Thanks Nils and Shrub for the very interesting links. Loved to see some more info on the exhibit. Ramus is a marketing king like Steve Job is. Obviously he would not stay at Rem's office. I am sure they are still friends though.
I wish I could talk like that and keep a serious face all the time. Still, how would you go about such big projects, let your client know he spending his money rationally and also want do something spectacular. Ramus is a designer, look at his cloth, but a smart one, I have learned a lot again, this Asplund competition has saved me years in my personal devleopment as an architect.
Having seen Ramus and his work I wonder how the jury is really thinking. I feel now even more that a low profile and keeping the annexes or go down the rabbithole or dig the library completely in hill is going against the tide and mostly based on fears that Ramus and OMA totally seem to lack.
I must say that the presentation of that the Museum Plaza is very impressive. Without being very photorealistic. There must be a very good team at work there.
It might be that the jury will come with plans that are hardly developed architecturally but with very strong concepts. CUT for instance is a typical design feature not typically a concept according to the competition brief. I think in these times such designs are no longer fashionable for those that admire the Seattle building.
Has anybody seen a winner concept among the submissions. Something that typically shapes the competition brief in a building?
Cut is no longer on my favorites list. My initial response was hey a “Robert Morris earthwork” type of thing -- seems to be the work of an artist. I really like it. With 2 phase competitions, you’re stuck with your concept. This is obvious. So let’s say CUT is chosen because it’s a great idea -- a mysterious cut in the earth. All the Cons Elisa mentioned would disappear – through the jury’s suggestions, through a more focused look at the problem; consultation … the only thing I like really like here is the cut. I don’t really think the architecture works well. I don’t think the lighting will work out. One thing I really don’t like is the two dead ends at each end of the “V” That’s where Elisa’s vertical circulation could occur.
Point is that the connection to the library could change, the connection to the annex could change, and the project could be great without deviating from the original concept. This is one that could get away with this.
Perhaps you guys could help me out by posting a project that has a great balance of the following combined qualities – this doesn’t have to be your favorite, or it could be:
1. A contextual complement
2. A staff, media and visitor circulation pattern that works, and a good arrangement of program -- a truly functional library.
3. . . . “The entrance is an eye catcher. . .”
4. A great connection between to the ASP Lund Library and the proposed extension.
i think the first two i listed solve the competition nicely. if you take some time and read the texts ... oh, also, i'm thinking these could change in the second phase. and i think at least 2 submissions will include the annex buildings. i have some big problems with both, but compared to others there nothing.
For those who never seen Nouvel sell his projects, try to see any of his lectures when he does them... he is ramus x 10 !
I also think this kind of competition is usually won by projects with no remorses or shyness regarding the boundaries of the brief ( keep annexes, do not touch asplund, do not dig too much, etc..). World class project means often finding the upper most limit of where the jury will be able to go. Since its Sweden and the jury might be freighten by the cost and lifespan more than if it was built in lets say france, they might also keep reasonable projects in the end race.
But as Filver states, the more i think; the less i think the annexes, librarians nightmare, should be kept, and the more i think winning porjects will keep have them kept. As in a hospital, the less footsteps the librarian / nurse makes, the happier and more efficient they are... building a labyrinth around the annexes is creating complexity and flow problems.
What does a project needs to win in a competition for an official building?
- a clear, obvious and magnificent entrance
- an official building feel and look ( aka good materials, proportions, open areas outside etc)
- a simple concept so that even non pro can understand the plans and sections
- good images so that the project can sell to the press and the public ( aka : communication sells)
We'll see how the winners to second round deal with these!
Well about Ramus, there sure is no poetry there is his story or plans. Although the Seattle Library does have a lot more to say that just a rational thing of course. I think mankind will come up with more poetic ways to deal with big scale, there is more than enough mony for that. Just look at Dubai. Funny that in Asian countries OMA style is considered typical Western Style, they don't see it as rational at all. Luckily I have had some very good teachers like Arie Graafland and others who have explained to me in my studies how silly architects are in their explanation of their work. Doesn't mean their work is bad but they are certainly not writers or great in their study of their own work or what other architects do. Ramus to me sounds like a typical student when explaning how simple really the Seattle Library has been conceived. He totally forgets to mention his cultural believes and where he came from that have a lot more to say about why that library looks like this.
Ok, back to ou favorites;
-extending the esker to me is just one of the others, rather avarage not at all the masterwork they are looking for, not in any sense. I don't see a livingroom or great connection. This plan to me is not within the first 100 even.
-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.
-maimash6, good plan although the ramp in the street elevation is horrible. I also think it is in conflict with the subway and its smallish, low ceilings and a bit boring. Good colour though.
-janus i like a lot although its also not a livingroom approuch at all. I feel now that most plans that make this kind of triangle turn their back on Asplund and lack all connection power. Walking into Janus you actually do so with your back towards asplund and the connection at the side wing is catastrofic.
-infinity loop, Seattle but not with the smart concept. very boring inside and I think a problem with the subway. No world class entrance or very inviting. There is already a park so why put all that energy is an outdoor adventure.
-interstitual- very complicated as far from a clear and flexible livingroom as you could imagine. It does have certain thorougness in its layout that is appealing. But not a concept, why would anybody want to see this developed in a second stage. You can make up your mind now as it is. Not good enough.
-overbooking. There is no jury in the world who is going to choose a library that looks like a pile of books, especially when it is intended to look like that. Think of a Dutch house that looks like a wooden shoe or a roadside restaurant that looks like a truck. The plan has an interesting cross section though.
genius loci is interesting but exceeds the site bounderies in a way as if its saying to the organisers, hey look at me being smart, you did not think of this did you!!!!!. Well the organisers surely did but decided it was not possible, or yet possible so that plan was taken of the list by the students that had to filter the plans so the jury did not have to go through all the none sense.
I have to admit that looking at my own submission I can be just as harsh, its not an easy assignment this competition. Even when you do everything right conceptually it might look awfull.....
Genius loci is not mine. . .I'm sure there are many more submissions that I would like, but overlooked them, or did not see them yet. . .Filver, did you visit the exposition? if so was there any indications as to which ones the jury favors? How do you know about Genius Loci? As for the 2 i mentioned. I just feel that the programs worked with regard to the seperation of staff, visitor and media circulation patterns, and progam distribution, while keeping the annex buildings -- not saying the jury will favor keeping the Annex buildings -- ha.
Now I'm thinking that I would like to see a big open space A la the prince.
Prism has great plans for "level 2" and "level 3", very natural.
Cones is really great - nice interior spaces and a great architectural motif. Its too bad is so ugly on the main street facade.
Publik seems like it has a lot of potential - read the text, there's a lot going on in this scheme.
I do like public. Clear connection with the rotunda into the new livingroom. I did the same thing. But Public totally obscures Aspiund and will not get many points for its park connection. Also the floorplan/livingroom is rather uninspiring and lacks world class quality. The floorplans are underdeveloped compared to the competition and so this plan as well will recieve few points on important conceptual factors. Also the media handling from and to Asplund can not be understood from the submission. Publik might have been much better given more time but as it is it will be vastly overruled by other more elaborate plans with more or less the same concept.
The Prism can not be choosen by a jury that is asked to look for the work of master-architect of intenational status, the same goes for Cones. There are no master architects present that I know of who's work looks like one of these two.
I discussed the submissions with a collegue this evening and we came to the conclusion that although the quantity is very high in this competition the lack of quality is also evident. I have not spoken or seen anyone wildly enthousiastic about any of the submissions, the masters seem to have passed by on this one. Experienced master usually see thing coming before they happen. Too much of a lottery .....?
I'm in agreement with your assessment of the 3 BIG BOX options. I liked Public since way back when ... now I think I'll take another look. Nevertheless, I feel Prism has a good formal relation to the Asplund.
-- Janus is certainly good. The realistic renderings make it stand out -- I like the way the form was derived from the angle of the plaza, the park and the city grid very much. that's a simple, academic move--it works well here. But, where's the loading dock? How do books get moved around the extension and the Asplund Library; I could imagine the book system serving the entire library with this entry. But that was overlooked? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I believe the sorting machine is in the right place already, just stick the loading dock on the back, and send a line across the "bridge" to the Asplund … the form looks wonderful in relation to the Asplund library and the high rise beyond. I see it fitting in, and the building working.
pedromartinez, you are right in the sense that nobody really knows how a master architect's subm. looks like but somehow we can recognize them in a way, not for a 100% of course. Winning plans usually look like a team effort with all facets at top level, the renderings, the program layout schemes, the floorplans in clear drawings not further developed then necessary for this stage etc. A one person effort shows a lot variaty at different levels although some get away with it depending on how brilliant the concept is.
I sometimes feel we are looking at totally the wrong plans assuming the jury will be most interested in the best looking plans. Usually they will keep a more business like approach and stick to their list and matrix and scores and then decide what are the better looking options and the promises those plans hold regarding their architectural potential.
Janus might also be among the 5, I would understand that, athough I feel it doesn't bring the new extention and the old Asplund under one roof. It will seperate the two rather a lot and as such it is hardly a good concept. I feel asplund never really intended the backside of the library to serve as a frontface or elevation with much appeal after he build the fourth wing. I think plans like Janus are lacking by overrating the quality of the fourth wing. The fourth wing looks very closed and not inviting at all so from Odenplan the whole new library would be even less atractive that it is now. From Odenplan the new extention would be regarded a extention of the commericial building rather than for Asplund.
I really feel we are not on to the winnars yet, anybody with some new ideas and list of favorites we have not seen here yet.
well, I really don't know sometimes, I have 663 plans downloaded and so I still miss about 400 or more.....
no-one in the jury is looking for a submission from a "master architect" - they are looking at a good answer to the question how to deal with extending the Asplund library. A hard question because
1) it has obviously been answered badly in the past (by the annexes - they are the failed extensions... and because this is so obvious, I just wonder why anyone should consider keeping them. Like repeating the wrong answer to the same question, again.)
2) Asplund's building is a symmetrical unity of platonic shapes - adding to it is impossible in a traditional manner - the new building has to sidestep the problem somehow. making a new distinct entity, building landscape, whatever. Just adding on, putting it all under one roof - won't do.
well, we'll know in a month or so what the jury thinks...
[and scandinavian juries can choose whatever - they rarely pick the ones that can be identified as "master architect stuff" (whatever that really means) - many students and student team proposals have been chosen in previous open competitions. So no master-strokes necessary. just good design.]
I really hope you are right, it would put me back on track. You have a high regard for the jury and I admire you for that. Maybe I should also start looking at this competition this way, its a lot more hopeful and optimistic. Maybe some of my past experiences have let me down a bit.
Love how the reponse has been quite deep from the intial post, however, for me this discussion has landed on some rather unconvincing prefered work for a while now -- so, here's my bias on the cons plus a few pros on the recently mentioned/discussed entries above (I know the criticism/commentary is harsh, but ever see America's Next Top Model? It's all in good sport though [it is a public competition after all]):
Janus seems merely not horrible. But spatially enticing? or very well done?
The Prism and Cones of Cognizance: simplistic, over-monumental strong-geometry-controlled mediocrity.
Publik and Malmasch6 are certainly better, but, once again, I don't know how a jury would pick a scheme with not a single interior space represented (and I agree the ramp-facade is not convincing on Malmasch6).
City of Knowledge -- come on, Asplund's cylindrical drum now becomes a big ELIPTICAL drum, with a slanted top?!
Extending the Esker's interiors scare me in their over-monumentality, while the exterior doesn't offer much in return.
Infinity Loop is probably among the best of the numerous zig-zag ramp schemes, but if you're getting rid of all the annexes I don't believe you'd end up with this as the best option for a landmark building.
Genius Loci is rigorous but reminds me of all the Italian Rationalist redux stuff in the mid 80s for thesis projects, in schools all over the place -- super rigid.
Interstitial Readings has a full set of quite well-done plans, but in 3D its pretty heavy-handed urbanistically -- kind of Morphosis meets Siza on steroids. And still not a compelling interior.
Overbooking wears its OMA references on its inner sleave -- in the super-graphic spiral/ramp/void interior, but I agree its exterior is certainly a bit of a one liner.
Gardens of Connectivity is a cool, clear concept but again no interior (if there was it would reveal the repetitiveness of all those pancake spaces under the terraces).
Cut is quite well done --in terms of the clarity of the idea and in it's representation. But that's a a lot of deep dark space up against those (huge) retaining walls.
ISBN is also quite well-done but once again no interior and another big-ass retaining wall...
-- Anyone up for another round focusing on some of the ones Nils mentions above (some good choices) or ones I mentioned earlier? Perhaps transcending the seemingly reactionary avoidance of complexity, sophistication or beauty (this is the 21st century, no?)...
Saw Trivium from your list. Looks very international and with the main axis from Asplund well used. Interesting plan although feels small and I think also in confilct with the subway. The jury might let this one enter the second stage though. One of the best hill plans.
Glaciartek has a very convincing architecture worked out in one of its drawings although maybe almost "alt modisch". For the rest this plans looks not very inspiring.
Merging the landscape killed itself with the Asplund veranda entrance.
City Figures has a gorgeous elevation but it doesn't hold this promise from Odenplan, not even a bit.
Ok, I feel I am slowly dying from a submission fatique. I am sure the winnars are going to face some harsh comments as well. I really have no clue anymore as to how big this new extension has to be to work as a livingroom and a library at the same time. Also I feel many plans have very convincing ways to keep the view on Asplund from Odenplan. Its weird though that when I was in Stockholm I felt the backside of Asplund needed a fix somehow since the 4th wing was rather badly done. To make this side of the building a monumental showpiece within the new concept to me does not help to attract visitors. Many plans show me decent and architecturally well concieved concepts but very few do actually make me think they will be the new "must see" library in Scandinavia as the result of the competition of the century. The Asplund library was at the time it was build. Maybe we shouldn't mess with it anymore and do as Helsinki mentioned, make a landscape kind of building and let Asplund play the role of the old master to go and must see. I would not mind if Trivium was worked out in such a way.
when i tried to connect to http://www.arkitekt.se/asplund i got :
An error of type 1040 occurred when trying to connect to the SQL host: Too many connections
is there a reason for this sudden interest high interest again in the Asplund site with submissions, or is it my my connection that is just no longer working?
it was my connection I suppose, all back to normal.
I am planning my trip to Stockholm in the last week of January. Seems SAS offeres airfares for about 200-300 euros roundtrip. I wonder though sometimes after having seen about 700 submissions if it gives me more insight in the competition or not. I have a feeling that its really only about 25 plans that are worth looking into. And that we have seen and talked about those already.
Exactly, Nils. It was also noted that members of the local city council would be consulted or invited to participate.
Swedes are not really greatly moved by outside influences. They do not readily copy other cultures- so I would not be surprised if they take a pass on the Koolhaas or Gehry approach. They don't want to look like everyone else. Scandinavians in general are less self-aggrandizing, although that does not mean they don't think highly of themselves. Asplund was a man from a modest home, yet his experiences were culturally rich. Teams that study or can 'read' the history of the man, his work, and the culture would have a deeper understanding of the question of "values" that are so vaguely thrown about in the brief.
I struggled with the question of values relating to this modesty of persons and architecture. I assigned the following words to the main library: monumentally understated- the metaphor for Aspund's legacy. Asplund's well known dance with classical architecture and fusion with functionalism sychronized with the Swedish people's self-view and does so today. The diameter just isn't big enough.
Functionalist plans were often interspersed with perturbations, Villa Snellman's offset upper windows and interior circular room, the 4 degree twist of the library off the grid, Stadhuset's slightly off-square plan. Subtle or outright challenging shifts in an otherwise classical plans would re-emerge in deconstructivist architecture decades later.
Skogskirkegarden (woodland cemetary and crematoria) is in my mind the best of Asplund's work. Filver you should see this if you have not yet done so.
Thanks, woodland cemetary obviously is a better way to see Asplunds quality than the library which is still full of his uncertenties with the road to follow.
I see the submissions going in two directions.
The Asplund way when he was inspired with a vision of the circulair library at the scale he saw in the US as he studied many libraries around the world. In this sense he wasn't really mostly concerned with the site's sensitivities.
Secondly the view expressed as it was stated in the brief, looking for a sensitiv design very well embedded in the current situation. That is the typical way a jury of many professionals would look at the problem as opposed to the times when Asplund and his vision on a new library was the leading motiv.
I have a strong feeling that the jury will come up with mostly modest designs of smaller than world class Koolhaas kind of proportions. This is also in line with the competitions I have been in the past few years like Gwangju and the Giant Causeway. Those where won by modest low profile designs well concieved within the site's bouderies and program. Juries struggle often with visionary design's that are hard to present as the groups decision. Maybe that's what Koolhaas his critic is on design competitions. Star-studded but geared to average results.
I think to understand fully what swedish modern architecture is you have to visit Lewerentz St Marcus church in stockholm ( in my top ten XXth century building ever)...or see what Erik Asmussen ( whom I had the chance to meet) did in Järna with his "anthroposophic" approach ( a must visit ). I believe its all about how to go along the flows of nature and how the humans ( quiet thoughtfull swede pace such as described in Strindberg's or Lagerlöff's work ) interact with the surrounding walls to communicate with the outside. Importance of light is primordial in sweden, where you can find "light room therapy" in hospitals, and where solstices are really of importance and the traditionnal mythology turns a lot around the sun cycles.
I assume a poetical approach should be mixed in the project to really fullfill swedish way of seeing the building, even if its hard to do in such a big building, especially near such a big cube..
Of course unless a genius came up with a fantastic "spaceship bilbao", he could still impress ( but haven't seen it).. and the jury looks more like bunch of Bergman's people than fancy gay nightclub jet set people!
Asplund and Lewerentz are great, but I think it would be a mistake to take the functionalilm/classicism of Asplund or the idiosyncratic archaism of Lewerentz as guiding lights in a contemporary architecture competition. Or try second-guessing asplunds own intentions.
Also... can't say we scandinavians (nils being one of "us"?) put much emphasis on the sun cycles. In architecture or otherwise - and the much talked about quality of our "northern light" is of course often an issue to be dealt with, but there are really no special conditions as far south as Stockholm is.
and as far as I know, the characters in the jury are not really out of Bergman, Lagerlöf, Strindberg, Hamsun or anything like that. A liking of pragmatic nordic modernism might be a feature of the group (at least the one Finnish jury member is a very no-nonsense person).
The results of many swedish competitions lately has been dissapointing, but can't say if that is because of the relatively low quality of swedish contemporary architecture/architects or the open and compromise-prone judging process. could be both but I hope it has been the former.
I have decided not to go to the exhibit. I feel now I have more or less seen the winners and feel it might be better to focus on a other competition with the lessons learned. There is a dsign competition for a library in ireland, Dhun Laoghaire-Rathdown.
What if we decide to be the jury and try to make our own list of winners, five only. Lets see if we can agree to choose five.
I start the list with these:
-down the rabbithole
-trivium
(my own plan is not at all like this and I will not put my own plan on my list so feel free to comment or take plans of the list)
Just returned from an Architecture lecture. Gage / Clemenceau Architects showed some of their recent work. And guess what they choose to present … Yes the Stockholm Library.
At a lecture at CCA, way back in early October, Tom Wiscombe presented his design for this project - before the deadline even. Made me wonder if he was taking the competition seriously (never mind my opinions about his proposal)
Many architects use competitions to push issues they want to explore - test out ideas in an environment with at least a bit of friction - and not primarily go for the prize. Still, presenting your work before the competition has been finished shows somekind of arrogant cynicism towards the jury and the process - like assuming that ones proposal would never be chosen because of the "ol'boys club" or some other bullshit (in the worst case - assuming you're such a "renegade" that you are a lost cause from the start).
Or you are not actually concerned about contributing anything "good" to Stockholm - just playing your own games and showing off. great.
I don't know, could it be that the competition process in the states concerning open competitions is so rigged, that people by default don't care? Walnut & Omen, were the presented designs really well done - or just conceptual one-liners?
i am a participant and i've been reading for a while now all your comments with lots of pleasure and interest.
i was waiting to go through all the available submissions before posting anything...and here is my opinion...well if anyone cares :D
a word about processing...
judging around 1105 projects...mmm...i know...it's been said many times already (Nils, Fliver, Omen...)
- first there "has been"(oh yeah it's done baby) a huge bashing process of the "SBN! projects" (sorry..but no!)
- then...no matter the amount of submissions, the jury had to make categories...
i've been doing this for myself with all of them and honestly i don't think the task of the jury will be that difficult (of course...what do i know!? :D). i.e. i could easily and quickly remove 98% of the projects which left me with around 25-30 submissions.
(of course! you ought to remove the blobs the blubs and glups...no way!...also architects in the jury don't even represent half of it...and i assume that only Adam Caruso would go as far as picking a "tesselate-diamond shape project"...)
Then it's family business.meaning grouping them and giving a medal to the best "wrapping","mall-hall","roof", "ramp", "tower"...etc
After that...well here comes the hard discussion on which of those categories the jury will keep...my guess is that the "towering inferno" and the "too-much-digging-in-the-hill" projects have few if not any chance to be on 2nd stage (out of 5-6 finalists...i don't think the jury will waste a shot on those with too many malfunction and cost/feasibility issues)...
i also removed some that were putting connecting sticks in the ass of Asplund...that left me with maybe 10 or so projects. mostly implemented in the continuity of Asplund...some keeping or not the annexes...some daring to remove the late addition in Asplund Library...
so here they are (none of them is mine...alas :P)...and most of them have never been mentioned...oops :D
0302 - jore 117 + 0613 - brass (maybe too daring but they make sense somehow)
0510 - the_space_between (nice concept)
0519 - barcode (bold and simple)
0662 - infinity loop + 1004 - zig-zag (nice...but this ramp category may dissapear as well...)
0663 - shifting intensities (new wrapping skin)
for sure none of them are international class buildings...but i don't think the jury was expecting for the stars to join...since they usually get invited...and since the star is already there...aka Asplund ... anyone trying to mess too much with him (like i've seen some really scary "Hannibal-like-opening skull" operations on the building...yuck)...well SBN! :P
keen insights -- give a PRO / CON on ISBN if you have time.
Elisa, Helsinki
I have not viewed this particular (above mentioned) entry through the on-line exhibition--but, it will never win. it's white and is situated in the hill area, leaving the annexes in place; it has a psychedelic interior (rendering is at the amazing level). there is no indication of program arrangement; it's pure form and space, with an emphasis on inventive skin -- I'll look for it soon, and give a PRO /CON review.
isbn 0-7148..... is one of those plans that have actually taken the subway into account. Most plans seem to have completely ignored the subway route going up to odenplan. If you do see the subway, you will have to stay clear of it for several meters at least, making it impossible to extend the levels under the rotunda beyond where area 2 is cut in half by the subway route.
Since most plans have not understood this, altough it has been mentioned in the brief and aswers on questions, I think the jury will have no choice than to leave some room for error within the 5 choosen ones although some good plans have to be taken of the list since there basic concept relies on large continious floorspaces underneath the rotunda level.
"the space between us" also looks good and simple and with the subway well taken care of, but where is the connection with Asplund, the space between Asplund and the extension is empty, beautifully empty but empty. That library is an extension of the commercial building instead of Asplund. It gets zero points on the most important goal of the competition.
As a forum jury would we be able to agree on 5 plans. I see very different views already on basic principles on how to devide the categories and how to look at those categories as the most important ones.
well as i said the jury will directly remove the "SBN" projects (sorry but NO!) ...and this one already gets 3 letters...so what would "i" stand for?...mmm "idiot"?
sorry... but i mean seriously in a country where you still can get impaled by icicles it seems a bit stupid to suggest buildings with HUGE glass sloped roofs....it always will look silly and dangerous unless you propose something like the Gund Hall(http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Gund_Hall.html) or leave the heater on volcano-mode during winter...(talking about heat...i realized that few people put any attention on sustainability issues...tsstss...it's a country that drives with biofuel! c'mon!)
also... but this is maybe too personal (:D as usual?) all the plans i've seen organizing too clearly their scheme against the limits of the Hill (you know the "V" shape topography...) show how stuck they are with the program and eventually their design...and if you look too stuck at a first round...great chance you'll die if they modify-increase the program for second stage...
To me, generally speaking this extension should look more of a shoe box than a pipe case...and that is simply because it's more flexible... The Asplund Library is the pipe case...i dont think they want another one (like SO many did...)
also Filver (sorry if i misspelt your name before) having seen the projects you chose as favourites i guess we won't agree with 5 finalists (arfarf...imagine the jury then...poor people :P) but it's ok. just ignore my choices i don't want to spoil the effort. truly
oops sorry i forgot the "pro" for isdn (how come? :P)...well someone said something about filming Jackass...what about Ice-Age 3 since the CAD model may be already done?
PS: if you are reading this and you are the author of this project. please let me apologize for all the nonsense i've been writing here. i really hope you can win (just don't forget to put on the heaters to the MAX!!!)
well, I wasn't going to say anything about my own scheme on my first posting, but since someone has made mention of a similar design, and also one of my concerns about the hill, what the heck. Mine was 0371, mythic landscapes. My street perspective looks a whole heck of a lot like the street perspective for shifting intensities, and I think we both even had a similar idea with having floating planes in a larger volume. The difference is in the treatment of the hillside. I think my response to the hill had a different twist than most others. Like a lot of schemes, I wrapped the hill, but I also had a major outdoor public space the led up to the hillside - essentially the hill is allowed to "spill" down into the space below the building. I was hoping for the undercroft public space to be transitional - dark in the daytime in relation to the sunlit hillside to the south (under the right solar angles of course) and bright at night (from the optical fiber ceiling) in relation to the dark forest beyond. I was pretty happy with the design overall, though it has weak parts to it I'm sure. One strong point is the way the circulation patterns are united in a sort of paris opera house maneuver at the main stair, so that the old and new buildings circulate well together. I'm pretty down on my graphics in general, though I think my write up helped a bit.
you guys seem pretty sharp, so your thoughts would be appreciated.
Form1
Thanks for letting us know which is yours... its interesting to know what u tried to achieve.
I also share a few of your points in my project ( hillside relation, spill down to below etc..
Here is my way of analyzing your project ( please dont see any hate or bad stuff in my words, its just my feeling about it)
Render and panels:
I find them very late 80's, when vector lines were the only thing computer could output ( check nouvel's work of the time).. its totally outdated today not because its 80's, but because it makes it very hard to read ( the 3D's). It gives a flat look to the whole panels, and the color choices are not very friendly ( a bit mustard like). Red fonts are very hard to read, and give a "oops i forgot to turn them black" feeling..
If i can give you an advice on that: get used to Indesign and Photoshop, they will tremendously improve your layout designs. As for 3D's the tool you are using is very precise, but looks too straight of the machine: use a render tool, or simple plain 3D easy software such as sketchup, instead of allplan or arc+ or microstation ( not sure which u use)
Project:
I like the odengatan rectangle facade, and i think it was a good idea to raise the levels to let the hill go through, ( did the same) but the use of exterior structural glass is too outdated (very 80's) and give the project an old or basic office look , especially in the close up 3D..
I'm not convinced of the way you connect asplund and your big concave rectangle, the staircase and connection is the weakest part of your project because the add an strange shape to the asplund, which does not let it breathe.
Another point that is strange to me is the side facades with small windows, like if you wanted to impersonate asplund's 4th facade..
I think also, but its also the case in many other projects, that basic shapes within an exterior enveloppe, is something very hard to masterize, and that using them ( circles, ovals, square) is something only the best of the best ( read the masters) have successed in using...its very tricky and the project can loose all subtleness pretty quick when making shape, filling them with function afterwards.. form follows function, not the opposite usually..
but is funny because the more i look at it, the more i see similarities with my choices to the same project. I'll give mine out when jury takes it down to nuts ;)
I was actually less concerned about the "look" of the graphics, more that I didn't think my idea was conveyed. I've avoided much of the computer graphics, simply because I haven't liked the satisfaction-to-effort ratio of most computer rendering, though that's changing as the programs are evolving.
I struggled a lot with my feelings on the connection to the asplund builing, but ultimately felt that it was a lot stronger than I was giving it credit for. My concern was that the new addition would generate a lot of visitors and traffic, because its new and bigger, but that the old building would become an isolated backwater and would not benefit from all of that new life. I chose connection over breathing space, though the transparency of the connector towers would be an interesting experience itself. It sure did take some getting used to though. One thing that helped was that in perspective views, it looks to be a lot less in competition with the drum than the elevation indicates - its actually quite narrow, and set pretty far back.
You're right about imitating the fourth facade. The intent was less however that that would be an homage than it would suitably abstract those walls - i.e. that they would be read to have a different identity than either the structure or the north and south walls.
I'm not sure we look at the same structural glass - If you want an image of what I had in mind, check out the front elevation of the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. I was around in the late eighties, and I didn't see anything close to that. Anywho, the dynamic was that both north and south facades would be double skin for thermal function. The north was the domain of the city, maximally transparent and open (and with a projection screeen function), and the South was the domain of the individual, more sheltering and actually habitable (individual study desks in the gap) and opened to the sunlight and birchtrees.
I guess the shapes are much like the endwalls - it's less important their actual plan than that they create a variety of vantage points and spaces of different character. They could take on a lot of variation, but these suitably made the intention clear that these were to be free floating "islands" within a larger volume. My thought on the experience of them would be that they would really be too big to be percieved as a whole, like they are in plan, so that what looks awkward in plan falls away in actual experience. They also need to be filled up with books.
All in all, no hate taken at all, I appreciate the conversation. You seem to have a strange distaste for the late eighties. Really, I was there, they weren't so bad.
Hi, thanks for showing your submission. A lot easier to talk about a submission with an actual author.
I am very biased of course having a submission out there too. So my comment is more in general looking at your plan;
First I totally agree with your statement where you say making a true connection with Asplund will make the whole library more lively than the Asplund backwater approach. You get 10 points from me there as I did the same and still believe its a goal the organisers are striving for. Still I must admit that all plans that are more landscape-like look better with no appearent connection. Maybe just taste but thats how I see it after 731 submissions.
I learned from previous competitions and this one as well, winning plans look simple, elegant and show a fresh and new architecturally interesting view on the program.
I learned to draw as little as possible and not to venture beyond the goal of the competition that is to find a concept that can be worked out in detail in a later stage. Your plan does not look simple, has outdated graphics and the added details on the elevations and perspectives show that you thought your concept is final and you had time left to work on things that are going to be looked into at a later stage with an added brief and program. To put it simple, you did too much making your plan look real and too little to simplify your concept into the plan that says "this is it". It is very hard for a designer not to give away details about the look and feel of the proposel but those details usually are the strongest reason to reject a submission. Look at a group of architects (read jury) that are browsing architectural magazines and see how they burn all plans and photos just by there details. So leave them out untill your in. To further study this look at plans by OMA, Herzog and others that do competitions on a regular basis. Be surprised about the amount of details you think you see at first glance and then at closer look there is no typical material shown to hold on to or critisize.
Well, I need to do a few more competitions before I can keep to these rules myself since I violated them enough to annoy the jury as well....lol.
well, aside from the "mind reading" and the fashion focus, that's pretty good advice. All the same, it seems like a tough row to hoe - if you use less detail, someone assumes that you're drawing a "boring" office building facade, if you use more, you're condemned as arrogant. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I was never an armani model of a graphics man, but I've come to be comfortable with that. If a jury makes a selection based purely on fashion items, they might just as well not be the people I'd like to work with. The only reason for me to entangle myself in all this is for ideas oriented architecture. If they're not my crowd, then so be it. I'll wait. I'll do better focusing on space making than winning.
Its not about the amount of detail that makes the plan boring or not. Your drawings should inspire the juy's imagination how wonderful the design could work out in real life after all the decision making is done.
Its already hard enough to come up with a decent concept that answers the organisers wishes. So how could anyone have been thinking about architectural details and made decisions on those before even the organisers could be involved. The more experienced offices usually make presentations that show transparancies, rough or smooth and less or more opaque surfaces, and shades of colours without specifically making any statements on the exact material and constructions like stone types, glass types etc. What if one of the jury members just has a bad experience with the typical material you choose or has just seen a horrible example of a material you have a wonderfull example of in your mind.
Also you don't have to make many perspectives to make a convincing statement, the less perspectives the better and the more time you have to perfect the few ones you show them. Once they the jury likes the impression you gave they will study your proposal for what it is as a concept. A good concept that looks bad just shows that such a concept is an eyesore. Or that the architect is not the one that should be given the job in such a delicate environment despite the well conceived concept.
The jury is in the difficult possition to judge plans and how well the submission's team is up to the task to keep convincing all involved during the process of realization. There is a lot going on in these big projects...
I feel also looking at my own efforts in this competition that I made a step ahead again but that I need to look at my own advise once more before I enter another competition. I need some time to place all these submissions along with my own plan after the jury exposes the 5 winners.
well, I guess I would suggest that to try to "game" the system is inevitably going to be a distracting endevor, and in the end most likely for naught. It is very hard to say wether or not a jury will be able to read architectural quality in a plan or any other drawings. For that matter, I can't know if a jury member has had a bad experience or not. I guess I got a little prickly over the "dated" graphics because that is ferociously besides the point for me. you can put a lot of effort into focusing on winning, but for my money that effort is better spent on the ideas.
I think Filver's advice is quite good when it seems to go in the direction of an "iconic image"(if I may extrapolate - that seemed to be the direction), but I am less sure that to draw a black and white line as to detail level or graphics is the way to go. I've seen many a project where the whole was a conceptual expansion of the details.
Btw, if anyone is trying to get inside the jury's head, Adam Caruso has a lot of writings on his website. He's really quite a good writer.
hey guys - check out htis link. page 10 was pretty interesting. does anyone recognize the model in the picture? The author is one of the jurors - she seems to favor a connection to the underground rail system.I know - tryin to figure out what they're thinkin, but heck, I already did my project (its the one with the - ahem - "80's graphics")
Thanks form1 for the article. I am not sure anymore about the connection to the underground, there was a change in politics after the election. I remember the underground was no longer going to be as big as they originally planned. I have made a clear an central entrance to the underground though.
Your right about details and juryminds, we don't know, all depends of course mostly on the submissions themselves, they will have to choose somehow.
I read an article in a newspaper written by a well known psychologist who came to the conclusion that people in general do things much less concious as they might think. Most of what we do is generated by experience and far less as a result of genius. Thats why I feel that looking at the work of offices that regularly win competitions is not a bad idea. I also feel that winning a competition is a matter of doing many. After five or more you get a better sense of what is needed and what not to express your ideas and feelings about a site and program. When I see Prince-Ramus talking I can see mostly an experienced guy marketing his ideas and office as a rational minded team that puts the clients wishes upfront. I think they experienced that is the most efective way to go ahead. If you listen to his story as an architect it doesn't ring a bell at all. So we are left wondering why things are as they are unless we try to put ourselves in exactly the same spot as the one we are listening to.
As far as graphics are concerned you have to realize that most architects in juries have their graphics done for them by people who specialise on renderings and animations. Architects who don't do the drawings themselves look at drawings as paid for. So now look at your drawings and try to feel as if you just paid big money for the presentation of your precious concept and ask yourself the question if the results are competitive. After all, you as the designer spend all your time working out on the concept and design ideas, now you want the same effort and love to show up in the final drawings.
There are some plans among the submissions that are very low pofile as far as renderings are concerned. Still they have a lot of power since they kept things really simple and straight forward. Its a technique all can master, it takes some time and effort like developing a clear and good looking handwriting. If you are not concerned with how people percieve your work than there is no hope for improvement.....lol.
I think I know what the jury is thinking, they probably think like us but with a deadlne to choose 5 winners. When you get 1100+ submissions being a jury member is a risky task. I am sure they will be critisized havily on all or some of their desicions as if they made the winning plans themselves.
first of all, thnx again for having had the guts to post your project there!
second: i'm not against 80's architecture, except maybe against post modernism or neo-classic, but again not ennemy of it...its just the look and feel of your project, the render that gave me that impression.
Again I think you made the right choices in terms of lower ground connection, entrance position etc with the asplund, its the formal treatment of the vertical connections between extension and asplund that i find a bit clumsy. You'll see when i post my project we have made very similar choices with different solutions.
As for the "montreal" desire to connect the whole city underground that inga talks about ( from subway to the library)... it might be usefull in -30C weather, but now that weather is warming and temps are raising, i'm not sure swedes want to live in caves all day long.. but its true that it could be a plus for a given project.
As for how much details shall be put, it all depends on how you render: wireframe 3D like those u used ask for very detailed stuff, leaving no possibility to the jury of imagining or dreaming.
Again, Nouvel's example of Auralab's 3D (http://www.auralab.com/galerie01.html) for the museum of the art premiers in paris is typical on how much dream you can give in a 3D: a man walking in a wheat field in a semi fog like atmosphere, going to a building that was undefined and blurred at some places...
So its basically what definition you give and how u render it... it sounds strange to put so much emphasis on the render of the project, but its actually the civilization of show, media and communication: among many projects the best looking will be easier to sell than the mid or weak looking...
Today tools are easier for architects to master themselves, without having to rely on (expensive) third parties, and with time, a small team or a single individual can output the same level of " look " than that of a big big company.
Thanks nils, those are great presentations. Again for me a learning moment. These presentations should not take months or even weeks, probably no more than a few days for each. They also express mostly atmosphere exactly what I mean by not being overly detailed. The drawings have a sense of detail but in fact are not detailled. If you master this kind of quality it will save you tons of time. It also takes the mind of a visionary person of course, actually thats most important.
There are certain levels to pass through before you feel you have reached your audience at the level you want most. I am also sceptic about levels and techniques and their importance on competitions and architecture in general. The drawing is not the final result obviously, its the building itself that is going to be the object to judge. So thats where your presentation should point at most, how is your design going to work as a building at the site, I think Auralab does a good job of exposing just that.
Oh - i didn't mean to suggest that I didn't care what anyone thinks of my work. I do of course to some degree, just as a matter of charting my own way, but in this case my point was that in a competition situation, in the abscence of real clients to interact with, you'll wind up battling with people you have invented in your own mind, which is more crippling than having real clients.
Stockholm Library Comp. Favorites?
Thanks Nils and Shrub for the very interesting links. Loved to see some more info on the exhibit. Ramus is a marketing king like Steve Job is. Obviously he would not stay at Rem's office. I am sure they are still friends though.
I wish I could talk like that and keep a serious face all the time. Still, how would you go about such big projects, let your client know he spending his money rationally and also want do something spectacular. Ramus is a designer, look at his cloth, but a smart one, I have learned a lot again, this Asplund competition has saved me years in my personal devleopment as an architect.
Having seen Ramus and his work I wonder how the jury is really thinking. I feel now even more that a low profile and keeping the annexes or go down the rabbithole or dig the library completely in hill is going against the tide and mostly based on fears that Ramus and OMA totally seem to lack.
I must say that the presentation of that the Museum Plaza is very impressive. Without being very photorealistic. There must be a very good team at work there.
It might be that the jury will come with plans that are hardly developed architecturally but with very strong concepts. CUT for instance is a typical design feature not typically a concept according to the competition brief. I think in these times such designs are no longer fashionable for those that admire the Seattle building.
Has anybody seen a winner concept among the submissions. Something that typically shapes the competition brief in a building?
Cut is no longer on my favorites list. My initial response was hey a “Robert Morris earthwork” type of thing -- seems to be the work of an artist. I really like it. With 2 phase competitions, you’re stuck with your concept. This is obvious. So let’s say CUT is chosen because it’s a great idea -- a mysterious cut in the earth. All the Cons Elisa mentioned would disappear – through the jury’s suggestions, through a more focused look at the problem; consultation … the only thing I like really like here is the cut. I don’t really think the architecture works well. I don’t think the lighting will work out. One thing I really don’t like is the two dead ends at each end of the “V” That’s where Elisa’s vertical circulation could occur.
Point is that the connection to the library could change, the connection to the annex could change, and the project could be great without deviating from the original concept. This is one that could get away with this.
Perhaps you guys could help me out by posting a project that has a great balance of the following combined qualities – this doesn’t have to be your favorite, or it could be:
1. A contextual complement
2. A staff, media and visitor circulation pattern that works, and a good arrangement of program -- a truly functional library.
3. . . . “The entrance is an eye catcher. . .”
4. A great connection between to the ASP Lund Library and the proposed extension.
some current favorites:
-- extending the esker -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26156/f3601?skip25556=300
-- city of knowledge -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s25830/f3275?skip25556=200
-- malmash6-whatever-- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26290/f3730?skip25556=600
-- janus -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26959/f4280?skip25556=500
-- infinity loop -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s25971/f3416?skip25556=400
-- interstitial readings -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26604/f3975?skip25556=500
-- over booking -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26360/f3800?skip25556=700
-- genius loci -- http://www.arkitekt.se/s26387/f4261?skip25556=400
Filver,
i think the first two i listed solve the competition nicely. if you take some time and read the texts ... oh, also, i'm thinking these could change in the second phase. and i think at least 2 submissions will include the annex buildings. i have some big problems with both, but compared to others there nothing.
Janus is too good – i need to print this one out
For those who never seen Nouvel sell his projects, try to see any of his lectures when he does them... he is ramus x 10 !
I also think this kind of competition is usually won by projects with no remorses or shyness regarding the boundaries of the brief ( keep annexes, do not touch asplund, do not dig too much, etc..). World class project means often finding the upper most limit of where the jury will be able to go. Since its Sweden and the jury might be freighten by the cost and lifespan more than if it was built in lets say france, they might also keep reasonable projects in the end race.
But as Filver states, the more i think; the less i think the annexes, librarians nightmare, should be kept, and the more i think winning porjects will keep have them kept. As in a hospital, the less footsteps the librarian / nurse makes, the happier and more efficient they are... building a labyrinth around the annexes is creating complexity and flow problems.
What does a project needs to win in a competition for an official building?
- a clear, obvious and magnificent entrance
- an official building feel and look ( aka good materials, proportions, open areas outside etc)
- a simple concept so that even non pro can understand the plans and sections
- good images so that the project can sell to the press and the public ( aka : communication sells)
We'll see how the winners to second round deal with these!
Gonna see more TED talks, its fascinating!
Nils
Well about Ramus, there sure is no poetry there is his story or plans. Although the Seattle Library does have a lot more to say that just a rational thing of course. I think mankind will come up with more poetic ways to deal with big scale, there is more than enough mony for that. Just look at Dubai. Funny that in Asian countries OMA style is considered typical Western Style, they don't see it as rational at all. Luckily I have had some very good teachers like Arie Graafland and others who have explained to me in my studies how silly architects are in their explanation of their work. Doesn't mean their work is bad but they are certainly not writers or great in their study of their own work or what other architects do. Ramus to me sounds like a typical student when explaning how simple really the Seattle Library has been conceived. He totally forgets to mention his cultural believes and where he came from that have a lot more to say about why that library looks like this.
Ok, back to ou favorites;
-extending the esker to me is just one of the others, rather avarage not at all the masterwork they are looking for, not in any sense. I don't see a livingroom or great connection. This plan to me is not within the first 100 even.
-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.
-maimash6, good plan although the ramp in the street elevation is horrible. I also think it is in conflict with the subway and its smallish, low ceilings and a bit boring. Good colour though.
-janus i like a lot although its also not a livingroom approuch at all. I feel now that most plans that make this kind of triangle turn their back on Asplund and lack all connection power. Walking into Janus you actually do so with your back towards asplund and the connection at the side wing is catastrofic.
-infinity loop, Seattle but not with the smart concept. very boring inside and I think a problem with the subway. No world class entrance or very inviting. There is already a park so why put all that energy is an outdoor adventure.
-interstitual- very complicated as far from a clear and flexible livingroom as you could imagine. It does have certain thorougness in its layout that is appealing. But not a concept, why would anybody want to see this developed in a second stage. You can make up your mind now as it is. Not good enough.
-overbooking. There is no jury in the world who is going to choose a library that looks like a pile of books, especially when it is intended to look like that. Think of a Dutch house that looks like a wooden shoe or a roadside restaurant that looks like a truck. The plan has an interesting cross section though.
genius loci is interesting but exceeds the site bounderies in a way as if its saying to the organisers, hey look at me being smart, you did not think of this did you!!!!!. Well the organisers surely did but decided it was not possible, or yet possible so that plan was taken of the list by the students that had to filter the plans so the jury did not have to go through all the none sense.
I have to admit that looking at my own submission I can be just as harsh, its not an easy assignment this competition. Even when you do everything right conceptually it might look awfull.....
Genius loci is not mine. . .I'm sure there are many more submissions that I would like, but overlooked them, or did not see them yet. . .Filver, did you visit the exposition? if so was there any indications as to which ones the jury favors? How do you know about Genius Loci? As for the 2 i mentioned. I just feel that the programs worked with regard to the seperation of staff, visitor and media circulation patterns, and progam distribution, while keeping the annex buildings -- not saying the jury will favor keeping the Annex buildings -- ha.
Now I'm thinking that I would like to see a big open space A la the prince.
I'd like to point out 3 that have good big open spaces and a comprehensive architectural idea (as per omen's last entry).
The Prism - http://www.arkitekt.se/s26264/f3704?skip25556=900
Cones of Cognizance - http://www.arkitekt.se/s26784/f4133?skip25556=200
Publik - http://www.arkitekt.se/s25718/f3163?skip25556=700
Prism has great plans for "level 2" and "level 3", very natural.
Cones is really great - nice interior spaces and a great architectural motif. Its too bad is so ugly on the main street facade.
Publik seems like it has a lot of potential - read the text, there's a lot going on in this scheme.
I do like public. Clear connection with the rotunda into the new livingroom. I did the same thing. But Public totally obscures Aspiund and will not get many points for its park connection. Also the floorplan/livingroom is rather uninspiring and lacks world class quality. The floorplans are underdeveloped compared to the competition and so this plan as well will recieve few points on important conceptual factors. Also the media handling from and to Asplund can not be understood from the submission. Publik might have been much better given more time but as it is it will be vastly overruled by other more elaborate plans with more or less the same concept.
The Prism can not be choosen by a jury that is asked to look for the work of master-architect of intenational status, the same goes for Cones. There are no master architects present that I know of who's work looks like one of these two.
I discussed the submissions with a collegue this evening and we came to the conclusion that although the quantity is very high in this competition the lack of quality is also evident. I have not spoken or seen anyone wildly enthousiastic about any of the submissions, the masters seem to have passed by on this one. Experienced master usually see thing coming before they happen. Too much of a lottery .....?
please do tell us what a master architect's submission looks like. shenzen? liebeskind's proposal for ground zero?
Filver,
I'm in agreement with your assessment of the 3 BIG BOX options. I liked Public since way back when ... now I think I'll take another look. Nevertheless, I feel Prism has a good formal relation to the Asplund.
-- Janus is certainly good. The realistic renderings make it stand out -- I like the way the form was derived from the angle of the plaza, the park and the city grid very much. that's a simple, academic move--it works well here. But, where's the loading dock? How do books get moved around the extension and the Asplund Library; I could imagine the book system serving the entire library with this entry. But that was overlooked? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I believe the sorting machine is in the right place already, just stick the loading dock on the back, and send a line across the "bridge" to the Asplund … the form looks wonderful in relation to the Asplund library and the high rise beyond. I see it fitting in, and the building working.
pedromartinez, you are right in the sense that nobody really knows how a master architect's subm. looks like but somehow we can recognize them in a way, not for a 100% of course. Winning plans usually look like a team effort with all facets at top level, the renderings, the program layout schemes, the floorplans in clear drawings not further developed then necessary for this stage etc. A one person effort shows a lot variaty at different levels although some get away with it depending on how brilliant the concept is.
I sometimes feel we are looking at totally the wrong plans assuming the jury will be most interested in the best looking plans. Usually they will keep a more business like approach and stick to their list and matrix and scores and then decide what are the better looking options and the promises those plans hold regarding their architectural potential.
Janus might also be among the 5, I would understand that, athough I feel it doesn't bring the new extention and the old Asplund under one roof. It will seperate the two rather a lot and as such it is hardly a good concept. I feel asplund never really intended the backside of the library to serve as a frontface or elevation with much appeal after he build the fourth wing. I think plans like Janus are lacking by overrating the quality of the fourth wing. The fourth wing looks very closed and not inviting at all so from Odenplan the whole new library would be even less atractive that it is now. From Odenplan the new extention would be regarded a extention of the commericial building rather than for Asplund.
I really feel we are not on to the winnars yet, anybody with some new ideas and list of favorites we have not seen here yet.
well, I really don't know sometimes, I have 663 plans downloaded and so I still miss about 400 or more.....
no-one in the jury is looking for a submission from a "master architect" - they are looking at a good answer to the question how to deal with extending the Asplund library. A hard question because
1) it has obviously been answered badly in the past (by the annexes - they are the failed extensions... and because this is so obvious, I just wonder why anyone should consider keeping them. Like repeating the wrong answer to the same question, again.)
2) Asplund's building is a symmetrical unity of platonic shapes - adding to it is impossible in a traditional manner - the new building has to sidestep the problem somehow. making a new distinct entity, building landscape, whatever. Just adding on, putting it all under one roof - won't do.
well, we'll know in a month or so what the jury thinks...
[and scandinavian juries can choose whatever - they rarely pick the ones that can be identified as "master architect stuff" (whatever that really means) - many students and student team proposals have been chosen in previous open competitions. So no master-strokes necessary. just good design.]
I really hope you are right, it would put me back on track. You have a high regard for the jury and I admire you for that. Maybe I should also start looking at this competition this way, its a lot more hopeful and optimistic. Maybe some of my past experiences have let me down a bit.
amen
Lets cross fingers ! will be interesting to have our own projects critisized after we can tell which they are!
Nils
Love how the reponse has been quite deep from the intial post, however, for me this discussion has landed on some rather unconvincing prefered work for a while now -- so, here's my bias on the cons plus a few pros on the recently mentioned/discussed entries above (I know the criticism/commentary is harsh, but ever see America's Next Top Model? It's all in good sport though [it is a public competition after all]):
Janus seems merely not horrible. But spatially enticing? or very well done?
The Prism and Cones of Cognizance: simplistic, over-monumental strong-geometry-controlled mediocrity.
Publik and Malmasch6 are certainly better, but, once again, I don't know how a jury would pick a scheme with not a single interior space represented (and I agree the ramp-facade is not convincing on Malmasch6).
City of Knowledge -- come on, Asplund's cylindrical drum now becomes a big ELIPTICAL drum, with a slanted top?!
Extending the Esker's interiors scare me in their over-monumentality, while the exterior doesn't offer much in return.
Infinity Loop is probably among the best of the numerous zig-zag ramp schemes, but if you're getting rid of all the annexes I don't believe you'd end up with this as the best option for a landmark building.
Genius Loci is rigorous but reminds me of all the Italian Rationalist redux stuff in the mid 80s for thesis projects, in schools all over the place -- super rigid.
Interstitial Readings has a full set of quite well-done plans, but in 3D its pretty heavy-handed urbanistically -- kind of Morphosis meets Siza on steroids. And still not a compelling interior.
Overbooking wears its OMA references on its inner sleave -- in the super-graphic spiral/ramp/void interior, but I agree its exterior is certainly a bit of a one liner.
Gardens of Connectivity is a cool, clear concept but again no interior (if there was it would reveal the repetitiveness of all those pancake spaces under the terraces).
Cut is quite well done --in terms of the clarity of the idea and in it's representation. But that's a a lot of deep dark space up against those (huge) retaining walls.
ISBN is also quite well-done but once again no interior and another big-ass retaining wall...
-- Anyone up for another round focusing on some of the ones Nils mentions above (some good choices) or ones I mentioned earlier? Perhaps transcending the seemingly reactionary avoidance of complexity, sophistication or beauty (this is the 21st century, no?)...
Saw Trivium from your list. Looks very international and with the main axis from Asplund well used. Interesting plan although feels small and I think also in confilct with the subway. The jury might let this one enter the second stage though. One of the best hill plans.
Glaciartek has a very convincing architecture worked out in one of its drawings although maybe almost "alt modisch". For the rest this plans looks not very inspiring.
Merging the landscape killed itself with the Asplund veranda entrance.
City Figures has a gorgeous elevation but it doesn't hold this promise from Odenplan, not even a bit.
Ok, I feel I am slowly dying from a submission fatique. I am sure the winnars are going to face some harsh comments as well. I really have no clue anymore as to how big this new extension has to be to work as a livingroom and a library at the same time. Also I feel many plans have very convincing ways to keep the view on Asplund from Odenplan. Its weird though that when I was in Stockholm I felt the backside of Asplund needed a fix somehow since the 4th wing was rather badly done. To make this side of the building a monumental showpiece within the new concept to me does not help to attract visitors. Many plans show me decent and architecturally well concieved concepts but very few do actually make me think they will be the new "must see" library in Scandinavia as the result of the competition of the century. The Asplund library was at the time it was build. Maybe we shouldn't mess with it anymore and do as Helsinki mentioned, make a landscape kind of building and let Asplund play the role of the old master to go and must see. I would not mind if Trivium was worked out in such a way.
when i tried to connect to http://www.arkitekt.se/asplund i got :
An error of type 1040 occurred when trying to connect to the SQL host: Too many connections
is there a reason for this sudden interest high interest again in the Asplund site with submissions, or is it my my connection that is just no longer working?
it was my connection I suppose, all back to normal.
I am planning my trip to Stockholm in the last week of January. Seems SAS offeres airfares for about 200-300 euros roundtrip. I wonder though sometimes after having seen about 700 submissions if it gives me more insight in the competition or not. I have a feeling that its really only about 25 plans that are worth looking into. And that we have seen and talked about those already.
holly cow!
when u look at the face of the jury, you understand why blob architecture wasn't maybe a good answer ;)...
Did you see that photo only just now ?....they sure look very conservativ, all in black as well. Still that does not say much.
Have a look at this:
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storyCode=3079308
Should we also start a boycot. I think the Asplund competition also suffers from star-studding... I feel being put in a week position somehow....lol.
Exactly, Nils. It was also noted that members of the local city council would be consulted or invited to participate.
Swedes are not really greatly moved by outside influences. They do not readily copy other cultures- so I would not be surprised if they take a pass on the Koolhaas or Gehry approach. They don't want to look like everyone else. Scandinavians in general are less self-aggrandizing, although that does not mean they don't think highly of themselves. Asplund was a man from a modest home, yet his experiences were culturally rich. Teams that study or can 'read' the history of the man, his work, and the culture would have a deeper understanding of the question of "values" that are so vaguely thrown about in the brief.
I struggled with the question of values relating to this modesty of persons and architecture. I assigned the following words to the main library: monumentally understated- the metaphor for Aspund's legacy. Asplund's well known dance with classical architecture and fusion with functionalism sychronized with the Swedish people's self-view and does so today. The diameter just isn't big enough.
Functionalist plans were often interspersed with perturbations, Villa Snellman's offset upper windows and interior circular room, the 4 degree twist of the library off the grid, Stadhuset's slightly off-square plan. Subtle or outright challenging shifts in an otherwise classical plans would re-emerge in deconstructivist architecture decades later.
Skogskirkegarden (woodland cemetary and crematoria) is in my mind the best of Asplund's work. Filver you should see this if you have not yet done so.
Thanks, woodland cemetary obviously is a better way to see Asplunds quality than the library which is still full of his uncertenties with the road to follow.
I see the submissions going in two directions.
The Asplund way when he was inspired with a vision of the circulair library at the scale he saw in the US as he studied many libraries around the world. In this sense he wasn't really mostly concerned with the site's sensitivities.
Secondly the view expressed as it was stated in the brief, looking for a sensitiv design very well embedded in the current situation. That is the typical way a jury of many professionals would look at the problem as opposed to the times when Asplund and his vision on a new library was the leading motiv.
I have a strong feeling that the jury will come up with mostly modest designs of smaller than world class Koolhaas kind of proportions. This is also in line with the competitions I have been in the past few years like Gwangju and the Giant Causeway. Those where won by modest low profile designs well concieved within the site's bouderies and program. Juries struggle often with visionary design's that are hard to present as the groups decision. Maybe that's what Koolhaas his critic is on design competitions. Star-studded but geared to average results.
Agreed..
I think to understand fully what swedish modern architecture is you have to visit Lewerentz St Marcus church in stockholm ( in my top ten XXth century building ever)...or see what Erik Asmussen ( whom I had the chance to meet) did in Järna with his "anthroposophic" approach ( a must visit ). I believe its all about how to go along the flows of nature and how the humans ( quiet thoughtfull swede pace such as described in Strindberg's or Lagerlöff's work ) interact with the surrounding walls to communicate with the outside. Importance of light is primordial in sweden, where you can find "light room therapy" in hospitals, and where solstices are really of importance and the traditionnal mythology turns a lot around the sun cycles.
I assume a poetical approach should be mixed in the project to really fullfill swedish way of seeing the building, even if its hard to do in such a big building, especially near such a big cube..
Of course unless a genius came up with a fantastic "spaceship bilbao", he could still impress ( but haven't seen it).. and the jury looks more like bunch of Bergman's people than fancy gay nightclub jet set people!
http://www.msa.mmu.ac.uk/continuity/index.php/category/sweden/
few pics on St Markus church... plans are hard to find but are true masterpiece
http://www.architectureweek.com/2006/0301/culture_1-1.html
Abbi Asmussen work in Järna ( very interesting palliative care center there too )
Nils
Asplund and Lewerentz are great, but I think it would be a mistake to take the functionalilm/classicism of Asplund or the idiosyncratic archaism of Lewerentz as guiding lights in a contemporary architecture competition. Or try second-guessing asplunds own intentions.
Also... can't say we scandinavians (nils being one of "us"?) put much emphasis on the sun cycles. In architecture or otherwise - and the much talked about quality of our "northern light" is of course often an issue to be dealt with, but there are really no special conditions as far south as Stockholm is.
and as far as I know, the characters in the jury are not really out of Bergman, Lagerlöf, Strindberg, Hamsun or anything like that. A liking of pragmatic nordic modernism might be a feature of the group (at least the one Finnish jury member is a very no-nonsense person).
The results of many swedish competitions lately has been dissapointing, but can't say if that is because of the relatively low quality of swedish contemporary architecture/architects or the open and compromise-prone judging process. could be both but I hope it has been the former.
I have decided not to go to the exhibit. I feel now I have more or less seen the winners and feel it might be better to focus on a other competition with the lessons learned. There is a dsign competition for a library in ireland, Dhun Laoghaire-Rathdown.
What if we decide to be the jury and try to make our own list of winners, five only. Lets see if we can agree to choose five.
I start the list with these:
-down the rabbithole
-trivium
(my own plan is not at all like this and I will not put my own plan on my list so feel free to comment or take plans of the list)
Hey All,
Just returned from an Architecture lecture. Gage / Clemenceau Architects showed some of their recent work. And guess what they choose to present … Yes the Stockholm Library.
what about that? is that wrong?
... and which entry was that?
... and yes, i think it's wrong but the damage is done, so you might as well tell us.
At a lecture at CCA, way back in early October, Tom Wiscombe presented his design for this project - before the deadline even. Made me wonder if he was taking the competition seriously (never mind my opinions about his proposal)
Many architects use competitions to push issues they want to explore - test out ideas in an environment with at least a bit of friction - and not primarily go for the prize. Still, presenting your work before the competition has been finished shows somekind of arrogant cynicism towards the jury and the process - like assuming that ones proposal would never be chosen because of the "ol'boys club" or some other bullshit (in the worst case - assuming you're such a "renegade" that you are a lost cause from the start).
Or you are not actually concerned about contributing anything "good" to Stockholm - just playing your own games and showing off. great.
I don't know, could it be that the competition process in the states concerning open competitions is so rigged, that people by default don't care? Walnut & Omen, were the presented designs really well done - or just conceptual one-liners?
hello everyone and happy new year
i am a participant and i've been reading for a while now all your comments with lots of pleasure and interest.
i was waiting to go through all the available submissions before posting anything...and here is my opinion...well if anyone cares :D
a word about processing...
judging around 1105 projects...mmm...i know...it's been said many times already (Nils, Fliver, Omen...)
- first there "has been"(oh yeah it's done baby) a huge bashing process of the "SBN! projects" (sorry..but no!)
- then...no matter the amount of submissions, the jury had to make categories...
i've been doing this for myself with all of them and honestly i don't think the task of the jury will be that difficult (of course...what do i know!? :D). i.e. i could easily and quickly remove 98% of the projects which left me with around 25-30 submissions.
(of course! you ought to remove the blobs the blubs and glups...no way!...also architects in the jury don't even represent half of it...and i assume that only Adam Caruso would go as far as picking a "tesselate-diamond shape project"...)
Then it's family business.meaning grouping them and giving a medal to the best "wrapping","mall-hall","roof", "ramp", "tower"...etc
After that...well here comes the hard discussion on which of those categories the jury will keep...my guess is that the "towering inferno" and the "too-much-digging-in-the-hill" projects have few if not any chance to be on 2nd stage (out of 5-6 finalists...i don't think the jury will waste a shot on those with too many malfunction and cost/feasibility issues)...
i also removed some that were putting connecting sticks in the ass of Asplund...that left me with maybe 10 or so projects. mostly implemented in the continuity of Asplund...some keeping or not the annexes...some daring to remove the late addition in Asplund Library...
so here they are (none of them is mine...alas :P)...and most of them have never been mentioned...oops :D
0302 - jore 117 + 0613 - brass (maybe too daring but they make sense somehow)
0510 - the_space_between (nice concept)
0519 - barcode (bold and simple)
0662 - infinity loop + 1004 - zig-zag (nice...but this ramp category may dissapear as well...)
0663 - shifting intensities (new wrapping skin)
for sure none of them are international class buildings...but i don't think the jury was expecting for the stars to join...since they usually get invited...and since the star is already there...aka Asplund ... anyone trying to mess too much with him (like i've seen some really scary "Hannibal-like-opening skull" operations on the building...yuck)...well SBN! :P
the results will come soon. the best to all! :D
Ulanbator,
keen insights -- give a PRO / CON on ISBN if you have time.
Elisa, Helsinki
I have not viewed this particular (above mentioned) entry through the on-line exhibition--but, it will never win. it's white and is situated in the hill area, leaving the annexes in place; it has a psychedelic interior (rendering is at the amazing level). there is no indication of program arrangement; it's pure form and space, with an emphasis on inventive skin -- I'll look for it soon, and give a PRO /CON review.
isbn 0-7148..... is one of those plans that have actually taken the subway into account. Most plans seem to have completely ignored the subway route going up to odenplan. If you do see the subway, you will have to stay clear of it for several meters at least, making it impossible to extend the levels under the rotunda beyond where area 2 is cut in half by the subway route.
Since most plans have not understood this, altough it has been mentioned in the brief and aswers on questions, I think the jury will have no choice than to leave some room for error within the 5 choosen ones although some good plans have to be taken of the list since there basic concept relies on large continious floorspaces underneath the rotunda level.
"the space between us" also looks good and simple and with the subway well taken care of, but where is the connection with Asplund, the space between Asplund and the extension is empty, beautifully empty but empty. That library is an extension of the commercial building instead of Asplund. It gets zero points on the most important goal of the competition.
As a forum jury would we be able to agree on 5 plans. I see very different views already on basic principles on how to devide the categories and how to look at those categories as the most important ones.
my opinion on 0178-isbn? sure Omen! with pleasure
well as i said the jury will directly remove the "SBN" projects (sorry but NO!) ...and this one already gets 3 letters...so what would "i" stand for?...mmm "idiot"?
sorry... but i mean seriously in a country where you still can get impaled by icicles it seems a bit stupid to suggest buildings with HUGE glass sloped roofs....it always will look silly and dangerous unless you propose something like the Gund Hall(http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Gund_Hall.html) or leave the heater on volcano-mode during winter...(talking about heat...i realized that few people put any attention on sustainability issues...tsstss...it's a country that drives with biofuel! c'mon!)
also... but this is maybe too personal (:D as usual?) all the plans i've seen organizing too clearly their scheme against the limits of the Hill (you know the "V" shape topography...) show how stuck they are with the program and eventually their design...and if you look too stuck at a first round...great chance you'll die if they modify-increase the program for second stage...
To me, generally speaking this extension should look more of a shoe box than a pipe case...and that is simply because it's more flexible... The Asplund Library is the pipe case...i dont think they want another one (like SO many did...)
also Filver (sorry if i misspelt your name before) having seen the projects you chose as favourites i guess we won't agree with 5 finalists (arfarf...imagine the jury then...poor people :P) but it's ok. just ignore my choices i don't want to spoil the effort. truly
oops sorry i forgot the "pro" for isdn (how come? :P)...well someone said something about filming Jackass...what about Ice-Age 3 since the CAD model may be already done?
PS: if you are reading this and you are the author of this project. please let me apologize for all the nonsense i've been writing here. i really hope you can win (just don't forget to put on the heaters to the MAX!!!)
ulanbator,
my bad, as they say.
i had thought your "SBN" was ISBN . What is SBN?
Sorry But No... ;P
homemade expression for the quick elimination...
well, I wasn't going to say anything about my own scheme on my first posting, but since someone has made mention of a similar design, and also one of my concerns about the hill, what the heck. Mine was 0371, mythic landscapes. My street perspective looks a whole heck of a lot like the street perspective for shifting intensities, and I think we both even had a similar idea with having floating planes in a larger volume. The difference is in the treatment of the hillside. I think my response to the hill had a different twist than most others. Like a lot of schemes, I wrapped the hill, but I also had a major outdoor public space the led up to the hillside - essentially the hill is allowed to "spill" down into the space below the building. I was hoping for the undercroft public space to be transitional - dark in the daytime in relation to the sunlit hillside to the south (under the right solar angles of course) and bright at night (from the optical fiber ceiling) in relation to the dark forest beyond. I was pretty happy with the design overall, though it has weak parts to it I'm sure. One strong point is the way the circulation patterns are united in a sort of paris opera house maneuver at the main stair, so that the old and new buildings circulate well together. I'm pretty down on my graphics in general, though I think my write up helped a bit.
you guys seem pretty sharp, so your thoughts would be appreciated.
Form 1,
What you have stated about your entry sounds wonderful.
I will take a look. Right now I am very busy, so I will take some time and review this project soon.
Sound exciting!
Form1
Thanks for letting us know which is yours... its interesting to know what u tried to achieve.
I also share a few of your points in my project ( hillside relation, spill down to below etc..
Here is my way of analyzing your project ( please dont see any hate or bad stuff in my words, its just my feeling about it)
Render and panels:
I find them very late 80's, when vector lines were the only thing computer could output ( check nouvel's work of the time).. its totally outdated today not because its 80's, but because it makes it very hard to read ( the 3D's). It gives a flat look to the whole panels, and the color choices are not very friendly ( a bit mustard like). Red fonts are very hard to read, and give a "oops i forgot to turn them black" feeling..
If i can give you an advice on that: get used to Indesign and Photoshop, they will tremendously improve your layout designs. As for 3D's the tool you are using is very precise, but looks too straight of the machine: use a render tool, or simple plain 3D easy software such as sketchup, instead of allplan or arc+ or microstation ( not sure which u use)
Project:
I like the odengatan rectangle facade, and i think it was a good idea to raise the levels to let the hill go through, ( did the same) but the use of exterior structural glass is too outdated (very 80's) and give the project an old or basic office look , especially in the close up 3D..
I'm not convinced of the way you connect asplund and your big concave rectangle, the staircase and connection is the weakest part of your project because the add an strange shape to the asplund, which does not let it breathe.
Another point that is strange to me is the side facades with small windows, like if you wanted to impersonate asplund's 4th facade..
I think also, but its also the case in many other projects, that basic shapes within an exterior enveloppe, is something very hard to masterize, and that using them ( circles, ovals, square) is something only the best of the best ( read the masters) have successed in using...its very tricky and the project can loose all subtleness pretty quick when making shape, filling them with function afterwards.. form follows function, not the opposite usually..
but is funny because the more i look at it, the more i see similarities with my choices to the same project. I'll give mine out when jury takes it down to nuts ;)
Nils
much appreciated nils-
I was actually less concerned about the "look" of the graphics, more that I didn't think my idea was conveyed. I've avoided much of the computer graphics, simply because I haven't liked the satisfaction-to-effort ratio of most computer rendering, though that's changing as the programs are evolving.
I struggled a lot with my feelings on the connection to the asplund builing, but ultimately felt that it was a lot stronger than I was giving it credit for. My concern was that the new addition would generate a lot of visitors and traffic, because its new and bigger, but that the old building would become an isolated backwater and would not benefit from all of that new life. I chose connection over breathing space, though the transparency of the connector towers would be an interesting experience itself. It sure did take some getting used to though. One thing that helped was that in perspective views, it looks to be a lot less in competition with the drum than the elevation indicates - its actually quite narrow, and set pretty far back.
You're right about imitating the fourth facade. The intent was less however that that would be an homage than it would suitably abstract those walls - i.e. that they would be read to have a different identity than either the structure or the north and south walls.
I'm not sure we look at the same structural glass - If you want an image of what I had in mind, check out the front elevation of the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. I was around in the late eighties, and I didn't see anything close to that. Anywho, the dynamic was that both north and south facades would be double skin for thermal function. The north was the domain of the city, maximally transparent and open (and with a projection screeen function), and the South was the domain of the individual, more sheltering and actually habitable (individual study desks in the gap) and opened to the sunlight and birchtrees.
I guess the shapes are much like the endwalls - it's less important their actual plan than that they create a variety of vantage points and spaces of different character. They could take on a lot of variation, but these suitably made the intention clear that these were to be free floating "islands" within a larger volume. My thought on the experience of them would be that they would really be too big to be percieved as a whole, like they are in plan, so that what looks awkward in plan falls away in actual experience. They also need to be filled up with books.
All in all, no hate taken at all, I appreciate the conversation. You seem to have a strange distaste for the late eighties. Really, I was there, they weren't so bad.
Hi, thanks for showing your submission. A lot easier to talk about a submission with an actual author.
I am very biased of course having a submission out there too. So my comment is more in general looking at your plan;
First I totally agree with your statement where you say making a true connection with Asplund will make the whole library more lively than the Asplund backwater approach. You get 10 points from me there as I did the same and still believe its a goal the organisers are striving for. Still I must admit that all plans that are more landscape-like look better with no appearent connection. Maybe just taste but thats how I see it after 731 submissions.
I learned from previous competitions and this one as well, winning plans look simple, elegant and show a fresh and new architecturally interesting view on the program.
I learned to draw as little as possible and not to venture beyond the goal of the competition that is to find a concept that can be worked out in detail in a later stage. Your plan does not look simple, has outdated graphics and the added details on the elevations and perspectives show that you thought your concept is final and you had time left to work on things that are going to be looked into at a later stage with an added brief and program. To put it simple, you did too much making your plan look real and too little to simplify your concept into the plan that says "this is it". It is very hard for a designer not to give away details about the look and feel of the proposel but those details usually are the strongest reason to reject a submission. Look at a group of architects (read jury) that are browsing architectural magazines and see how they burn all plans and photos just by there details. So leave them out untill your in. To further study this look at plans by OMA, Herzog and others that do competitions on a regular basis. Be surprised about the amount of details you think you see at first glance and then at closer look there is no typical material shown to hold on to or critisize.
Well, I need to do a few more competitions before I can keep to these rules myself since I violated them enough to annoy the jury as well....lol.
well, aside from the "mind reading" and the fashion focus, that's pretty good advice. All the same, it seems like a tough row to hoe - if you use less detail, someone assumes that you're drawing a "boring" office building facade, if you use more, you're condemned as arrogant. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I was never an armani model of a graphics man, but I've come to be comfortable with that. If a jury makes a selection based purely on fashion items, they might just as well not be the people I'd like to work with. The only reason for me to entangle myself in all this is for ideas oriented architecture. If they're not my crowd, then so be it. I'll wait. I'll do better focusing on space making than winning.
Its not about the amount of detail that makes the plan boring or not. Your drawings should inspire the juy's imagination how wonderful the design could work out in real life after all the decision making is done.
Its already hard enough to come up with a decent concept that answers the organisers wishes. So how could anyone have been thinking about architectural details and made decisions on those before even the organisers could be involved. The more experienced offices usually make presentations that show transparancies, rough or smooth and less or more opaque surfaces, and shades of colours without specifically making any statements on the exact material and constructions like stone types, glass types etc. What if one of the jury members just has a bad experience with the typical material you choose or has just seen a horrible example of a material you have a wonderfull example of in your mind.
Also you don't have to make many perspectives to make a convincing statement, the less perspectives the better and the more time you have to perfect the few ones you show them. Once they the jury likes the impression you gave they will study your proposal for what it is as a concept. A good concept that looks bad just shows that such a concept is an eyesore. Or that the architect is not the one that should be given the job in such a delicate environment despite the well conceived concept.
The jury is in the difficult possition to judge plans and how well the submission's team is up to the task to keep convincing all involved during the process of realization. There is a lot going on in these big projects...
I feel also looking at my own efforts in this competition that I made a step ahead again but that I need to look at my own advise once more before I enter another competition. I need some time to place all these submissions along with my own plan after the jury exposes the 5 winners.
well, I guess I would suggest that to try to "game" the system is inevitably going to be a distracting endevor, and in the end most likely for naught. It is very hard to say wether or not a jury will be able to read architectural quality in a plan or any other drawings. For that matter, I can't know if a jury member has had a bad experience or not. I guess I got a little prickly over the "dated" graphics because that is ferociously besides the point for me. you can put a lot of effort into focusing on winning, but for my money that effort is better spent on the ideas.
I think Filver's advice is quite good when it seems to go in the direction of an "iconic image"(if I may extrapolate - that seemed to be the direction), but I am less sure that to draw a black and white line as to detail level or graphics is the way to go. I've seen many a project where the whole was a conceptual expansion of the details.
Btw, if anyone is trying to get inside the jury's head, Adam Caruso has a lot of writings on his website. He's really quite a good writer.
hey guys - check out htis link. page 10 was pretty interesting. does anyone recognize the model in the picture? The author is one of the jurors - she seems to favor a connection to the underground rail system.I know - tryin to figure out what they're thinkin, but heck, I already did my project (its the one with the - ahem - "80's graphics")
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s46/conf/Riga_Lunden.pdf
Thanks form1 for the article. I am not sure anymore about the connection to the underground, there was a change in politics after the election. I remember the underground was no longer going to be as big as they originally planned. I have made a clear an central entrance to the underground though.
Your right about details and juryminds, we don't know, all depends of course mostly on the submissions themselves, they will have to choose somehow.
I read an article in a newspaper written by a well known psychologist who came to the conclusion that people in general do things much less concious as they might think. Most of what we do is generated by experience and far less as a result of genius. Thats why I feel that looking at the work of offices that regularly win competitions is not a bad idea. I also feel that winning a competition is a matter of doing many. After five or more you get a better sense of what is needed and what not to express your ideas and feelings about a site and program. When I see Prince-Ramus talking I can see mostly an experienced guy marketing his ideas and office as a rational minded team that puts the clients wishes upfront. I think they experienced that is the most efective way to go ahead. If you listen to his story as an architect it doesn't ring a bell at all. So we are left wondering why things are as they are unless we try to put ourselves in exactly the same spot as the one we are listening to.
As far as graphics are concerned you have to realize that most architects in juries have their graphics done for them by people who specialise on renderings and animations. Architects who don't do the drawings themselves look at drawings as paid for. So now look at your drawings and try to feel as if you just paid big money for the presentation of your precious concept and ask yourself the question if the results are competitive. After all, you as the designer spend all your time working out on the concept and design ideas, now you want the same effort and love to show up in the final drawings.
There are some plans among the submissions that are very low pofile as far as renderings are concerned. Still they have a lot of power since they kept things really simple and straight forward. Its a technique all can master, it takes some time and effort like developing a clear and good looking handwriting. If you are not concerned with how people percieve your work than there is no hope for improvement.....lol.
I think I know what the jury is thinking, they probably think like us but with a deadlne to choose 5 winners. When you get 1100+ submissions being a jury member is a risky task. I am sure they will be critisized havily on all or some of their desicions as if they made the winning plans themselves.
form1
first of all, thnx again for having had the guts to post your project there!
second: i'm not against 80's architecture, except maybe against post modernism or neo-classic, but again not ennemy of it...its just the look and feel of your project, the render that gave me that impression.
Again I think you made the right choices in terms of lower ground connection, entrance position etc with the asplund, its the formal treatment of the vertical connections between extension and asplund that i find a bit clumsy. You'll see when i post my project we have made very similar choices with different solutions.
As for the "montreal" desire to connect the whole city underground that inga talks about ( from subway to the library)... it might be usefull in -30C weather, but now that weather is warming and temps are raising, i'm not sure swedes want to live in caves all day long.. but its true that it could be a plus for a given project.
As for how much details shall be put, it all depends on how you render: wireframe 3D like those u used ask for very detailed stuff, leaving no possibility to the jury of imagining or dreaming.
Again, Nouvel's example of Auralab's 3D (http://www.auralab.com/galerie01.html) for the museum of the art premiers in paris is typical on how much dream you can give in a 3D: a man walking in a wheat field in a semi fog like atmosphere, going to a building that was undefined and blurred at some places...
So its basically what definition you give and how u render it... it sounds strange to put so much emphasis on the render of the project, but its actually the civilization of show, media and communication: among many projects the best looking will be easier to sell than the mid or weak looking...
Today tools are easier for architects to master themselves, without having to rely on (expensive) third parties, and with time, a small team or a single individual can output the same level of " look " than that of a big big company.
nils
Thanks nils, those are great presentations. Again for me a learning moment. These presentations should not take months or even weeks, probably no more than a few days for each. They also express mostly atmosphere exactly what I mean by not being overly detailed. The drawings have a sense of detail but in fact are not detailled. If you master this kind of quality it will save you tons of time. It also takes the mind of a visionary person of course, actually thats most important.
I read an article on photography and thought that there are some paralels in doing competitions or making presentations in my architectural profession.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml
There are certain levels to pass through before you feel you have reached your audience at the level you want most. I am also sceptic about levels and techniques and their importance on competitions and architecture in general. The drawing is not the final result obviously, its the building itself that is going to be the object to judge. So thats where your presentation should point at most, how is your design going to work as a building at the site, I think Auralab does a good job of exposing just that.
Oh - i didn't mean to suggest that I didn't care what anyone thinks of my work. I do of course to some degree, just as a matter of charting my own way, but in this case my point was that in a competition situation, in the abscence of real clients to interact with, you'll wind up battling with people you have invented in your own mind, which is more crippling than having real clients.
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.