Student Design Competition

http://www.acsa-arch.org/programs-events/competitions/competition-archives/2016-2017-housing-competition

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture 2016-2017 Housing Competition

Series 1

Competition Brief

According to the US Census1, over 920,000 units of single family housing were completed in 2014. Many of these houses were built speculatively, as a generic prototype independent of context. Historically, Residential Architecture has represented a direct expression of culture and context, with local, vernacular elements informing the stylistic preference of the time. While the exterior of a house presents a more individualized image of its owner(s), the underlying design elements speak to broader cultural ideas of domesticity and family. Technological innovation, both in materials and systems, continues to advance the level of energy efficiency and resiliency in homes designed and built today.

This competition challenges students to envision a house for HERE+NOW: informed by context, culture, and vernacular, but fully embracing 21st century technology and ideas of domesticity.

DESIGN 
The design of the house for HERE+NOW should reflect an innovative, creative, environmentally responsible, and culturally sensitive approach to issues of domesticity. The proposal should take a strong conceptual position about housing and designing within a specific context.

PROGRAM
There is no maximum or minimum square footage requirement for any program area or the combined programs of the house. Students are encouraged to explore creative / innovative approaches to programmatic arrangement and distribution. Space allocation should be appropriate to the design proposal and the needs of the client.

Interior Program Spaces

  • Sleeping areas – minimum of 2
  • Bathroom facilities – minimum of 1 (toilet, lavatory, bath or shower)
  • Kitchen area for food preparation
  • Living area for relaxation / socialization

Exterior Program Spaces
Consideration should be given to the relationship between interior and exterior spaces of the home and what role (if any) exterior space should play in the design of the home. Transportation and connectivity should be addressed as an integral component of the overall design strategy. Appropriate space should be allocated for issues such as vehicle parking (bike / car / other) where required.

INTEGRATED DESIGN
Design proposals should reflect a clear conceptual strategy which is resolved in built form at a detailed level. There are no restrictions or limitations in the use of materials or building systems. However, projects should be developed with an integrated approach to materials and systems and should reflect an understanding of the characteristics, advantages, and limitations of the materials selected. CRAN (Custom Residential Architects Network) is committed to promoting the value of design irrespective of style. Residential architects tend to work in a variety of styles based on input from clients, local building traditions, and regulatory requirements. As in professional practice, design proposals should responsibly address the needs of the client, context, climate, and culture of the area. Design proposals should be informed by historic precedent, but should represent contemporary ideas of domesticity and building science. Through renderings and elevations, the proposals should demonstrate qualities such as materials, texture, and color. Equal consideration should be given to the arrangement and articulation of exterior form and interior spaces.

CODE INFORMATION
Refer to the International Residential Code and local zoning ordinances for information on height restrictions, setbacks, easements, flood, and life safety requirements. Consideration should be given to issues of Accessibility and the principles of Universal Design. For guidelines, refer to ANSI 117.1 (2009).

CRITERIA FOR JUDGING
Submissions must clearly address the requirements of the program. In addressing the specific issues of the design challenge, submissions must demonstrate the proposals response to the following requirements:

  • A strong conceptual strategy resolved in a coherent, integrated design proposal
  • An understanding of the physical characteristics of the site and the local climate
  • A compelling response to the physical, emotional, and cultural needs of the inhabitants
  • A clear understanding and resolution of tectonic issues
  • An informed position on vernacular and historic precedent

SITE
The proposal is to be a 1 or 2 family dwelling on a site of your or your faculty sponsors choosing. Sites may be real or conceptual, but must be identified within the following parameters:

  • Sites must be identified within the (6) Climate Zones as outlined in the International Energy Conservation Code
  • Sites must further be identified as Rural, Suburban, or Urban

CLIENT
One of the critical components of practicing as a residential architect is client interaction. Unlike many commercial buildings, residential clients typically are the owners and occupants of the home. This personal connection to the work often leads to a very collaborative design process between the architect and the client. For the purposes of this competition, entrants may assume an individual or multi-occupant scenario based on the design concept and site constraints. Entrants may choose to further develop their client profile based on research into local demographics and population trends to better inform the design. Entrants must outline the client selection and rationale in the Design Essay.

Competition Goals

“This program is intended to provide architecture students, working individually or in teams, with a platform to explore residential architecture and residential architectural practice.”

Competition Category (student, international, open, invited)

Student, ACSA Schools

Jury

Aaron Bowman                   Liollio Architecture                                              (Charleston, South Carolina)
Patricia Seitz                       Massachusetts College of Art and Design     (Boston, Massachusetts)
Emily Roush-Elliott             Delta Design Build Workshop                            (Greenwood, MS)

Entry fees

None

Awards

FIRST PRIZE        Student $2,000 Faculty Sponsor $700

SECOND PRIZE Student $1,500 Faculty Sponsor $500

THIRD PRIZE      Student $1,000 Faculty Sponsor $300

Entry Format

REQUIRED SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS
Submissions must include, but are not limited to, the following required drawings:

  • Three-dimensional representations in the form of axonometrics, perspectives, montages and/or physical model photographs which illustrate the character of the project
  • Site Plan showing proposal in context with surrounding buildings or natural elements (as appropriate) that illustrate details of access and circulation
  • Building / Site sections which illustrate key aspects of site, context, and major spatial or programmatic elements
  • Floor Plans to show the interior spatial arrangement and program elements
  • Elevations demonstrating qualities such as materials, texture, and color
  • Large scale drawing(s), either orthographic or three-dimensional, that illustrate innovative details or integrated aspects of design

Submissions must include:

  • Completed online registration, by a faculty sponsor
  • Four (4) digital boards at 20” x 20”
  • A design essay or abstract (500 words max) containing site selection, client description, and design concept.

Incomplete or undocumented submissions will be disqualified. All drawings should be presented at a scale appropriate to the design solution and include a graphic scale for reference. The site plan should include a north arrow.

 

Series 2

Competition History

ASCA offers a variety of popular student competitions, such as: COTE Top 10 For Students, Steel Competition, and Concrete Competition. While they consistently offer those scholarships yearly, they also change up their competition lineup with additions like this Housing Competition, various Sustainable Competitions, even a competition for the revitalization of Haiti after it was devastated by natural disaster.

Jury Members Background

Aaron Bowman                   Liollio Architecture                                              (Charleston, South Carolina)

Aaron is an architect who uses his professional training to build community. A graduate of Clemson University, he has over 10 years of professional experience working in South Carolina on both commercial and residential projects of all scales.

Patricia Seitz                       Massachusetts College of Art and Design              (Boston, Massachusetts)

Patti Seitz’ specialities include: Sustainable building design using local, renewable materials, from building, site and landscape design with native planting to designing interior finishes, furniture, lighting and details. Patti is LEED AP Certified and licensed in MA, CT, RI, MD, NH, and NY.

Emily Roush-Elliott             Delta Design Build Workshop                           (Greenwood, MS)

Jury Composition

First, each jury member will review the projects on their personal computers. The jury then meets in person to make their final selections. Boards are projected, digitally, at the final jury.

Competition Sponsor Information

CRAN – Custom Residential Architects Network

Series 3

Entry Graphics

First Place:

Upper Squamish Research and Residence              Jesse Bird          Carleton University

Very subdued, mute graphics and colors. Compliments the use of materials well. Also, the use of snow in the renderings helps accentuate materiality.

Clean and crisp details and diagrams.

Very simple design emphasized by clear and concise visuals.

Choice of color palette in material selection accents the graphic colors.

Clear focus on site present in all graphics.

Concept present in all drawings.

Minimal use of entourage in renderings.

Appears to be Vray for SketchUp/Revit.

Simple, elegant design so simple, elegant graphics.

Drawings tell a story.

Consistent use of context in all images.

Axon diagrams help understand construction.

Mix of hand-drawn and digital mediums.

Never too-much, or too “in-your-face”.

 

 

Entry Text

Minimal text, allowing the drawings to do all of the talking.

Clear title and concise project description.

 

”A majority of human settlement today sits in the valley of the British Columbia’s Squamish river delta, an area subject to annual freshet flood events fed by heavy rain, mountain runoff and glacier melt. While settlement in flood prone areas has decreased over the past 15 years, the Squamish district faces probable and consequential coastal flood hazards, just as major amounts of settlements lie elsewhere on the Pacific West coast of Canada.

The project explores this coastal housing situation through a new form and prototype design of prefabricated modular building system. Situated in the Upper Valley of the Squamish river system, lies a semi isolated dwelling designed to act as a research facility and prototype idea to sustainable building systems for flood prone residential construction. Exploring a modification to structurally insulated panels (SIPs) it is shown displaying three varying forms of its implications. The barring heights of the three masses correspond to the relative flood level patterns that occur in the valley around every 70, 100, and 200 years respectively. Oriented with optimal sun exposure and wind pattern dynamics, the masses act in a friendly conversation within the remote landscape, while integrated thresholds are created to lie between the building and its’ unique site conditions.  With integrated water collection and waste management systems, the home is also equipped with Photovoltaic silicon solar cells on the metal roof while in addition providing an industry standard of passive house design. Allowing the home to meet the average annual energy demands of the residences, ultimately resulting in a near net-zero home. With built in carpentry, shelving and spatial separations in the open plans, together, a diversity of spaces are created within the relatively simple volumes.”

 

Series 4

Entry concepts

  • Sustainability
  • “Net-zero”
  • Prefabrication
  • Variability
  • Flood Attentuation

Comments from Jury

First Place:

“This winning project rose to the top for its excellent and in-depth attention to prefabrication, modular construction and building detail that approaches net-zero construction. The design addresses sustainability issues, climate, and flooding head on, and is sensitive, even poetic to issues of daylight. A multiple building layout makes it possible to limit how much space is heated, which is well suited to the cold climate on the Pacific west coast of Canada. The building sections are thoughtfully composed and the development of the design and clear graphics, including multiple versions of wall panels, are compelling and thorough.

Upper Squamish Research and Residence              Jesse Bird          Carleton University

Commentary on if the concepts met the Competition Goals

“…clear conceptual strategy which is resolved in built form at a detailed level.”

The design provided a realistic solution to an existing problem. The freedom the competition allows to select the site for the project allowed the student to choose a site with an existing problem (almost like the student was able to create the problem alongside the solution).

Project Abstract does not articulate Client Description.

 

Competition (For Profit) Website

http://www.youngarchitectscompetitions.com/other-editions/view/id/24

Series 1

Competition Brief

“If there is a universal experience able to connect people of all cultures, times and traditions, that experience is love.

The wedding can be considered as a civil or religious ceremony. In any case, it is the natural celebration of love, the kind of love that, through the centuries, has always been connected to the renewal of mankind. For this reason, the wedding day is a day of joy and celebration for a union that aims at being faithful and unbreakable. Consequently, itis the most celebrated moment of a couple’s life.

In Italy, one of the most beautiful sites that is chosen as the best location for the wedding by lovers from all over the world is, without any doubt, Castello di Rosciano (Rosciano castle). This Etruscan fortress, thanks to its thousand-year history and timeless charm, is a fabulous site. In this beautiful frame, every year a hundred couples promise love and tenderness starting their new life as husband and wife within the walls of the manor.

The castle is composed by walls, courtyards and romantic and cozy spaces overlooking the marvelous valley of Assisi and one of the most extraordinary countryside of Italy. This remarkable site didn’t go unnoticed by the company Corradi– leader in the design of living outdoor. According to it, the castle is the ideal location for new architectural solutions with a deep relation with nature: extensions, pavilions and new architectural elements able to enhance such a sublime location as the perfect context for the most exclusive and splendid weddings.

How to enhance, through a contemporary intervention, such beautiful and meaningful ancient building? Which are the best architectural elements to be used in one of the most demanding and universally celebrated moment?

On these fascinating questions the company Corradi lays the foundation for Wedding Oasis, inviting all the designers to let this charming and romantic site inspire them. By doing so, they will have the opportunity to be involved in the most memorable day of the lives of thousands of couples. Moreover, through architectural elements suited for a fairy-tale location, they will have the chance to confirm the leadership of one of the most desirable wedding locations in the world.”

Competition Goals

How to enhance, through a contemporary intervention, such beautiful and meaningful ancient building? Which are the best architectural elements to be used in one of the most demanding and universally celebrated moment?

Competition Category (student, international, open, invited)

Student, Open

Jury

Rik Nys                                David Chipperfield Architects

Will Alsop                            aLL Design

Robert Thiemann                Frame Publishers

Paolo Belardi                       Perugia University

Raf Segers                          Corradi S.R.L.

Alessandro Marata              C.N.A.P.P.C.

Karel Vandenhende            Kuleuven University

Entry Fees

Awards

FIRST PRIZE                                     8.000 €

SECOND PRIZE                                4.000 €

THIRD PRIZE                                     1.000 €

10 HONORABLE MENTIONS

30 FINALIST MENTIONS

Entry Format

Open – Team

1-2 Boards

Can be one integrated into one composition.

 

Series 2

Competition History

“YAC is an association whose aim is to promote architectural competitions amongst young designers – no matter if graduates or students.

YAC’s goals are:

First we want to propel research about design, by periodically suggesting tangible issues on Architecture and City planning. By so YAC wants to provoke reflections about physical places for human activities that everyday are becoming more and more unpredictable and dynamic.

Second we want to endorse young designers’ creativity and talent by granting the best of them adequate prizes and good exposure amongst paper and web platforms.

YAC wishes to revamp a design culture to pragmatically answer the issues on human action and territory consumption.

We wish many and different designers will join us in this challenge.

Architecture is the branch of knowledge that shapes and structures the places for human activities. It answers to several and various issues, with a solution that embodies designer’s creativity and intellect.

We think architectural quest does not only conclude itself nor with a stylish nor a functional nor an economic nor a technologic answer.
A genuine architectural answer is a patchwork of all such issues, blended and structured together under designer’s control and sensibility.

YAC aims to promote contemporary projects that embody a temporal and personal approach of architectural space.

Idea is the keyword, Architecture is the answer and project is the medium through which intuition is transformed into object.”

Jury Members Background

Competition Sponsor Information

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale

Ku Leuven

aLL Design

David Chipperfield Architects

Comune di Perugia

Regione Umbria

Capitale Italiana dei Giovani

Casabella

NABA Milano

Domus Acadmey

Internatioal Seminar of Urban Form

Frame

Corradi

(the Jury)

 

Series 3

Entry Graphics

High-quality, photo-realistic renderings

Very little entourage.

Antique materiality (contextual) with clear integration of contemporary idea.

Entry Text

Concise text where needed. Composition dominated by images instead.

Headings.

Explanation of concept through diagram rather than text.

Text accompanies images rather than the other way around.

 

Series 4

Entry Concepts

Multiple design concepts within one design. Provides the jury a variety of options to latch onto.

Contemporary design in a historic context.

Looking to nature.

Simple and Rustic.

Transformation of light.

Commentary on if the concepts met the Competition Goals

Winner was obviously the best graphically, but many of the mentions and finalists lacked conceptual breadth. Many had one “money-shot” image that might have persuaded the jury to pick them as winners.

 

Series 5

Overall Commentary of the outcomes within the context of class discussions on competitions and readings

This competition poses great design questions and rewards unique solutions. The fact that is mostly international jury members would make me hesitant to enter, but many of the winners were not Italian, and I saw a variety of entries from various countries.

Because there is no information of the juries commentary or selection process, it is also hard to evaluate if they actually made their decisions based on the Competition Brief.

 

International Design Ideas Competition

What Design Can Do

Series 1

Competition Brief

http://challenge.whatdesigncando.com/challenge/briefing-generator/

Competition Goals

We are looking for fresh and innovative solutions to help mankind adapt to climate change. The best designs are innovative, practical, scalable, affordable, and easily understood. The Climate Action Challenge is open to everyone, yet specifically aimed at designers and creative entrepreneurs. Both existing and completely new ideas and solutions may be entered.

Competition Category (student, international, open, invited)

Open, Multi-Discipline

Jury

Sponsors

Awards

Share of 900.000 €

Entry Format

http://challenge.whatdesigncando.com/submit-a-project/

 

Series 2

Competition History

http://challenge.whatdesigncando.com/challenge/background/

Competition Sponsor Information

IKEA Foundation

Autodesk Foundation

STBY

Social Enterprise NL

Series 3

Entry Graphics

Entry Text

The multiple project types and submission categories allow for a diverse selection of projects, thus the project content is vary different from project to project. Some projects need a lot of text, some rely heavily on their graphics, but neither is really rewarded nor scrutinized.

 

Series 4

Entry Concepts

http://challenge.whatdesigncando.com/projects/

Commentary on if the concepts met the Competition Goals

Wide variety of project and submission types allows for freedom in design. Perhaps a bit too much freedom. Many of the projects provide a unique solution to climate change, but I think the project brief is a bit too broad for my liking.

Press Commentary

https://impactdesignhub.org/2017/06/02/design-can-climate-action-challenge/

 

Series 5

Overall Commentary of the outcomes within the context of class discussions on competitions and readings

 

 

 

International/National Professional Competition (Unbuilt)

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/finalists/winner

Guggenheim Helsinki

Series 1

Competition Brief

Key elements of the Stage One brief were as follows. To see the full brief, go to Competition Conditions.

 

Outstanding, engaging, original design

 

Potential to become a landmark and a symbol of Helsinki

 

Sensitivity to historic waterfront setting

 

Sustainable placemaking from an economic, social, and environmental perspective

 

Strong connections to the historic city center, harbor, and urban context, which are evident and enjoyable in all seasons

 

A design informed by Nordic ideals, including openness and accessibility

 

The Guggenheim Helsinki proposal detailed an innovative, multidisciplinary museum of art and design. It called for a design of the highest architectural quality and envisioned a museum that created a meaningful presence in Helsinki and offered civic space where both residents and visitors could gather.

 

The building’s total anticipated building-related project cost was estimated at €130M, excluding taxes, and the total site area was approximately 18,520 square meters. The total floor area designated for the museum building was approximately 12,100 square meters, of which approximately 4,000 square meters would have been exhibition spaces. All areas of the museum were to be conceived in terms of how they could support social interaction and the experience of art.

 

The museum building was planned to include galleries, a flexible performance hall, educational space, a large cafe/bar, a smaller formal restaurant, administrative offices, practitioner spaces, collections storage, a retail store, and other facilities. Outdoor spaces for the display of sculpture and projects were also proposed.

 

Finland leads the world in sustainable bioeconomy, and therefore, competition participants were encouraged to creatively use Finnish wood, one of the country’s greatest resources. Additionally, the Competition Conditions called for designs incorporating the latest digital technology.

Competition Goals

In 2010 the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation was invited by the City of Helsinki to undertake a detailed concept and development study exploring the possibility of a Guggenheim museum in the Finnish capital. Conducted during 2011, presented in 2012, and revised in 2013, the study proposed an innovative, multidisciplinary museum of art and design, thoughtfully integrated in a prominent site on Helsinki’s South Harbor, which was reserved by the City of Helsinki in January of 2014 for an architectural competition to design the proposed museum.

The Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition was the first open, international architectural competition to be organized by the Guggenheim Foundation. This initiative reflected the Guggenheim’s long history of engagement with architecture and design and its belief that outstanding original design can speak across cultures, refreshing and enlivening the urban environment.

The proposed Guggenheim Helsinki would organize and present internationally significant exhibitions of artworks from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries while also specializing in Nordic art and architecture. Within the Guggenheim Foundation’s international constellation of museums, including the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, and the future Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, the Guggenheim Helsinki would have been distinctive in its active inclusion of design and architecture in its programming.

Competition Category (student, international, open, invited)

International Professional, Open

Jury

Malcolm Reading Consultants

http://issuu.com/srgf/docs/competition.conditions.lr/1?e=15988582/11913287

p.72

Entry Fees

Awards

http://issuu.com/srgf/docs/competition.conditions.lr/1?e=15988582/11913287

  1. 72

Entry Format

http://issuu.com/srgf/docs/competition.conditions.lr/1?e=15988582/11913287

p.75-78

 

Series 2

Competition History

http://issuu.com/srgf/docs/competition.conditions.lr/1?e=15988582/11913287

  1. 3

Other Guggenheim Competitions?

NYC, Bilbao

Jury Composition

http://issuu.com/srgf/docs/competition.conditions.lr/1?e=15988582/11913287

p.79

Competition Sponsor Information

Malcolm Reading Consultants

 

Series 3

Entry Graphics

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/finalists

Entry Text

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/finalists/winner

 

Series 4

Entry Concepts

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/finalists

Comments from Jury

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/finalists/jury-statement

http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/finalists/stage-two-jury-statement

Commentary on if the concepts met the Competition Goals

About Winner:

“The scheme proposed a collection of linked pavilions, each orientated to respect the city grid, and anchored by a lookout tower. The building would cohere around a covered street landscape that expanded and contracted according to its interaction with the discrete pavilions and is animated by different activities. The Jury found the design deeply respectful of the site and setting, creating a fragmented, non-hierarchical, horizontal campus of linked pavilions where art and society could meet and inter-mingle. The connections between the pavilions have been well considered to permit a continuous gallery experience, if required.

The waterfront, park, and city each had a dialogue with the building yet the forms and materials were distinctive and contemporary, without being iconic. The drawings were imbued with a sense of community and animation that matched the ambitions of the brief to honour both the people of Finland, and the creation of the museum of the future.

It was recognized that further work would be needed to resolve vertical circulation, use of the main terrace, and the construction of the roof, but these issues were considered to be a normal part of design development, and the Jury had confidence in the strength of the design concept. The concept is extremely flexible and is designed to embrace evolving urban, museum, and technological requirements.”

Press Commentary

http://www.archdaily.com/512997/guggenheim-helsinki-design-competition

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/guggenheim-helsinki-design-competition-04-30-2014/

 

Series 5

Overall Commentary of the outcomes within the context of class discussions on competitions and readings

Large-scale professional, international competition – displays the top graphical standards in the profession today, as well as exposure to how professionals interpret a competition brief into a design.

History of the Guggenheim Foundation provides a very powerful stage for design.

 

Join the PROP.architecture community!

Subscribe to get our latest content by email.
We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit

Leave a Reply