obvious. If you don't have this insight its just a lot harder to win and take the heart of the jury. Local sentiment and last moment changes of course are better felt by people who are closer to the fire.
and i agree on following the rules. Lets hope winners are always free minds that can not be tight to a program. I think Koolhaas lost more projects in Holland than any other architect by proposels totally out of the program and site bouderies. It delived many overheated discussions, in many cases we are sorry now for the decent results we got instead. We are also sorry for some of the buildings he did here as well ......lol.
is absolutely 100% fine to break the rules or to select the one that breaks the rules... however to solely select 5 entries of breaking the same rules, that means the jury already has this hidden agenda and to emphasis in the brief by telling ppl not to do so... that's bad!!
doberman> i do not see any of the selected entries any better than the ones who dun break the rules... they were selected becos they fit into the jury's hidden agenda.
then it gets into the issue of what stays and what goes in the city for ur masterpiece...
cylinder building stays, shoe box building goes?
building designed by famous architect stays, building designed by not so famous architect goes?
buildings like by many stays, building like by not so many goes?
building like by architect stays, building not like by architects goes?
building post no constraint to ur masterpiece stays, building post constraint to ur masterpiece goes?
building cause u making exciting design stays, building cause u making boring design goes?
or should it be decided by architects in the first place?
the idea would be that the buildings that connect with the Aslund building and are involved with it in a greater whole, while at the same time satisfying the sense of the program in a wholistic sense (even if many rules are broken, within some reason) are the category that deserves to move forward. By this sort of logic, I can agree with books hill moving forward, even if I'm not wild about all the ramping, or that I don't like to see the hill molested (I'm a little strange about ancestral landscape sorts of things)
this from the competition brief pg 30-
" From a preservation point of view, the Asplund
building’s function as a library, as a “temple of books”, is
equally important.....The combined library
function of the Asplund building, the new extension and
the way the Annexes might be reused is the focus of the
competition – the end result should be of world class...."
The issue that I have with the jury's choice is much the same as the I would raise with statements to the effect that you should draw less, ignore the program, etc - they are narrowly focused. That narrow focus, which I think is properly identified as maximum visibility of the Asplund building from all angles, forces the choices to be limited, and forces many valuable viewpoints and ideas out of the picture.
this from pg 23 of the brief -
" ...The expectations of a new distinguished public building clearly visible in the townscape will mean that the important existing values of the area will have to be weighed against the qualities that can be added by a new project...."
My objection to the jury's choices, save one, is more complicated than that they did not follow the rules - it is that the schemes chosen all followed a rule which was not communicated, and further which was to the detriment of "the rules" in the broadest sense, the creation of a world class, highly functioning facility in which the Asplund library was an integral part.
This was sacrificed for the view from a subway stop.
Competitions are like this. Let it go. The last architects you want on your team are the ones that take thing to seriously in the first stage.
See the possitive side of things, I would not invest this much time again and my next submission will have a powerful grip on the viewer, if not I won't waist any time and money on shipping boards. I like Cut and Bookhill. Those are my reference plans. We all agreed cut was something else among the 1100+ submissions and the jury saw that as well. The others might have a quality I don't see now. Only one is build so the jury might agree with the most of us in the end. Then they where wrong about some of the winners, thats no crime is it ?
filver, do you want to discuss design or not? The competition is moving on, and that's fine, but as far as this forum goes discussion about what constitutes good design choice making is entirely valid.
The jury's actions have provided a lot of material for discussion about real architectural issues here, if we focus less on winning/losing competitions and more on architecture.
otherwise, we're all just pointing at the pretty flowers.
Stockholm Library Comp. Favorites?
- Cityscape of knowledge (???) -- great scheme -- book system works
The above is from my first comment. How ridiculous. I thought … maybe, I’ll try to sneak my entry into the forum discussion, and then everyone will start commenting like “Wow what a project”, or “City Of Knowledge will certainly win”. I thought the members of the jury would certainly google looking for forum discussions, and find this forum. And, I thought, when that had occurred, the jury would consider my project. “Look at this City Of Knowledge … what a book distribution system, etc. …”
This didn’t happen. Instead all I got -- and I asked for it – was Filver’s comment:
-city of knowledge I can not even look at that plan, to me those kind of plans that are lecturing Asplund how to make a rotunda are of the worst kind. Maybe a very personal critic.
One thing that I think would be of interest to you all, is that I had conceived the book distribution system with the company that did the Seattle Library full support, which I deeply appreciated. But I can’t even get into it. I’m too depressed.
grumble
well, hlau, don't ever forget that you're better off where you are listening to me rant than vice versa.
do good work, be true to your ideas, and don't shirk the program.
good luck in round 2
what was your project number, omen ?
found it i think - the big ellipse ?
i like the view inside the ellipse a lot - reminds me of that building in japan i can't put my finger on at the moment. or maybe the new gm headquarters building (who new gm could build something stunning. go figure.)
if i had a suggestion, it would be to simplify the plan, and intensify the relationship between the ellipse and the bars it crosses over- let that become your parti diagram. That would help your organizing concept to focus more.
ok now quizz
what are the big names that entered
what are their projects?
curious!!
N
sorry omen, had no idea people here where posting their own plans, later found out that was the case. being critised harshly is not very inspiring. To me, looking at the winners knowing that the jury is letting me know my plan was less is even harder.
Many authors of the submissions had decided they won the first stage and moved on to the second stage all by themselves showing their great skills in drawings and floorplans. The jury however was still at the first stage looking for ideas of a more poetic and basic kind. In that sense the winners can be understood om the point of view of the organiser who feels deeply connected to Asplund and at this point much less with the extension. Wish I had this wisdom while working on the extension. But I had seen Seattle, Black Diamond and the work of SANAA and others....
The good thing is next time I will be more sensitive to the ruling sentiment and less skillful. Skilfull is not how you want to be qualified. Skillful is also very time consuming...
SubArquitectura has posted two images of their proposal in their website.
Good project. A series of rotated boxes stacked one on top of the other. Hadn't seen this proposal yet.
http://www.subarquitectura.com/
I also beleive Abalos Herreros have a proposal. I haven't identified it yet.
found this at the forum there, does anyone knows which project these guys did?? any link??
RESULT: IS IT A JOKE????
Only BOOK-HILL is the only acceptable project of the 6 winners...
Offices like BIG, ABALOS & HERREROS, SUBARQUITECTURA and OMA are out, with high-quality projects !!
I think the JURY WAS NOT AT THE LEVEL OF THIS COMPETITION.
INDIGNADO
the subarquitectura project was nice, but that website drives me crazy.
I think book hill is made by BIG. The plastic model is so similar to theirs!
like infinity loop
well plans of the subarquitectura are nice and masterized, sections too, but the volume result is just weak guys... book stack for a library is just a marketer's gesture.....banks looking like safes, hospital looking like red crosses and all that biomorphism stuff ( shells, snails, and various wildlife shapes made into buildings...their website is also driving me nuts lol damn cant catch that image ;)...
aspect: big offices are not necessarely always the best projects around! Its not because oma went there that they spent the same time as on seattle ....
omen: i looked at your project:
To be frank plans are very confusing, and i have hard time understanding what u intended in a few secs...i think keeping the annexes was a mistake, and you struggled with them. Your idea would have been better as a solid form without them to my opinion...
As for the detailed plans, and the fact that the book system works... you see like us that the jury did not care at all...
stage 1: simple urban gestures ( with hidden possibilities of evolution in stage 2
stage 2: fit the damn program into the chosen shape.
subarquitectura reminds me of the LV building (somewhere i saw in the magazine, probably in japan) with shoe box stack on top of each other...
what bores me are the selected projects seems to have this fetish of display of book with miles long book shelves!!
is library a mere display of books?? what about the vast growing of othere types of medium?? these type of scheme are already obsolete model by today's standard.
this competition is such a gamble:
get rid of the annex- you may win.
keep the annex- die immediately.
nope: i killed the annexes and i died ;)
...indeed Nils...but you did well. i don't think that nosce te ipsum (NTI) will survive the 2nd stage and i'm saying that without taking into account its obvious lack of...name it...
also after watching your project and 0586-tillsamans i thought that plugging yourself to the 4th wing didn't sound as bad as i thought first...but definitely not the jury's cup of tea... volumetrically i also like the balanced tower at the opposite of the site...but towers again...Nils...C'MON! YOU FORGOT TO PUT A HUGE STUPID CLOCK!!! :D
Filver, as you said it for yourself...yeah probably too big...i think your building BY ITSELF is good and shows lots of potential...but then you look down at this ridiculous little temple next to yours...and wonder "Hey...i don't need this little guy...anymore"
...so then maybe you should have gone to that silly but somehow logical conclusion..."well...let's just get rid of it "...you would have definitely be the only one there...and i'm sure Nils would have lent you his project's name ;P ...demystifying icons is definitely what most competitors forgot to do...and i include myself here...twice :D
And the winners are...
Dirk Brockmann (of Stephen Taylor Architects, London?) [Blanket]
Alma Palekiene (from Lithuania?) [Cut]
Or are they just mysterious jury members?
Please check the PDF document properties before they remove them
Let's not talk about how ugly the winning entries are, but at least wasn't it supposed to be anonymous till the end of 2nd phase?
I tried to post a comment on the competition forum but they removed it soon after
unfortunately now they replaced files (and removed posts on the forum),
however here's are the files as they were first published:
http://rapidshare.com/files/15742098/pdf.zip.html
(click on "Free" and then wait some seconds before download starts, choose a server and enter
code)
wow this is potentially a huge problem. could these names have been on the pdf's prior to the judging?
surely names were on when pdfs were received on cd since this is the source of all files;
I noticed a number of visible names on some pdfs I looked at before the judging; of course I didn't notice these specific ones among hundreds of slow downloading files, but possibly yes (at least for a few days before they took some files down and resampled to reduce size, and possibly even after)
this is however a potential problem in the 2nd phase since it should have been anonymous 'till the end
I guess what you are meaning, and I agree: how can we trust the judging was really anonymous if all the world was able to see names on files?
Are they in GB ?
not a big problem..nothing is securely anonymus..style..pdf names whatever reason and the project gives away its identity. The jury would never let this be a problem and just won't respond to or aknowlegde any identity.
thanks ulanbator for looking into my plan. you probably spend more time on it then the jury ever did. you are right about the size. I realized that the moment I saw the fist downloaded submissions of others. But looking at the size of for instance dikthornan the opposite is the case. The jury feels that in the second stage that plan can be brought within the bouderies of area 2 and as well expanded to fit the program. That's harder to do than to bring my plan or concept as you will in a more modest fashion or scale.
Its clear that Stockholm and this jury has a totally different view on the site than I have. No problem and I wish them luck. I do agree with you that I personally don't think Asplund excelled with the library and the messy 4th wing. I think his quality is better served with his later work. I would have liked to see the Asplund library as a tiny temple, well restored and used a learning zone as we suggested. The new library in my ideas would have been the place to be in Stockholm with majestic views over the city and making the underground's reason to have such a big station there. The winners choosen don't work for me. But thats not my frustration. I feel mocked in this competition because a half baked idea on the back of a post card could have done too. If its brilliant yes, if its shows the program is intelligently covered, if the competition goals where amazingly incorperated yes. Not if the jury defend its decision by letting us now they just liked the image and hopefully the second stage proves the program will fit or any of the goals can be reached. They would have saved us all a lot of time to have left out the program, the competition bounderies and the statements about world class and told us the main idea is to expose Asplund the fullest, no floorplans needed and to provide for basic suggestions for the elevations or birdseye views. I am sure they would have had much more interesting out of boundery ideas and plans to expose Asplund. Maybe 800+ inferior plans overwhelmed the jury.
I have to admit that the 5 or 6 competions the winners where never convincing. The one I won some years back was made in an hour on one letter sized piece of paper and consisted of a quick draft showing a single cross section. I was embarred to see the hard work of the other architects and to come up with my simple idea that was not at all the organiser had stated as their goal and program. They thought about it for months and gave us the project. I think we should all be happy to know time consuming competition designwork is counter productive and the silly foamboard models Koolhaas made in his earlier days made him bigger than any other office. I am convinced there is a pattern, a continous flow of underlaying forces that makes the juries decision understandable and even right. It could easily be that all who critised the juries outcome as a jury member would also vote for this unanymus desicion. The jury never submitted a plan and so never studied the program as such and where in constant contact with the organiser, their decision can be understood in that context.
i think i need a word processor, my english is very dutch...or just lacking...
Actually, the Dirk Brockman incident could turn out to be a problem. According to Google Earth, the office Brockman works in is only 2.2 km from the offices of Caruso St John - literally just around the corner. Given the prominence of either firm, it seems unlikely that there is no personal connection or contact there.
With the anonymity rule being broken that could be messy.
Loser,
Why spoil things for others. We must applaud those who won for the good work they did. If you succeed in ruining the winner’s chances to move ahead, what would you gain? And what stress you would cause, all because the competition was made available on line, which was wonderful.
Okay,
Thanks for the comments, Nils, Filver, Form 1 … honest criticism of course is always helpful.
My vote Is for Book Hill. Or perhaps, the hills of book … or, another name please …
it would have been kinder to try to notify the competition folks first, but on the other hand, that cat would have likely gotten out of the bag sooner or later.
perhaps better to handle the issue sooner rather than later ?
No,
just leave it alone. . .
well, the jury can handle it how they please - my point is only that, while the manner wasn't particularly kind, the fact that this was revealed early is better than getting all the way to the end and finding this out.
omen, sorry...
i am ready to lose if judged on project quality but the organizer MUST follow its own rules (anonymity but -even more important - design rules), i think their behaviour is unfair, and so i am
i mean - from an architect's point of view - if we were told that functions were not important, grade I buildings could be demolished, boundaries could be trespassed... we wouldn't have spent months trying to fit all those required things on a tight site
we would have spent our time on impressive renderings on the first stage, leaving all problems out for the second phase
dear jury, i don't like very detailed design rules too - they limit new ideas in architecture - but please the next times do not specify them at all if you intend to break them
A loser...i think you have a clear answer on how the organizers want to handle the anonymity case...ignoring it... by modifying the blanket and cut pdf files online they proved you right...
should we as participants and now observers try to make this case bigger...like bringing it to the press or any authority?
eventhough it would be legitimate...i think it will just give more chances to weaker finalists to make it...also personnally it's the 1rst time on a 2 rounds competition that i get to see all entries before judgement...they took quite a risk...i respect that... eventhough they obviously blew it this time :D
as for the design rules...well i don't know if you read the Q&A...but it was often stipulated by the organizers that the boundaries, programs surfaces...etc were not that important for the 1st stage...that's it...drop it...you have a MUCH bigger case with the anonymity bug...
Omen...thanks for your sincerity about your project on this forum...talking about that...did anyone see alessi recently? :P
they already did (cut pdf files online)
yes, q&a were far more blurry than the brief - i should have imagined there was a change in line
knowing this bug, i couln't simply ignore it, i had to inject some (true) noise into the system... if someone wants to, he/she's welcome but i will not continue this case, as a losing participant it may be just like a revenge
i have experienced some "bugs" in nearly every competition i took part in (and some were more than just bugs, it was deliberate - of course this is not the case, i hope)
now i will look forward to the next competition although when i think of it...
Everyday I love you less and less
You’re turning into something I detest
And everybody says you look a mess
Since everyday I love you less and less
As per pg19 of brief:
Each and every one of the buildings is of high cultural value.... The topography and visibility of Observatory Hill are significant and together with the park landscape are
IMPORTANT TO SAFEGUARD....
The very significant cultural values of the area are reflected in the way the area and individual buildings are
PROTECTED.
The entire city center is of national interest as regards the PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE and this early university college district of Stockholm with the Observatory, Public Library, part and university buildings is highlighted as an area that reflects the historical growth and expansion of the city.
As per answer to the queries:
Answer 20: The questions refer to what is said in the competition brief "National Interest and Cultural Values"
page 19, "New Qualities and the Value of the Site" page 21 and "The new library" page 28. Sufficient
answers to the questions in this first conceptual phase of the competition are to be found there (see
also answer 16). To further in short explain the legal aspects of protection in the area there are two
basic levels according to the Swedish Planning and Building Act.
First: The entire city centre is of national interest regarding the preservation of cultural heritage. The
competition site is located in an area which is highlighted as an early university district. Responsible
for this level of protection is the Local Government Board (or the City itself). Second: The library and the two older annexes (2 and 3) have the highest classification of cultural
historical values assessed by the City Museum according to the same legislation. The newer annex (1)
has the second highest classification.
The assignment in the competition, according to what is clearly stated in the brief, is to create
solutions with so high new qualities that they can be weighted against the existing values of the area.
To be underlined here: The protection of the Asplund Library is absolute. The final decision on what is
the proper balance between preservation and demolition will be taken by the city and the local
government after a detailed planning process based on the winning concept of the competition.
See also answer no 16.
results:
5 out of 6 delete the annexes which is of high cultural value as per brief.
6 out of 6 intrude into the slope which suppose to safteguard as per brief.
One even exceed the destinated site boundary all the way up to the top of the hill.
i am not judging whether is good design or not to keep the annex or intrude to the slope... however if jury has strong preference to delete the annex/cut the slope and not to follow the brief, by not fully informed all competitors their hidden agenda and mislead them to keep annex then i must say this is the worst competition i have ever entered.
anyway, one good thing about this competition is to find this forum and meet all u architects community...
loser,
By your putting the names of two of the finalists onto this forum you have screwed up the entire competition. Have you imagined the time and effort the finalists have put into their entries? It seems to me that these two competitors may now be disqualified because their entries are no longer anonymous.
As an architect and a participant in many competitions I just cannot believe that a colleague would damage the advancement of architecture in such an important competition by publishing names as you have done.
Please take away their names from this site now.
also i'm tempted to ask for refund of the printing cost/postage services... any lawyers here??
One thing this competition has taught me after seeing the results and reading some of the above posts:
We should all have the balls to disregard competition rules and strongly question the brief if we think it benefits the design process and allow us to produce the project/building which we believe is the best for a given site. Constraints are usually a good thing but sometimes we should just follow our instincts... For in the end what matters most? A boring project that follows the rules but fails to deliver a truly interesting result or a manifesto that might get disqualified but gets a lot publicity and sparkles a debate??
Apparently most of those who made it to the second stage took a gamble and it paid off in the end and i can only applaud them for that...
sorry nonparticipant but THEY published names, i only read a public official file
I hope we get back to design issues and what can be learned and how juries in general deal with these competitions. I used to think local architects among the finalist where a sign of corruption but found out later that those designers simply had a better understanding of what was going on, their designs just communicated better on issues as budget and local politics. Annoying but obvious. If you don't have this insight its just a lot harder to win and take the heart of the jury. Local sentiment and last moment changes of course are better felt by people who are closer to the fire.
and i agree on following the rules. Lets hope winners are always free minds that can not be tight to a program. I think Koolhaas lost more projects in Holland than any other architect by proposels totally out of the program and site bouderies. It delived many overheated discussions, in many cases we are sorry now for the decent results we got instead. We are also sorry for some of the buildings he did here as well ......lol.
is absolutely 100% fine to break the rules or to select the one that breaks the rules... however to solely select 5 entries of breaking the same rules, that means the jury already has this hidden agenda and to emphasis in the brief by telling ppl not to do so... that's bad!!
doberman> i do not see any of the selected entries any better than the ones who dun break the rules... they were selected becos they fit into the jury's hidden agenda.
doberman> i do like to see each selected project breaking different rules, even more interesting... however, that's not the case.
doberman> i do like to see each selected project breaking different rules, even more interesting... however, that's not the case.
then it gets into the issue of what stays and what goes in the city for ur masterpiece...
cylinder building stays, shoe box building goes?
building designed by famous architect stays, building designed by not so famous architect goes?
buildings like by many stays, building like by not so many goes?
building like by architect stays, building not like by architects goes?
building post no constraint to ur masterpiece stays, building post constraint to ur masterpiece goes?
building cause u making exciting design stays, building cause u making boring design goes?
or should it be decided by architects in the first place?
the idea would be that the buildings that connect with the Aslund building and are involved with it in a greater whole, while at the same time satisfying the sense of the program in a wholistic sense (even if many rules are broken, within some reason) are the category that deserves to move forward. By this sort of logic, I can agree with books hill moving forward, even if I'm not wild about all the ramping, or that I don't like to see the hill molested (I'm a little strange about ancestral landscape sorts of things)
this from the competition brief pg 30-
" From a preservation point of view, the Asplund
building’s function as a library, as a “temple of books”, is
equally important.....The combined library
function of the Asplund building, the new extension and
the way the Annexes might be reused is the focus of the
competition – the end result should be of world class...."
The issue that I have with the jury's choice is much the same as the I would raise with statements to the effect that you should draw less, ignore the program, etc - they are narrowly focused. That narrow focus, which I think is properly identified as maximum visibility of the Asplund building from all angles, forces the choices to be limited, and forces many valuable viewpoints and ideas out of the picture.
this from pg 23 of the brief -
" ...The expectations of a new distinguished public building clearly visible in the townscape will mean that the important existing values of the area will have to be weighed against the qualities that can be added by a new project...."
My objection to the jury's choices, save one, is more complicated than that they did not follow the rules - it is that the schemes chosen all followed a rule which was not communicated, and further which was to the detriment of "the rules" in the broadest sense, the creation of a world class, highly functioning facility in which the Asplund library was an integral part.
This was sacrificed for the view from a subway stop.
Competitions are like this. Let it go. The last architects you want on your team are the ones that take thing to seriously in the first stage.
See the possitive side of things, I would not invest this much time again and my next submission will have a powerful grip on the viewer, if not I won't waist any time and money on shipping boards. I like Cut and Bookhill. Those are my reference plans. We all agreed cut was something else among the 1100+ submissions and the jury saw that as well. The others might have a quality I don't see now. Only one is build so the jury might agree with the most of us in the end. Then they where wrong about some of the winners, thats no crime is it ?
filver, do you want to discuss design or not? The competition is moving on, and that's fine, but as far as this forum goes discussion about what constitutes good design choice making is entirely valid.
The jury's actions have provided a lot of material for discussion about real architectural issues here, if we focus less on winning/losing competitions and more on architecture.
otherwise, we're all just pointing at the pretty flowers.
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.