Judging Results of Stage One
- Tenderer: Neil M.Denari Architects ,Inc. Nationality: U.S.A.
- Tenderer: Platform for Architecture + Research Nationality: U.S.A.
Joint Tenderer: Series et Series Nationality: France
- Tenderer: ACDF Architecture: Canada
- Tenderer: Mecanoo Architecten Nationality: Nederland
- Tenderer: Asymptote Architecture Nationality: U.S.A.
Joint Tenderer: Artech Architects Nationality: R.O.C.
Tender Participation Qualification List
|2. Love architecture and urbanism ZT GmbH||∨|
|3. SYNTHESIS DESIGN ARCHITECTURE,INC||∨|
|4. LOH ARCHITECTS ASSCIATES INC||∨|
|5. Neil M Denari Architects||∨|
|7. Parabol||∨||未檢附外國廠商單獨投標(自然人)應檢驗之證件。 Did not attach single tender by International tenderer(Architect)|
|8. Branimir Medic & Jason Lee||∨|
|9. PLATFORM FOR ARCHITECTURE +RESEARCH (PAR)/ Series et Series||∨|
|10. D.S. BIROU DE ARHITECTURA||∨|
|12. Endo shuhei Architect Institute/大壯聯合建築師事務所||∨|
|13. 株式會社團紀彦建築設計事務所(Norihiko Dan and Associates)||∨|
|15. APRIL YANG DESIGN STUDIO,LLC/SPARK ARCHITECTS UK LTD||∨|
|16. ACDF Architecture||∨|
|17. akihisa hiraza architecture office||∨|
|18. PETER YIP DESIGN LIMITED||∨|
|20. JET Architecture Inc/Ta Chuang Architects & Associates||∨|
|21. Mecanoo International B.V.||∨|
|22. Fentress Architects, Ltd./薛昭信建築師事務所||∨|
|23. 大宇建築師事務所/S.point Architecture Design and consulting Co.,Ltd||∨|
|24. Maximilano Fernando Spina||∨|
|25. FPMOD/JHB Studio||∨|
|28. Asymptote Architecture/大元聯合建築師事務所||∨|
|32.J.M.Lin Architect, P.C./仲觀聯合建築師事務所||∨|
Introduction to the short-list Tenderers
Neil M.Denari Architects ,Inc.
Neil Denari was born in Fort Worth, Texas and studied at the University of Houston (B Arch 1980) and Harvard University (M Arch 1982). After graduate school, Denari worked as a technical intern in Paris (La Courneuve) for Aerospatiale Helicoptres (now Airbus). In 1983, Denari moved to New York where his work explored the technical and formal impact of technology on architecture. Neil Denari shifted his practice to Los Angeles in 1988 and began Cor-Tex Architecture, which later became Neil M. Denari Architects (NMDA), Inc. in 1998. In the late 1980’s Denari’s work began to achieve international recognition, most notably through his 3rd place finish in the Tokyo International Forum Competition.Since 1986, Denari has had a distinguished career as a teacher. He is a tenured Professor in the Architecture and Urban Design Department at UCLA. He has also taught at Columbia University, the Bartlett, UC Berkeley, Princeton University, and the Harvard GSD.
Platform for Architecture + Research
Series et Series
Platform for Architecture + Research
Sériès et Sériès
Francine m. j. Houben
Founding partner/Creative director
HANI RASHIDAn acclaimed design architect Hani Rashid also has a distinguished academic career that includes prestigious appointments at numerous universities in the United States including Princeton, Columbia university and the Graduate school of Design and Architecture at Harvard’s GSD where he held the Kenzo Tange Chair for Architecture. Hani Rashid also worked as a professor at numerous leading institutions abroad including the Berlage Institute in Amsterdam, he Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich and the Royal Danish Academy in Copenhagen Denmark. At present Hani Rashid holds the position of distinguished Professor of Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Fine Arts in Vienna (Angewandte).
In 2000 Hani Rashid co-represented the United States at the 7th Venice Architecture Biennale, he has been a New York Foundation of the Arts Fellow, served on the Aga Khan steering committee for the international Architecture Prize and was awarded the Luis Barragán Chair in Mexico. He also received along with Lise Anne Couture the Frederick Kiesler Prize for Architecture and the Arts in 2004.
LISE ANNE COUTUREAs one of the fields leading woman practitioners, Lise Anne Couture has held numerous academic appointments including distinguished visiting professorships at Princeton University, MIT, Harvard, Conell and Yale University where she has held the prestigious Saarinen and Davenport chaired professorships. She was recently appointed as Professor in practice position at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP) in New York City.
Judging Results of Stage Two
- FIRST PRIZE
Neil M. Denari Architects
Fei & Cheng Associates
- SECOND PRIZE
- THIRD PRIZE
Mecanoo International B.V.
Archasia Design Group
- Honorable Mention
CECI Engineering Consultants, Inc.
- Honorable Mention
Platform for Architecture+Research
Sériès et Sériès
Ricky Liu & Associates
The Projects of the WinnersDownload PDF
L.A. Architect Neil Denari edges out Asymptote Architecture to win the competition to design a building for Keelung Harbor in Taiwan.
By Aaron Betsky
The best scheme won. That is easy to say when you have completed a jury for an architecture project, though history often proves you wrong (see: the Chicago Tribune Competition’s 1922 second place award to Eliel Saarinen). But in the case of the Keelung Harbor Building competition, which I had the honor of helping to judge this last week, I believe that statement is true. (I also have to admit that the second place winner would have been fantastic as well.)
I write this with a fair amount of trepidation, as my years in architecture have resulted in a fair amount of self-doubt, which is more acute because I know so many of the architects who enter international competitions. In the case of Keelung, three of the five finalists were personal friends. I make no excuse for this: There were others who did not make the cut, and the votes of other jury members who did not know the architects preceded mine. It did give me pause as I tried to weigh my judgments.
It became clear to all of us jury members—five Taiwanese and two Americans—that two schemes were considerably more developed, appropriate to the site, and smart, than the other three. They in the end received nearly the same evaluation in all our scoring.
Studio Asymptote proposed two ovoid structures backed by an elongated mastaba housing offices and a rooftop restaurant. The front oval was to contain the terminal structure, which would wrap around a rainforest. The rear object, which was actually a speculative proposal for a future build-operate-transfer development, was to contain a velodrome over a so-called "night market" or array of food stalls that would double as bus parking when cruise ships were at the dock. The rear tower would contain offices for the harbor authority.
The design showed how smooth Asymptote’s designs can be. Both in function and in shape, everything flowed with an elegance that few other designers can achieve. Because of the firm’s track record, as well as that of the consultants they brought in, we as a jury believed that the firm could make the building into an exhilarating form gesturing to the water.
The second oval, though, was purely speculative, and we did not believe that a developer would give the site over to such functions, given the chance to build a hotel or office building on the site. The terminal rotated around a garden, but you could only peak into it—it was not an integral part of the spaces. The plaza below flowed to the water, except that security concerns would preclude that movement. The office building would rise out of the terminal, but only by stretching its skin, not in any formal or functional sense.
Neil Denari, AIA, proposed a more complex structure. The terminal would be a metal-clad vessel whose organization would let you rise up and descend down on ramps through spaces cutting diagonally through the volume. At the pier’s promontory, these spaces would shoot up into a mesh-covered periscope looking out to the sea, whose oculus would connect with an open cube containing both the Harbor Authority’s spaces and speculative office (or hotel) structures.
Unlike the Asymptote design, Denari’s proposal would drink in the reality of Keelung, a densely built harbor town rising up around a rectangular basin. It would take the forms of the apartment blocks, stores, office buildings, and hotels, the cranes, the stacks of containers, the storage sheds, and the craggy hills, mirror and abstract them, convolute them, and turn them into a structure that would be both startlingly new and strangely familiar.
I thought the client representative on the jury would hate it for its cut-off curves and elongated shafts, but he immediately recognized it as representing what the harbor was and wanted to be. We kept being tempted by the beauty of Asymptote’s curves, but then kept coming back to the difficult rightness of the Denari design. It has many problems (a massive plinth, circulation inconsistencies, strange diagonal windows, office space that might be difficult to lease), but, when it is built in a few years, it will make sense of Keelung. It demonstrates the power of architecture—and architecture competitions—to do just that: find a form that intensifies, condenses, and catalyzes a context into something it can be.
1 Comment By Michael Speaks
As the other American jurist, I completely agree with Aaron Betsky's summary. It was a difficult decision, but the Denari entry provided the best fit for the design challenge posed by the site and other constraints, including a complex phasing and building process. But it also gives us an entirely fresh approach to the "icon" by deftly but powerfully addressing the challenge to design a signature building that responds to local constraint and global opportunity.
1. 在地面層，靠街面及靠港區，目前都是很高的牆面，這是以岸邊是管制區所做的設計，應可與業主討論，未來是否在非管制時段可以提供民眾使用，增加親水空間的可能，靠街面的部份應考慮可有店面，使未來的街道更為連續。 2. 在辦公室的部份：目前建築物的深度似乎都在約15 至20 米，由於服務核的位置，未來勢必會影響出租辦公室的分割可能，可在設計發展期間，可考慮尋求仲介公司的意見，考慮將深度增加至25 米，這樣既可維持自然通風採光的可能，創造較易分割出租的樓面，或許可能將此部份的樓層數減少，減少造價的壓力。
設計提案以一圓形平面的量體，將所有功能涵蓋其中，以Moire Pattern 為立面變化的主要效果，其優點是將地面層盡量留下做為都市功間，缺點是難以符合分期施工的條件，在平面上也有許多死角，在整體意象上也略顯呆板，與”雲門”的設計主題悖離較遠。
Denari’s is among the most remarkable projects I have seen in a very long time. Conceptually and formally the project is situated literally between green mountains and blue ocean, and Denari made an explicit connection to these in his use of color. His use of a slashed window pattern not only creates the graphical effect of making the the large volume of the building seem smaller, but the patterns lead one around corners up and down the gray metallic skin. In the use of color and graphically marked window patterns Denari shows an incredible precision and mastery. More importantly, however, while many of the projects we reviewed attempted to rethink the monument or icon—minimalist forms such as circles or discs, spare, Miesian tower blocks, or refigurations for the current icon, best expressed in the Asymptote entry—Denari instead gave us an example of a new kind of icon; one that is simultaneously formally aggressive and inscrutable. In Denari’s boards, which were by far the most precise and developed, incredible spatial and formal complexity and variety is regulated by a strong diagram, circulation scheme and exquisitely developed sections. Denari’s famous programmatic shrink-wrapping, and development of a graphical 2D language is sometimes hard to decipher in the boards; but when he presented the model, the sophistication and incredible precision of his scheme was revealed. What is most impressive about Denari’s scheme is that rather than reducing formal and programmatic complexity in an attempt to return to a simple figuration, he figures the contextual complexity formally and programmatically in his project and gives us a glimpse into what promises to be a new kind of iconographic building. Truly an astonishing project.