The big announcement of the winning Guggenheim Helsinki concept is only weeks away, so start making those predictions now. In the meantime, the Stage Two proposals of the six finalists have been revealed.
Throughout Stage Two, the teams worked on further developing their initial concepts for final submission. On that note, the finalist teams are AGPS Architecture Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland; Los Angeles, USA); Asif Khan Ltd. (London, United Kingdom); Fake Industries Architectural Agonism (New York, USA; Barcelona, Spain; Sydney, Australia); Haas Cook Zemmrich STUDIO2050 (Stuttgart, Germany); Moreau Kusunoki Architectes (Paris, France); and SMAR Architecture Studio (Madrid, Spain; Western Australia).
Although the teams have been named, they'll remain unmatched to their Guggenheim Helsinki proposals until the winning announcement in June. Check out the proposals below:
↓ GH-121371443 (concept boards)
This past January, the finalist teams traveled to Helsinki to meet with competition and Guggenheim Museum authorities to receive more technical info and feedback on their initial proposals. Each team also had the chance to interact with the public during a lecture, where each team presented their design philosophies and previous works.
The winning team will receive a prize of €100,000 (approx. US$136,000), while each runner-up will receive €55,000 (approx. US$75,000).
All images courtesy of the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition.
5 Comments
Nothing really great here. Wonder what went wrong here
I was thinking the same thing. However I like some of them more than others.
Reads too heavy on Guggenheim trying to be all Finnish with heavy wood references. Crowd sourcing doesn't really give you good results.... Because you can tell the judges were going by categories and checklists. Wood, check. Curving form, check. Typical gallery feel, check. There are no FLW or Gehrys here, just mediocrity. Which is what happens when you crowd source art.
Use of wood was stated in the competition brief for sustainability and cultural reasons. Perhaps its forced. Perhaps its appropriate. Maybe both.
I agree with you that there is a cautiousness hanging over the entire endeavor. Thats the nature of the current architecture climate. Armchair critics are just itching to make someone into villain. There were opposed to this before a design was even on the table. The lack of nerve in this profession and the culture of non-professional onlookers is extremely frustrating.
The wood fetish is just so obvious....
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.