I wouldn't guess it to be a student project - those models (multiple !) are way beyond a student's capacity, especially in the three month time frame of the project.
I think I agree that it doesn't seem to be a project with a soul (but maybe I get that impression because there is no project statement), but it does have a lot of technical merits. The formal arrangement is also what attracted me to it. yea, it could be a lot better, but it is a pretty good basic archetype, and there haven't been a lot of those in the competition.
Sorry but no … that one is not of the same level as “new profile”
Although I strongly dislike – HA – “new profile”, it’s clearly worked through. I became frustrated after seeing so many annoying programmatic related problems, and design with no significance. But the formal arrangement AND removing the Annex buildings slabs to create new levels and new circulation is great.
If you go back, I list some projects that keep the annex buildings; I thought since you guys saw them all (maybe), you would be able to identify some.
oh - the same level. That's a horse of a different color.
I think I've seen all of the schemes, but I don't recall another that had been developed like that, at least presentation-wise. If I had to guess it, I would guess that it was done by someone with significant resources and motivation - maybe the principal of some firm who really had a thing for Asplund's work.
Just looking closer at that photo - I'm getting the idea that the exhibition is a sort of 19th century pile-up. The foreground picture is 0470 pile up (no pun) , and I would expect to be seeing the right hand board, but what is shown is actually the left hand board. Also, the board above 360 (generation) isn't a part of that scheme.
Pile up doesn't have a typical right or left side. I think the boards are put on top of each other without any seperation, would have done the same. I hope they did look at the left and right side for my submission although I wonder if the jury really does use the exhibit to come to their conclusions.
For those interested in the Prague library competition and how the jury proceded here is a link where you can find a pdf that is worth looking at. http://www.nkp.cz/competition_library/ENinfo.htm
I can imagine the jury in Stockholm will do the same. Its quiet simple actually and it shows that the majority of the submissions is analysed only briefly. What makes a jury look into a specific plan is interesting. It seems to me the leading architects in the jury are mostly consulted when the shortlist is getting into the final stages.
I am not going to Stockholm, sorry but no photos from me.
i think the uia rules might come into play with the announcements - i saw something in another competition that the results were to be announced " in the same manner as the competition was announced" - per uia, bla bla bla, or something to that effect.
my favorite from the prague proceedings was the revival of the dark horse candidate ( #8 ) at the last minute -
I didn't - i was reading the actual proceedings in the pdf file linked to that page. There was a scheme that was championed by two jury members ad included as the 8th finalist scheme in the final hour. That's a good question though...
ok, I see, was hoping to find some more recent submissions on libraries.
What I learned so far in this competition looking at so many submissions for making a presentation for the next competition:
1.Make a claer and simplified scheme where all the organisers goals are solved and stated as such. Not little complicated diagrams bit simple and quick to see and read schemes.
2.Make simple architectural floorplans, sections and elevations where the organisers quickly sees the strong points of my submission. I mean really simple, easy to understand. The plan itself does not have to be simple but the floorplans should show nothing else than what is actually needed in the first stage. They also should appeal in an architectural style or sense without being too specific on materials and construction, those can be done later when won the first stage. I also don't want my plan discussed about things I don't feel are important to my concept.
3.Make two renderings of the plan in the situation and one interior, these renderings should raise the attention of the jury. The renderings should show deilght, people, dynamics and not too much details, its about the atmosphere. The renderings should not just be models of the design but should always include the site and its surroundings. Just the model makes a design look like a spaceship and not done by a professional office.
4.Clear text only about specifically my plan, explaining the strong points and describing the atmosphere I am looking for. After about looking at a 100 submission I could no longer read about Asplund, and other matters that are already mentioned in the brief and are just generalisations. I was looking for specifics that make the difference.
My Asplund submission actually has none of this. I designed a building and showed it in too many abstract models and drawings, my 2D floorplans are hard to follow and the things I worked for to solve are hard to discover by the jury. I still feel my submission is one of the best but looking at the works of others I begin to feel like how the jury must feel. Tired of trying to figure out what a submission is about. A clear and well proposed plan must feel like be a breath of fresh air. A plan like CUT feels like that although to me it lacks in solving the connection and other important matters. At least that is quick to see ...lol. I do hope for that team they get a chance to upgrade their plan in the second stage. Having movie posters in mind I think CUT also does well. A quarter of the submission shows the cut in an easy to remember orange fashion, you will not forget it wondering around all the others. It keeps asking you to have a look at the rest of its information. Most submissions do exactly the opposite.
I think I need help again to leave this thread .....lol.
As a side note, I just noticed that the picture taken of the jury member on the competition website was posed for in front of several of the projects at the exhibition, so I guess they showed up there. There are also what apppears to be different color tags of paper attached to some of them - for what, I don't know.
yes, obviously they have attended the exhibit and saw all panels and made shortlist accordingly. I am not worried they did not evaluate the panels as they have been submitted.
Just had a look at 0885 - stenbrott.pdf. Also impressive plan. When I looked at it I felt this plan actually does a lot of the things as I have come to understand as to be a good submission. Not too much clutter, clear ideas architecturally good looking floorplans, elevations etc. Also it looks effective, no overkill on the work involved. Still, the plan does not stand out as delightful, fun or joy, its mostly well done. Sometimes I feel a fear creaping into me that the better and more disciplined submissions are not the most sculptural and poetic, or real winners actually.
I like the thumbnail method as a way to get a feel for a layout's visual punch - 1062, the discovery...king tut... etc. is a good example. zoom way out, and you can still see it - on the left side. The right side is a blob, but hopefully you've already been pulled in by the left board.
Could not find that one. After "the cube of wisdom" no discovery.
Read this again:
“International architecture competitions in Stockholm are very unusual, modern architects have found it notoriously difficult to make their mark on the town. Through Kjetil’s participation on the jury we hope to be able to pick a really interesting winner who can give Swedish architecture a new lease of life. That would be a major victory.”
When I look at the submissions often I try to imagine the jury with this in mind. A new lease of life, I don't know if any of the submissions with the annexes still there that can do that. Also in the hill proposals or designs that are hard to be seen from Odenplan don't give reason to expect a new lease of life. Actually, with this in mind the shortlist down to 20 can be made within a day or so. I think the jury might have come to a shortlist, a really short one very quickly indeed, as one of the earlier posters suggested.
Any serious suggestions on this forum for "the new lease of life" submissions.
Is there something like this among the submissions...
"The attitude from Stockholms’ politicians to the art of building has changed over the last few years and the reason is Malmö’s Turning Torso. Santiago Calatrava’s feted landmark has demonstrated that the contrast between old and new isn’t necessarily a bad thing."
Are u saying my project is not selected with those criterias? ;) joke
Few more days to go before announcement! i'm not opening anymore projects since i've seen too many already. Keeping them archived because some have interesting render tricks, as well as clear schemes that are inspiring for other future works.
obviously yours and maybe mine do but we'v sworn secrecy ....lol.
a few days, i thought feb 8. I am not one of the winners for sure, having seen the submissions but am very interested to see if my statements here make sense or not in regard to the choosen 5.
I've been sifting through, and sorting out those that kept at least one of the existing annexes. I'm only though about half, but surprisingly it looks like just under half (a little over 500) of all entries kept at least one annexes.
well, I have no idea what to do with that information. I think most Stockholmers don't like to see the buldozers coming and now they have over 500 reasons to stop them....lol.
if you see any good ones, let me know. I would love to study a good project that keeps the annex buildings. Why? Well, that was a challenge, and I would be suprised if any were any good. The great scheme by "new Stockholm profile" was a suprise. is there another one with that idea?
if I had a vote I would say "New Stockholm Profile" send your preliminary ideas to "Janus'" office for re working, and let's wrap it up.
In general, I think it was really not working out well. The problem for me was that I didn't really relate too well to that bar building coposition behind the asplund block in the first place. Some were better than others, but in general I would say that very few had a good scheme with a meaningful role for the existing annexes. If you have to so completely subsume an existing building, destroying its form, in order to make keeping it work, you really have to ask what you gained.
stockholm profile is a very decent plan, I love the logo. But its way too small and there is not even a wispering promise for a new lease of life for Swedish architecture. But who knows that goal was overstated and lost in the jury discussions.
What I see when looking at the cross-section of the Stockholm Profile submission compared to what Asplund has done in his days is the lack of delight, majestic charm and space. To me profile looks like an old school building already asking to for its own extension and renovation. I live in a city with the counsil house built by Richard Meijer some years back, it was huge and now they are planning a second counsil house because its too small again. Apart from 500 annex keepers there are almost the same amound small, smaller and way too small submissions all designed like that to expose Asplunds library, keep the annexes or hide under the cover of the hill. Thats not wat this competition is about, this is a huge task or I have completely misunderstood the atmosphere at the briefing in Stockholm. "Stockholm is growing" it showed on the first slide. Imagine at the winners presentation the second slide would be a plan like the profile. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all submissions and don't think mine is all that better.
I think form1 is absolutely right to question subsuming the annexes just to make a political statement. I really wonder how the jury is going to look at that. There are hardly any submissions that celebrate the annexes. There are some stating that keeping the oldest annex gives a clear boundery for the whole library with a new extension in between. Could work as for some it does.
Well, we don't know really know the politics behind all this, maybe by now the survival of the oldest annex is one of the preconditions for the new extension....
well
it takes one word from the right politician to declare the annexes dead... so i'm 100% sure they are NOT going to keep them.. future lies ahead, keeping buildings that have no real architectural interest will block a building with efficient flows within. Keeping the right annex and using the space between asplund and it is also too small area for a good efficient building. That's how i saw the program at first glance. Now maybe the jury is very conservative, but i'm not sure they are, despite their looks ;) Swedes are ususally pragmatic people!
well, that leaves at my latest count about 450 entries out in the cold.
If I were to pick compositions that held together while keeping annexes, it would either be the "new profile" scheme or one of the schemes that backed the annexex with a curved bar building. On the other hand, they don't generate a large enough floor plate in my opinion.
If I were to pick a scheme based on raw area potential, I would take one of the schemes that placed a tower on the west side of the site.
Yes, thats what I did. There is sure is raw potential though I should have added the architecture that I had in mind as well, but ok.
Hopefully I learned and am more effective in spending my time on the problems the jury wanted solved the most. I think having 1100 plans to look at combined with the jury rapport in february this was one of the best workshops I ever attended including a great trip to Stockholm.
Flow … HMMMmmm ... there is a fine line between too much and too little … Or, should this architecture offer a variety of spaces, some being flexible so exhibitions and events can occur, others with intimate rooms for quite reading, others still for children smashing and stomping?
I do not know if a vast open space, the Living Room idea, would solve the problem better than a mixing of spaces. An aggregate of programmatic experiences in the interest of poetry, and adventure would stir the imagination nicely, and delight library visitors again and again as the years evolve.
Let’s look at what Umberto Eco says about a library – imagine the perfect visitor: Apart from providing good espresso and comfortable chairs, these libraries encourage exploration. He says, “The whole idea of a library is based on a misunderstanding: that the reader goes into the library to find a book whose title he knows. . . . The essential function of a library . . . is to discover books of whose existence the reader has no idea.” This discovery is collaboration between the seeker and the shelves, a mix of deliberation and serendipity. “This sort of library is made for me. I can pass a whole joyful day there. I read the papers, I take some books to the bar, I fetch others, and I make discoveries. I entered to work, in true empirical English fashion; instead I find myself among commentators on Aristotle, I wind up on the wrong floor, I go into a section, say Medicine, in which I never thought to stray, and suddenly I stumble upon works about Galen, full of philosophical references. This way, a library is an adventure.”
Can this type of experience occur in a big open space?
my argument would be yes - wandering among the stacks is more likely the more of them are together. It would be advantageous (more fun) if that space had variety and differentiation of course. If you put books in small floorplates, like the university I went to, you wind up with a user who accesses them very specifically - up the elevator and right to your subject.
Modern bookstores are actually very much like what Eco describes - they even have children's sections. It is no mistake that Starbucks, which is a business based entirely on selling an experience ( to quoute their CEO on the Charlie Rose show) , has teamed up with Borders Books. The model I have in mind is to have a perceptably large space (or living room) without being able to see every part of it. That way you can develop smaller spaces and nodes while still having the sense of a larger space to be discovered ( sort of a what's over that hill approach) as well as the benefit of maximum adjacencies and paths to a destination.
I'm reminded of a lecture from grad school - the point was about museums, and how there was more random connection in a 19th cent. grid of display cases, on a variety of subjects, than there is in your typical modern in-one-end out-the-other linear exhibit. One moves people, the other allows them to move freely, and sometimes far afield from their original intention.
In any case, I still like rooms - but my take on this project was to let the asplund library do that part of the job, which it does quite well. I tried to provide a foil to that sort of organization and spatial environment with my project, and link the two up to work together.
Asplunds library and the new extension will provide for enough pleasent clutter no matter the design they choose. What is meant by a livingroom experience is a social event, for that to be exciting and considering 7000 visitors a day and growing in numbers the "livingroom" should be big, modern and very inviting and be clear in its layout as where to go from there. Regarding the site, the vertical transportationsystems, the present building, the park, entrances, passway to the underground, restaurants etc the site is hardly big enough. Most submissions totally miss the point of providing leasure and recreation and just provide some additionals "rooms" or spaces for a restaurant or cafe. I really wonder if people truly understand the meaning of the book SMLXL and what Rem Koolhaas did in Seattle. Imagine you are the excutives of the lbrary looking at the plans and thinking of huge and growing numbers of visitors. There are only a handful of plans under the submissions that might solve the flows and basics handling large groups of people. Btw, I am not a fan of Rem but I do understand how he came to realise his buildings and projects had to somehow find a new way to deal with size.
I think inexperience with big buildings has lead to such an amount of plans with low ceilings combined with large floorspaces, underground floorspaces lacking light, plans with entrances all over the place and so many submissions that are totally out of scale considering the future of the library, out of scale in the sense being about half the size or less of what the organisers are looking for.
I agree with that - except that I do think it matters which design they choose - for instance, large, unreleived floor plates with low ceilings would be a negative for the experience I think. Conceivably, a design may also be unable to handle the "clutter" without being overwhelmed.
I also was pretty surprised at the number of submissions that buried too much in a basement, or that didn't consider the staff spaces very well. There's a lot in the brief, and in recent librarian-oriented literature, that is very concerned with the working environment of the staff.
My admiration of REM is that he made it ok to pull the same trick as the old Gothic Cathedrals. They are builings of a different scale that you inhabit in a different way. Bilbao does the same. I think Rem needs a little more people/pedestrian oriented urbanism that inhabits his big projects, but I do appreciate the way he settles "bigness"
On aother note, there was a lot of specificity in the brief that I'm not sure was needed. I thought that the labeling of each subject area was a bit too much - especially since that would certainly be the librarians right, and is intended to be flexible anyway. I wonder if a lot of folks found that distracting. Its not like assigning subject areas will develops the plan - it is certainly less important than staff vs. collections, restaurant, circulation, etc.
I didn't get the impression that the majority of projects were oversized. My own experience is that the called for area would max out the site at a floor area ratio of about 4, if I remember right. There were a lot that accomplished that, and beyond that the only thing I would say is possible is to go up into a tower. A tower could conceivably first settle the problem of its "bigness" next to the library, and then more area would be a matter of adding floor plates (up to a point I suppose)
I did not mean oversized but the majority is totally undersized especially in ceilinghight. Have a look at many cross sections and compare the proposed extensions to the original Asplund wings and rotunda. Many proposals look like parking garages to extend the library even though some are very attractive architecturally and have well concieved elevations and perspectives.
The distinct separation of subject areas is the Swedish system of library organization, or SAB. They do not subscribe to the Dewey decimal system (DDC). This is what drives the program, unlike Seattle, which can be understood in a linear fashion with regard to organization. Yet another reason why the ultimate solution will be less Seattle.
lol - my mistake - I meant I didn't get the impression that the majority of projects were undersized. Sorry about the typo -
I'd agree with the floor plate problems, though I'm not sure you can always tell directly from a section. There's a relationship between ceiling heights and depth of floor plate from some relieving architectural move ( such as an atrium or outside window) that has to be considered too.
My argument about the subject areas was more to the point that it is less important at this point which subject areas go where. I grew up with the Dewey Decimal system, and I would disagree with the notion that it is well served by a linear organization. Ultimately, Dewey Decimal breaks things down by subject as well, so you can still do a layout that encourages browsing in sequence as well as across subjects. This is why I totally agree with the Seattle Library folks demanding shortcut stairs through Koolhaas's "pure" spiral. I think the same (linear and lateral browsing / wandering ) can be done with the Swedish system.
sure - I'm not a librarian, so I don't know if this is perfect, but basically put, it is an open ended alpha-numerical system for categorizing subjects. The system works to provide subdivisions based on suffixing - so that an identifying number has digits that correspond to greater and greater specificity to the right.
Theretically, this means that you could order all of the books in a sequence, from first to last, in a straight line. Why anyone thinks that is a good idea is beyond me. I think Steven Holl did it first with his competition entry for the American Library in Berlin.
Dewey, by the way, was a great pioneer of the systematic library in the states. He actually met a lot of resistance to the system at the time. He also designed and sold almost everything a library needed to set up, including furniture. His ideas owed a lot to taylorism, and were instrumental in advancing the state of libraries in the US. They were the sort of thing that Asplund would have checking out when he came to the US.
lol - well, they are sure of the 8th it seems. In reading the site on the Prague page that Filver posted, the language seemed to indicate that everyone, finalists included, found out at the same time, and then the notary sent letters via post to the finalists.
However, that assumes that the person who wrote the copy for the page was a native english speaker, and did not mean something else that got lost in translation.
so, the answer from me is I don't know. I can only say "the eighth".
well, then that sounds like the best info I've heard so far. I'm going to be feeling monstrously disappointed by lunchtime. I swore I wouldn't, but I wanted to do that project too much for that.
I do wish they would have at least announced that the winners had been chosen and notified, even if they did reveal the finalists later.
Stockholm Library Comp. Favorites?
I wouldn't guess it to be a student project - those models (multiple !) are way beyond a student's capacity, especially in the three month time frame of the project.
I think I agree that it doesn't seem to be a project with a soul (but maybe I get that impression because there is no project statement), but it does have a lot of technical merits. The formal arrangement is also what attracted me to it. yea, it could be a lot better, but it is a pretty good basic archetype, and there haven't been a lot of those in the competition.
I had a few projects sorted - I'll see of I can find something of the same arrangement -
I missed that nazi reference - lol - harsh!
0980+-+212223.pdf is a 2 existing building scheme - though it isn't the same massing
I've identified one of the schemes in the photo -0630 generation
Sorry but no … that one is not of the same level as “new profile”
Although I strongly dislike – HA – “new profile”, it’s clearly worked through. I became frustrated after seeing so many annoying programmatic related problems, and design with no significance. But the formal arrangement AND removing the Annex buildings slabs to create new levels and new circulation is great.
If you go back, I list some projects that keep the annex buildings; I thought since you guys saw them all (maybe), you would be able to identify some.
Thanks though …
oh - the same level. That's a horse of a different color.
I think I've seen all of the schemes, but I don't recall another that had been developed like that, at least presentation-wise. If I had to guess it, I would guess that it was done by someone with significant resources and motivation - maybe the principal of some firm who really had a thing for Asplund's work.
Just looking closer at that photo - I'm getting the idea that the exhibition is a sort of 19th century pile-up. The foreground picture is 0470 pile up (no pun) , and I would expect to be seeing the right hand board, but what is shown is actually the left hand board. Also, the board above 360 (generation) isn't a part of that scheme.
Pile up doesn't have a typical right or left side. I think the boards are put on top of each other without any seperation, would have done the same. I hope they did look at the left and right side for my submission although I wonder if the jury really does use the exhibit to come to their conclusions.
For those interested in the Prague library competition and how the jury proceded here is a link where you can find a pdf that is worth looking at.
http://www.nkp.cz/competition_library/ENinfo.htm
I can imagine the jury in Stockholm will do the same. Its quiet simple actually and it shows that the majority of the submissions is analysed only briefly. What makes a jury look into a specific plan is interesting. It seems to me the leading architects in the jury are mostly consulted when the shortlist is getting into the final stages.
I am not going to Stockholm, sorry but no photos from me.
oh, from the Prague procedures I see that the winner had to find out from the news as anybody else. So we might all be still in....lol.
i think the uia rules might come into play with the announcements - i saw something in another competition that the results were to be announced " in the same manner as the competition was announced" - per uia, bla bla bla, or something to that effect.
my favorite from the prague proceedings was the revival of the dark horse candidate ( #8 ) at the last minute -
where did you see the actual prague submissions
I didn't - i was reading the actual proceedings in the pdf file linked to that page. There was a scheme that was championed by two jury members ad included as the 8th finalist scheme in the final hour. That's a good question though...
that picture with the fallen body in front of all the submission is just hilarious! :)
Nils
ok, I see, was hoping to find some more recent submissions on libraries.
What I learned so far in this competition looking at so many submissions for making a presentation for the next competition:
1.Make a claer and simplified scheme where all the organisers goals are solved and stated as such. Not little complicated diagrams bit simple and quick to see and read schemes.
2.Make simple architectural floorplans, sections and elevations where the organisers quickly sees the strong points of my submission. I mean really simple, easy to understand. The plan itself does not have to be simple but the floorplans should show nothing else than what is actually needed in the first stage. They also should appeal in an architectural style or sense without being too specific on materials and construction, those can be done later when won the first stage. I also don't want my plan discussed about things I don't feel are important to my concept.
3.Make two renderings of the plan in the situation and one interior, these renderings should raise the attention of the jury. The renderings should show deilght, people, dynamics and not too much details, its about the atmosphere. The renderings should not just be models of the design but should always include the site and its surroundings. Just the model makes a design look like a spaceship and not done by a professional office.
4.Clear text only about specifically my plan, explaining the strong points and describing the atmosphere I am looking for. After about looking at a 100 submission I could no longer read about Asplund, and other matters that are already mentioned in the brief and are just generalisations. I was looking for specifics that make the difference.
My Asplund submission actually has none of this. I designed a building and showed it in too many abstract models and drawings, my 2D floorplans are hard to follow and the things I worked for to solve are hard to discover by the jury. I still feel my submission is one of the best but looking at the works of others I begin to feel like how the jury must feel. Tired of trying to figure out what a submission is about. A clear and well proposed plan must feel like be a breath of fresh air. A plan like CUT feels like that although to me it lacks in solving the connection and other important matters. At least that is quick to see ...lol. I do hope for that team they get a chance to upgrade their plan in the second stage. Having movie posters in mind I think CUT also does well. A quarter of the submission shows the cut in an easy to remember orange fashion, you will not forget it wondering around all the others. It keeps asking you to have a look at the rest of its information. Most submissions do exactly the opposite.
I think I need help again to leave this thread .....lol.
As a side note, I just noticed that the picture taken of the jury member on the competition website was posed for in front of several of the projects at the exhibition, so I guess they showed up there. There are also what apppears to be different color tags of paper attached to some of them - for what, I don't know.
yes, obviously they have attended the exhibit and saw all panels and made shortlist accordingly. I am not worried they did not evaluate the panels as they have been submitted.
Just had a look at 0885 - stenbrott.pdf. Also impressive plan. When I looked at it I felt this plan actually does a lot of the things as I have come to understand as to be a good submission. Not too much clutter, clear ideas architecturally good looking floorplans, elevations etc. Also it looks effective, no overkill on the work involved. Still, the plan does not stand out as delightful, fun or joy, its mostly well done. Sometimes I feel a fear creaping into me that the better and more disciplined submissions are not the most sculptural and poetic, or real winners actually.
I like the thumbnail method as a way to get a feel for a layout's visual punch - 1062, the discovery...king tut... etc. is a good example. zoom way out, and you can still see it - on the left side. The right side is a blob, but hopefully you've already been pulled in by the left board.
Could not find that one. After "the cube of wisdom" no discovery.
Read this again:
“International architecture competitions in Stockholm are very unusual, modern architects have found it notoriously difficult to make their mark on the town. Through Kjetil’s participation on the jury we hope to be able to pick a really interesting winner who can give Swedish architecture a new lease of life. That would be a major victory.”
When I look at the submissions often I try to imagine the jury with this in mind. A new lease of life, I don't know if any of the submissions with the annexes still there that can do that. Also in the hill proposals or designs that are hard to be seen from Odenplan don't give reason to expect a new lease of life. Actually, with this in mind the shortlist down to 20 can be made within a day or so. I think the jury might have come to a shortlist, a really short one very quickly indeed, as one of the earlier posters suggested.
Any serious suggestions on this forum for "the new lease of life" submissions.
Is there something like this among the submissions...
"The attitude from Stockholms’ politicians to the art of building has changed over the last few years and the reason is Malmö’s Turning Torso. Santiago Calatrava’s feted landmark has demonstrated that the contrast between old and new isn’t necessarily a bad thing."
Are u saying my project is not selected with those criterias? ;) joke
Few more days to go before announcement! i'm not opening anymore projects since i've seen too many already. Keeping them archived because some have interesting render tricks, as well as clear schemes that are inspiring for other future works.
Nils
obviously yours and maybe mine do but we'v sworn secrecy ....lol.
a few days, i thought feb 8. I am not one of the winners for sure, having seen the submissions but am very interested to see if my statements here make sense or not in regard to the choosen 5.
I've been sifting through, and sorting out those that kept at least one of the existing annexes. I'm only though about half, but surprisingly it looks like just under half (a little over 500) of all entries kept at least one annexes.
my god...that must be a job..
well, I have no idea what to do with that information. I think most Stockholmers don't like to see the buldozers coming and now they have over 500 reasons to stop them....lol.
good work form 1
if you see any good ones, let me know. I would love to study a good project that keeps the annex buildings. Why? Well, that was a challenge, and I would be suprised if any were any good. The great scheme by "new Stockholm profile" was a suprise. is there another one with that idea?
if I had a vote I would say "New Stockholm Profile" send your preliminary ideas to "Janus'" office for re working, and let's wrap it up.
In general, I think it was really not working out well. The problem for me was that I didn't really relate too well to that bar building coposition behind the asplund block in the first place. Some were better than others, but in general I would say that very few had a good scheme with a meaningful role for the existing annexes. If you have to so completely subsume an existing building, destroying its form, in order to make keeping it work, you really have to ask what you gained.
stockholm profile is a very decent plan, I love the logo. But its way too small and there is not even a wispering promise for a new lease of life for Swedish architecture. But who knows that goal was overstated and lost in the jury discussions.
What I see when looking at the cross-section of the Stockholm Profile submission compared to what Asplund has done in his days is the lack of delight, majestic charm and space. To me profile looks like an old school building already asking to for its own extension and renovation. I live in a city with the counsil house built by Richard Meijer some years back, it was huge and now they are planning a second counsil house because its too small again. Apart from 500 annex keepers there are almost the same amound small, smaller and way too small submissions all designed like that to expose Asplunds library, keep the annexes or hide under the cover of the hill. Thats not wat this competition is about, this is a huge task or I have completely misunderstood the atmosphere at the briefing in Stockholm. "Stockholm is growing" it showed on the first slide. Imagine at the winners presentation the second slide would be a plan like the profile. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all submissions and don't think mine is all that better.
I think form1 is absolutely right to question subsuming the annexes just to make a political statement. I really wonder how the jury is going to look at that. There are hardly any submissions that celebrate the annexes. There are some stating that keeping the oldest annex gives a clear boundery for the whole library with a new extension in between. Could work as for some it does.
Well, we don't know really know the politics behind all this, maybe by now the survival of the oldest annex is one of the preconditions for the new extension....
well
it takes one word from the right politician to declare the annexes dead... so i'm 100% sure they are NOT going to keep them.. future lies ahead, keeping buildings that have no real architectural interest will block a building with efficient flows within. Keeping the right annex and using the space between asplund and it is also too small area for a good efficient building. That's how i saw the program at first glance. Now maybe the jury is very conservative, but i'm not sure they are, despite their looks ;) Swedes are ususally pragmatic people!
N
well, that leaves at my latest count about 450 entries out in the cold.
If I were to pick compositions that held together while keeping annexes, it would either be the "new profile" scheme or one of the schemes that backed the annexex with a curved bar building. On the other hand, they don't generate a large enough floor plate in my opinion.
If I were to pick a scheme based on raw area potential, I would take one of the schemes that placed a tower on the west side of the site.
Yes, thats what I did. There is sure is raw potential though I should have added the architecture that I had in mind as well, but ok.
Hopefully I learned and am more effective in spending my time on the problems the jury wanted solved the most. I think having 1100 plans to look at combined with the jury rapport in february this was one of the best workshops I ever attended including a great trip to Stockholm.
Flow … HMMMmmm ... there is a fine line between too much and too little … Or, should this architecture offer a variety of spaces, some being flexible so exhibitions and events can occur, others with intimate rooms for quite reading, others still for children smashing and stomping?
I do not know if a vast open space, the Living Room idea, would solve the problem better than a mixing of spaces. An aggregate of programmatic experiences in the interest of poetry, and adventure would stir the imagination nicely, and delight library visitors again and again as the years evolve.
Let’s look at what Umberto Eco says about a library – imagine the perfect visitor: Apart from providing good espresso and comfortable chairs, these libraries encourage exploration. He says, “The whole idea of a library is based on a misunderstanding: that the reader goes into the library to find a book whose title he knows. . . . The essential function of a library . . . is to discover books of whose existence the reader has no idea.” This discovery is collaboration between the seeker and the shelves, a mix of deliberation and serendipity. “This sort of library is made for me. I can pass a whole joyful day there. I read the papers, I take some books to the bar, I fetch others, and I make discoveries. I entered to work, in true empirical English fashion; instead I find myself among commentators on Aristotle, I wind up on the wrong floor, I go into a section, say Medicine, in which I never thought to stray, and suddenly I stumble upon works about Galen, full of philosophical references. This way, a library is an adventure.”
Can this type of experience occur in a big open space?
my argument would be yes - wandering among the stacks is more likely the more of them are together. It would be advantageous (more fun) if that space had variety and differentiation of course. If you put books in small floorplates, like the university I went to, you wind up with a user who accesses them very specifically - up the elevator and right to your subject.
Modern bookstores are actually very much like what Eco describes - they even have children's sections. It is no mistake that Starbucks, which is a business based entirely on selling an experience ( to quoute their CEO on the Charlie Rose show) , has teamed up with Borders Books. The model I have in mind is to have a perceptably large space (or living room) without being able to see every part of it. That way you can develop smaller spaces and nodes while still having the sense of a larger space to be discovered ( sort of a what's over that hill approach) as well as the benefit of maximum adjacencies and paths to a destination.
I'm reminded of a lecture from grad school - the point was about museums, and how there was more random connection in a 19th cent. grid of display cases, on a variety of subjects, than there is in your typical modern in-one-end out-the-other linear exhibit. One moves people, the other allows them to move freely, and sometimes far afield from their original intention.
In any case, I still like rooms - but my take on this project was to let the asplund library do that part of the job, which it does quite well. I tried to provide a foil to that sort of organization and spatial environment with my project, and link the two up to work together.
Asplunds library and the new extension will provide for enough pleasent clutter no matter the design they choose. What is meant by a livingroom experience is a social event, for that to be exciting and considering 7000 visitors a day and growing in numbers the "livingroom" should be big, modern and very inviting and be clear in its layout as where to go from there. Regarding the site, the vertical transportationsystems, the present building, the park, entrances, passway to the underground, restaurants etc the site is hardly big enough. Most submissions totally miss the point of providing leasure and recreation and just provide some additionals "rooms" or spaces for a restaurant or cafe. I really wonder if people truly understand the meaning of the book SMLXL and what Rem Koolhaas did in Seattle. Imagine you are the excutives of the lbrary looking at the plans and thinking of huge and growing numbers of visitors. There are only a handful of plans under the submissions that might solve the flows and basics handling large groups of people. Btw, I am not a fan of Rem but I do understand how he came to realise his buildings and projects had to somehow find a new way to deal with size.
I think inexperience with big buildings has lead to such an amount of plans with low ceilings combined with large floorspaces, underground floorspaces lacking light, plans with entrances all over the place and so many submissions that are totally out of scale considering the future of the library, out of scale in the sense being about half the size or less of what the organisers are looking for.
I agree with that - except that I do think it matters which design they choose - for instance, large, unreleived floor plates with low ceilings would be a negative for the experience I think. Conceivably, a design may also be unable to handle the "clutter" without being overwhelmed.
I also was pretty surprised at the number of submissions that buried too much in a basement, or that didn't consider the staff spaces very well. There's a lot in the brief, and in recent librarian-oriented literature, that is very concerned with the working environment of the staff.
My admiration of REM is that he made it ok to pull the same trick as the old Gothic Cathedrals. They are builings of a different scale that you inhabit in a different way. Bilbao does the same. I think Rem needs a little more people/pedestrian oriented urbanism that inhabits his big projects, but I do appreciate the way he settles "bigness"
On aother note, there was a lot of specificity in the brief that I'm not sure was needed. I thought that the labeling of each subject area was a bit too much - especially since that would certainly be the librarians right, and is intended to be flexible anyway. I wonder if a lot of folks found that distracting. Its not like assigning subject areas will develops the plan - it is certainly less important than staff vs. collections, restaurant, circulation, etc.
I didn't get the impression that the majority of projects were oversized. My own experience is that the called for area would max out the site at a floor area ratio of about 4, if I remember right. There were a lot that accomplished that, and beyond that the only thing I would say is possible is to go up into a tower. A tower could conceivably first settle the problem of its "bigness" next to the library, and then more area would be a matter of adding floor plates (up to a point I suppose)
I did not mean oversized but the majority is totally undersized especially in ceilinghight. Have a look at many cross sections and compare the proposed extensions to the original Asplund wings and rotunda. Many proposals look like parking garages to extend the library even though some are very attractive architecturally and have well concieved elevations and perspectives.
The distinct separation of subject areas is the Swedish system of library organization, or SAB. They do not subscribe to the Dewey decimal system (DDC). This is what drives the program, unlike Seattle, which can be understood in a linear fashion with regard to organization. Yet another reason why the ultimate solution will be less Seattle.
lol - my mistake - I meant I didn't get the impression that the majority of projects were undersized. Sorry about the typo -
I'd agree with the floor plate problems, though I'm not sure you can always tell directly from a section. There's a relationship between ceiling heights and depth of floor plate from some relieving architectural move ( such as an atrium or outside window) that has to be considered too.
My argument about the subject areas was more to the point that it is less important at this point which subject areas go where. I grew up with the Dewey Decimal system, and I would disagree with the notion that it is well served by a linear organization. Ultimately, Dewey Decimal breaks things down by subject as well, so you can still do a layout that encourages browsing in sequence as well as across subjects. This is why I totally agree with the Seattle Library folks demanding shortcut stairs through Koolhaas's "pure" spiral. I think the same (linear and lateral browsing / wandering ) can be done with the Swedish system.
ps - undersized in regards to overall floor area. Massing and ceiling heights are not accounted for in that statement -
Mind explaining what Dewey is for euro / french architect ;) thnx!
rumor:
the 5 were informed last friday. can anyone confirm? or is the old rumor that the date for the phone calls is the 8th still correct?
sure - I'm not a librarian, so I don't know if this is perfect, but basically put, it is an open ended alpha-numerical system for categorizing subjects. The system works to provide subdivisions based on suffixing - so that an identifying number has digits that correspond to greater and greater specificity to the right.
Theretically, this means that you could order all of the books in a sequence, from first to last, in a straight line. Why anyone thinks that is a good idea is beyond me. I think Steven Holl did it first with his competition entry for the American Library in Berlin.
Dewey, by the way, was a great pioneer of the systematic library in the states. He actually met a lot of resistance to the system at the time. He also designed and sold almost everything a library needed to set up, including furniture. His ideas owed a lot to taylorism, and were instrumental in advancing the state of libraries in the US. They were the sort of thing that Asplund would have checking out when he came to the US.
The 8th is the official announcement date -
helsinki:
I hope ur wrong cos no one called me ;)...
lol - well, they are sure of the 8th it seems. In reading the site on the Prague page that Filver posted, the language seemed to indicate that everyone, finalists included, found out at the same time, and then the notary sent letters via post to the finalists.
However, that assumes that the person who wrote the copy for the page was a native english speaker, and did not mean something else that got lost in translation.
so, the answer from me is I don't know. I can only say "the eighth".
Sounds right,
Nils, remain on the edge of your seat.
ish - where are my tums ?
Helsinki earlier posted he knew that the shortlist had come down to 24, now has rumors about phonecalls......lol.
well... I happen to work in an office where one of the Jury works also. Nothing has been "said" but things are always in the air. so yeah.
well, then that sounds like the best info I've heard so far. I'm going to be feeling monstrously disappointed by lunchtime. I swore I wouldn't, but I wanted to do that project too much for that.
I do wish they would have at least announced that the winners had been chosen and notified, even if they did reveal the finalists later.
So Yeah ... That suggests that 24 entrys were shortlisted, not notified ...
i can feel some tensions around here...relax people...let it go :D
cheer up!...we've already won anyways...eventhough just one will become a millionaire...
helsinki...i hope you're not "workingly" related to this member of the jury...since you'd be probably eliminated (inside trading...)
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.