Sunday, April 19, 2020

PREFAB Glamping Villa International Ideas Competition Lombok 2020

 
PREFAB Glamping VillaInternational Ideas CompetitionLombok 2020




Competition Brief
In 2021, Indonesia will host the prestigious motorcycle race Moto GP for the first time. This world-class motor racing event will be held on a new circuit in the Mandalika Special Economic Zone on the island of Lombok in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia.

Currently, Lombok lacks enough places for tourists to stay. Over 60,000 more hotel rooms are estimated by the government to be needed for this event. However, community members can build prefab glamping areas around remote villages using locally available materials. Prefab Glamping Villa is an open-ideas competition to prepare pleasant temporary living areas for the touristswho will watch moto GP racing. 

The Prefab glamping villas must be easy to build and dismantle and use as much local material as possible. The villas will be built one to two hours away from the circuit. Each villa should be 30–60 m2and able to be easily arranged in groups of 10–15 villas to becomeone composition with public spaces around it. Participants can choose from sites located in a hilly area, in the countryside near a river, or near the beach.

As this is an open-ideas competition, participants in the prefab Glamping Villa 2020 Challenge may interpret the competition brief in their own ways and choose the most creative way to fulfill its goals. This is an opportunity for architecture enthusiasts to rewrite the definition of temporary living on the island of the modern and digital society.

Location
The competition location is in Lombok Island Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB) Indonesia, It is 30 minutes from Bali Island. You can Choose any place around whether in Beach front, at the mountain, or in the Cliff close to Mandalika Beach, which will be used as the new Moto GP beach front circuit.

Format
The most difficult part of the assignment is to follow these instructions precisely. Failure to do so will lead to disqualification.
Your proposal will be handed in digitally as two pages of A3 size. The orientation must be landscape (not portrait). 
Your team number should be written in the upper right corner. 
Any other information which compromises your identity will lead to disqualification. 

Jury:
Riri Jacob (atelier riri)
Takeru Shoji (Takeru Shoji architects)
Budi Pradono (budipradono architects a+u)


Prize:
1stPRIZE : 1000 USD
10 HONOURABLE MENTIONS 
30 FINALISTS

Competition Schedule
Early Bird Registration: April 3 -  April 19, 2020

Advance Registration April 20 - May 5, 2020

Last Minutes Registration May 6 – June 15, 2020

Closing Date for Registration June 15, 2020

Closing Date for submission June 30, 2020

Announcement Winner July 15, 2020


Registration Fee:

Early Bird Registration: until April 19: 
Rp.100K (Indonesian student / arch) or 10$ (International student / arch)

Advance Registration: April 20 - May 5:
Rp.150K (Indonesian student / arch) or 15$ (International student / arch)

Last Minutes Registration May 6 - june 15: 
Rp.175K (Indonesian student / arch) or 25$ (International student / arch)


The Task
1.Make diagram
Write the concept with diagram, understanding the tropicality of the location. Identify several prefab system, make some research about locally available material.
2. Select the Location
participants can choose from sites located (A) in a hilly area, (B) in the countryside near a river, or (C) near the beach.
3. Draw
Draw the modular of glamping villa. Draw the composition of multiple villa.
Draw the section and technical detail of the design. 
Make some illustration with 3d view from several area.
4.WriteShortly describe the key features of the glamping villas complex. Up to 300 words!
Evaluation
1.    Creativity. Think beyond the ordinary standard. Surprise us!
2.    Be critical. Say something about the new concept of glamping, community and it’s relation to the moto GP
3.    Tell a story.
Delivery
Please read this information very carefully.
You are going to make FOUR files for the upload process: 
1.    High-resolution PDF containing both A3 posters for your project. This file will be used for the exhibition. THE MAXIMUM FILE SIZE IS 10 MB FOR THIS FILE. 
THE NAME OF THE FILE YOU SHALL USE IS: NO_GL_XXX-large-PDF.pdf

2.    Low-resolution PDF containing both A3 posters of your project. This file will be used for the jury process. THE MAXIMUM FILE SIZE IS 2MB FOR THIS FILE. THE NAME OF THE FILE YOU SHALL USE IS: NO_GL_XXX-small-PDF.pdf

3.    FOR PRINT: This file will be used for leaflet or book : High-resolution illustration of your project. This is the main illustration for your project. This can be a render, picture, collage, model photo, drawing etc. This file will be used for our web page and promotional purposes. THE FILE FORMAT MUST BE A JPEG, WITH 300DPI RESOLUTION. THE MAXIMUM FILE SIZE IS 5MB FOR THIS FILE. 
THE NAME OF THE FILE YOU SHALL USE IS: NO_GLXXX-large-JPEG.jpeg
4.    FOR WEB: Low-resolution illustration for your project. This is the same illustration as the High-resolution illustration. This file will be used for our web page and promotional purposes. THE FILE FORMAT MUST BE A JPEG, WITH 72DPI RESOLUTION. THE MAXIMUM FILE SIZE IS 500KB FOR THIS FILE. 
THE NAME OF THE FILE YOU SHALL USE IS: NO_GLXXX-small-JPEG.jpeg
IF YOU FAIL TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED, SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE USED THE CORRECT FILE NAMES WHEN YOU UPLOAD YOUR PROJECT. 
YOU WILL ALSO ONLY BE ABLE TO UPLOAD YOUR PROJECT ONCE, SO BE SURE TO CHECK THAT YOU ARE UPLOADING THE RIGHT FILES, BECAUSE WE WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE THE FILES FOR YOU. 
If you have any questions, you may search for answers send us an e-mail info@archideacompetition.comRemember to mark the e-mail with your participant code. 


For Further detail please check their website: https://www.archideacompetition.com

-->

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Do we need another enormous white elephant? by Budi Pradono


There is no idea which can be fully realized in architecture, as conflicting aesthetical, monetary, governmental and societal pressure prevent radical concepts from becoming reality.


If architectural competitions are to be accepted as devices for fostering innovation, then they are found wanting. Architecture is a lesser discipline compared to painting or poetry, as architecture has to relate to its users, be realized through sufficient funding and be allowed to exist through the site’sgovernment. This complexity means that no architectural idea can be 100 percent realized; there are inevitable negotiations and compromises between various parties, such as the client, government and society itself. This is particularly true when pertaining to civic architecture. 
In 2015, Olympic and design aficionados alike were stunned by reports of Zaha Hadid’s scraped Tokyo Olympics 2020 stadium scheme. The discontinuation of the previously approved design was announced by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who cited that escalating costs to the tune of more than double the design’s initial budget was the main rationale behind the organizer’s decision
Zaha Hadid, a Pritzker Prize award winning architect yet acknowledged diva, submitted her initial scheme in partnership with local firm Nikken Sekkei for the stadium. Understandably, it was not an easy decision to dismiss an already approved design. Although Hadid first garnered the spotlight as a paper architect who seemed satisfied to win competitions without any of her striking sculptural concepts bearing fruition, she has been much more prolific in the past couple of decades. Her distinctive touch has already radically altered the landscape of contemporary architecture around the world, from the United States to Europe, and from the Middle East to Asia.
Concurrently, contemporary international competitions open up architecture to a wider audience while generating innovative new concepts. Japan is a country that seeks to learn, with many lessons that it can also teach; it can execute a concept by an international level competition winner as well as build it to exact specifications. The chance to win an international competition for an extraordinary building in Japan will always captivate the architectural community, as it inspires young architects whose career would skyrocket if they can happen to be the lucky ones chosen. 
For example, architects Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Farshid Moussavi (FOA) won the Yokohama International Port Terminal (1995) competition. Their revolutionary design for Osanbashi Pier successfully integrated an architectural program with bifurcation techniques for a new aesthetic in the historic Japanese town. FOA went on to establish a globally respected firm in London, with work generated from the interest following its competition win.
The same year, the brilliant Japanese Pritzker Prize winningarchitect Toyo Ito won a competition to design Sendai Mediatheque. The program combined a modern library, art gallery and data and media centerThe key to the design’s innovation is Ito’s inquiry of spatial roles and functions, resulting in the transparency of interior and exterior workings. While visitors are free to conclude whether Sendai Mediatheque is a new city icon, Ito postulated that his design was inspired by Le Corbusier’s 21st century domino concept(1930)
Both of the above examples illustrate that Japan welcomes and honors international competition winners. In the past couple of decades, Japan has emerged in the forefront for emerging and established architects to realize their vision while pursuing architectural innovation. 
The Polemic Olympic Stadium 2020
Hadid’s scrapped Olympic stadium concept, won through a legitimate international competition in 2012, shone a harsh spotlight upon the Japanese government. However, I accept that economic savings is a sound and rational argument. Japan and other Olympic host countries must learn from Beijing’s 2008 Olympic stadium. The so called Bird's Nest stands as an empty monument that cost China US$480 million to build for a two week event. Today, the stadium is difficult to operate and maintain; it has effectively become a monster tourist attraction that racks up a US$11 million annual bill to keep running. 
In Hadid’s case, the local government required both the winning design and local project architects to act as an integrated package. During the committee’s follow up competition, Hadid could not participate as up until the end of the time frame, she was unsuccessful in further cooperationwith Nikken Sekkei. At the same time, the government realized with the slow down in Japan’s economy, the ¥258 million price tag for Hadid’s design has become a heavier burden for its public to shoulder. It did not help that Japanese architects including Toyo Ito and Fumihiko Maki exerted further pressure upon their government, arguing that Hadid’s design was more like a giant ivory tower rather than something suitable for Tokyo’s urban context. 
Critics around the world argued and counter argued Hadid’s dismissal throughout 2015; the loudest voices were found in prestigious architectural journals and media outlets. The sticking point of the debate was the controversial announcement that the follow up competition winner for the stadium was celebrated Japanese architect Kengo Kuma. Indeed, Kuma was one of the well respected Japanese architects who rallied against Hadid’s colossal design, insisting that it would ruin the adjacent Meiji Jingu Goyen Garden’s scale and atmosphere. The general public responded negatively with an accusation of nepotism. Did the Japanese government discriminate against a non-Japanese designing an important building in its capital? To borrow the Socratic philosophy that an unexamined life is a life not worth living, I will address the pros and cons for Hadid’s scheme one by one. 
The Japanese government as the building competition’sorganizer made at least two critical errorsHadid’s profile as an established international architect no doubt swayed the International Olympic Committee to select Japan for itsOlympics 2020 host country. Hadid as a brand name was reliable and helped to promote Japan as the best candidate for one of the world’s best and most watched sporting events.
The second error was discounting that Hadid and Nikken Sekkei has been tweaking her initial scheme over the past two years due to criticism from the architectural community as well as grumbling from the government about budget overruns from the initial ¥169 million. Ignoring these two facts damaged the Japanese samurai code of honor
The Case for Kengo Kuma
Kengo Kuma is one of Japan’s most important living architects. His 2010 for the Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum in Dundee, Scotland won a tight international architectural competition. His work there became iconic, and emphasized the integration of public space as it relates to the city center, the river and the museum’s sophisticated amenities. Kuma had to scale down his design due to mounting costs for that project, but he was not subject to a second competition the way Hadid was for the Olympic stadium. 
Recently, I visited Nagaoka City Hall in the Japanese city of Niigata, also designed by Kuma. I think this project is very successful because it transformed the traditional governmental premises, opening it up to the public. Anyone can go there and participate in sports or cultural activitiesat the same time, civil servants work there fulltime overseeing the city’s administration. Kuma combined traditional materials with the modern scope of a convenient public meeting destination
In addition, Kuma has recently won a public building competition for a rail station in Saint Denis, France (2015). Kuma's proposal demonstrates his expertise in integrating public spaces, city parks and the station, to reform urbanism with innovative architecture.
If we compare the winning Kuma design for the Olympic 2020 stadiumit displays qualities that are superior to Hadid’s original design for the same project. Kuma chose local materials such as wood, and he has the skill to execute his concept to bind the building closely with natureYet critics accuse his selection as being politically motivated, and there are even cries of his concept plagiarizing Hadid’s ideas. 
I would like to argue that this is the end of the era for sculptural design as a solution to public buildings. An over the top monolith becomes something that sticks out from the surrounding environment; its shape does not fit with the civic concept of being integrated with society. Hadid, of course, adapts this approach with forms that are significant and often gigantic
Kuma has an office at Aoyama-dori, in fairly close proximity to the Olympic 2020 site. Surrounded by the Meiji JinguGyoen Garden, he is sensitive to its significance and understandably wishes to maintain its prominenceHis schemeutilizes the stadium as an extension of the garden, allowing Tokyo citizens to jog in the stadium garden long after the games’ closing ceremony. The flat roof captures the sun as asource of energy, powering the irrigation system surrounding the stadium while unifying in it.
Kuma’s extensive use of wood throughout most of his design instills calmness and humanizes what would otherwise be perceived as monumental forms. His stadium design feels warm to visitors. The oval arena is surrounded by harmoniously arranged foliage, thoughtfully planted upon large swathes of open air terraces. Hadid, in contrast, avoided these softer materials and elements
Kuma helps the public understand sustainable building designthrough his roof structure, arena seating and public facilities that can be utilized over a longer life spanHis selection of materialsforms and technological innovation was applied for easy and affordable maintenance. Over time, the sustainable features will reduce the building’s running costsIt then makes sense that his design, estimated to be only ¥149 billion or roughly 60 percent of Hadid’s scheme, would be the logical investment for organizers.
The last argument regarding plagiarism, particularly relating to the shape and layout similarities between Kuma and Hadid’s design, can be rejected. An arena capacity of 80,000 people will inevitably result in some structural similaritiesAny architect would propose a similar program and seat arrangement given the same brief. Perhaps Kuma himself puts it best: the most important thing is the overall building’s impression. The form should not be its main focus. 
By examining Kuma’s oeuvre and past projects, any rational person would realize that respecting the spirit of place from the Meiji Jingu Gyoen Garden is more important than building yet another great, gigantic status symbol with crippling maintenance cost that the city will have to bear. I hope to soon see a new direction in contemporary architecture, with serenity, modesty, elegance and nature incorporated into stadium design.