Építészet

Finnagora and hg.hu are happy to announce that WoodCave Finnish-Hungarian Student Design Competition was successful. The competition attracted 31 entries from two countries and nine different universities, with several interesting ideas and experiences. We are really pleased that the jury’s meeting was effective and the winners and the 12 participants of the workshop were chosen.

WOOD CAVE COMPETITION

JURY’S MINUTES

BUDAPEST, 8 APRIL 2011

Altogether 31 proposals arrived for the international Wood Cave student competition, all of them within the deadline. All of the proposals adhered to the competition program. All of the proposals were accepted to be submitted to the jury for evalutation.

Pokko Lemminkäinen, Secterary of the Jury and assistant Niina Niemi opening the packages

The secretary of the jury, Pokko Lemminkäinen and his assistant, Niina Niemi opened the proposal envelopes at 10 o’clock, numbered them in a random order and displayed them equally in the large and light conference room of Ombrello Group at the same time guaranteeing the secrecy of the competition.

The competition proposals in the random order of numbering were the following:

1. ”5101689”, 

2. ”SKICC”,

3. ”Flango”, 

4. ”2sided”, 

5. ”ICHTUS”,

6. ”ARBONIUM”, 

7. ”ZEBRA”, 

8. “DRAGUNOV”, 

9. ”CONTRASTS”, 

10. ”WOOD WALL WALK”, 

11. “MOIRE” (1), 

12. “KFV21”, 

13. ”K7J8YE”, 

14. ”HBPG 1”, 

15. ”WOODwave”, 

16. ”TETRIS”, 

17. “YJVWAK”, 

18. ”MOIRE” (2), 

19. “CUBA5”, 

20. “The Four Seasons”, 

21. ”PIXEL”, 

22. ”TRIANGLE MAP “021””, 

23. “CHARACTER”, 

24. ”HBPG 2”, 

26. “Tamburas”, 

27. ”GOE”, 

28. “CONE”, 

29. ”K1N1BOG2T”, 

30. ”FACEWALL”, 

31. ”DRESS”, 

32. ”ZEPHYR”

One of the works, “Moire” was submitted twice, in two identical packages. After recognising this, the work was judged as a single entry.

The jury of the competition (5 persons) arrived to the evaluation room after these preparatory phases at the same time and began evaluation at 10.20.

Evaluation was finished at 16.25 with a lunch break.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS OF THE JURY

First each member of the jury got acquainted with all of the competition proposals. After that each member of the jury drafted his/her own Top 10 list.

The first qualifying round

Voting after the first qualifying round

The jury members voting (l-r: Péter Pozsár, Dániel Kovács, Péter Kovács, Markku Tonttila, Unto Siikanen)

After the first qualifying round the following proposals remained on the table for further evaluation:

”SKICC”, ”Flango”, ”2sided”, ”ICHTUS”, “ARBONIUM”, ”ZEBRA”, “WOOD WALL WALK”, “KFV21”, “WOODwave”, “TETRIS”, “CUBA5”, “PIXEL”, “TRIANGLE MAP “021””, “CHARACTER”, “HBPG 2”, “Tamburas”, “GOE”, “K1N1BOG2T”, “FACEWALL”, “ZEPHYR”

The second qualifying round

After the second qualifying round the following proposals remained on the table with arguments:

”2sided”

Simple, in fact minimalistic idea, which can be realized from wood or other material, at least in interiors. The proposal is graphically beautiful and playful but doesn’t stand external use, eg. rain. Proposal requires futher development in this respect.

The colours bring a nice extra dimension to the idea as watched from different angles. The end result can be seen as a traditional wood pile but modernised to meet modern times.

”ZEBRA”

The work deals with different optical illusions and it is easy to implement stylishly but lacks a great creative idea or innovation. The wood is handled honestly eg. by burning and the design speaks for the wood which is the greatest strength of the proposal.

The end result is quietly harmonious, on the other hand a bit boring. The proposal could still ”fly” or couldn’t. Recycled wood is a current and distinguished aspect of the proposal.

”WOOD WALL WALK”

The proposal is not as sophisticated as innovative but it can offer a range of different possibilites for further development. Perhaps texts should be forgotten altogether and the handling and processing of wood should be concentrated on in different ways. 

Rain is a great challenge to the functionality of this structure. Most members of the jury objected its graphical inconclusiveness, on the other hand its shabbyness could work as a sympathetic trait.

”KFV21”

It is a nice, multifunctional and creative idea which can be further processed into a product in many ways. The use of light is an interesting dimension. The idea works best inside but could be used externally after further development (it needs eaves to protect from rain). Also an innovative decoration to be placed on the ground.

It is a noteworthy aspect that the project is simple and cost-effective to produce from e.g. recycled materials. The surface is alive but also quite simple. A very well balanced idea.

”WOODwave”

Extremely simple and clear-cut, and also an exceptionally aesthetical idea. Very close to nature, alluring and inspirational. Works well when watched from near or far, inviting and sophisticated.

The proposal is an intelligent and balanced concept in every aspect. Its clever elegance brings to mind attributes like “Scandinavian simplicity”; it’s a clear reminiscence of the works of Alvar Aalto. The further development of the idea is extremely interesting. The jury believes that it could also work externally.

”TETRIS”

Interrelation is the great strength and of this idea. We have to play a game which is a greatly respectable and ambitious point. The proposal is beautifully alive but in practice it is impossible to realize as a facade element, at least not from live wood. Consequently it would only work internally. It could perhaps be developed in different contexts and applications.

”HBPG 2”

An exceptionally ambitious idea of high quality which stylishly connects the pavillon to work as a strong functional part of the public space. It cannot be directly realized, only in a strongly modified form. It is made very artistically and in high standards. It can be realized externally from wooden boards or massive wood but not as a light-element moveable facade.

It is like the autonomous external piece of a public space. The colour scheme impresses as unrealistic and extorted. Very positive proposal but too much for this competition. It doesn’t necessarily need a pavilion to support it but functions as an absolutely independent space.

”K1N1BOG2T”

The presentation of the idea shows an exceptionally high quality, consisting sensitive graphic design. The proposal holds a certain intelligence, bravery and interest. The light might be seen in between the branches or space between the branches need to be added afterwards. However, in reality the idea which is catchy in such a small scale wouldn’t work on a huge surface. The idea is very impressive but somewhat underdeveloped. The proposal could be connected in a lot of modern ways to the traditional wood iconography.

”FACEWALL”

The first impression of the work captures its childish or even naïve nature. But all of a sudden it begins to impress as large surfaces on which faces become an absolutely abstract image. This way it could work well in a huge scale, with natural light and shade playing nicely on the surfaces. However, the idea presented in this form would have need further aesthetical and practical development, to make it useable externally.

”ZEPHYR”

The proposal is lavishly visualized but its realization could prove to be to challenging with its electric features. The jury appreciates the long experiental process which led to the present result, however, the work stills shows aesthetical deficit. This is a very important aspect, because even if the work shows it’s best qualities in the night, what happens in glaring daylight? Further development could prove the idea to be absolutely impossible.

The last round

CHOOSING THE WINNER

The third and last qualifying round was started by choosing the winner of the competition, by anonymous voting.

The jury selected ”WOODwave” as the best proposal based on its full-range and sophisticated concept even if it needs further development to function externally.

Finally the members of the jury proceeded to choose those works whose authors can participate in the workshop of June 2011 in Lahti to further develop their ideas. The jury chose the following proposals to participate in the workshop: ”2sided”, ””KFV21”, ”HBPG 2”, ” K1N1BOG2T”. 

Finally the envelopes of the participants were opened by the jury and thus the authors of the proposals were made public.

WINNER OF FIRST PRIZE:

”WOODwave” by Eliza Mikus and Nóra Németh (University of West Hungary, Faculty of Wood Sciences)

FOUR PROPOSALS PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP:

”2sided” by Joona Hulmi, Katariina Knuuti and Toni Pallari (University of Oulu)

”KFV21” by László Kovács and Sándor Váczi (University of Debrecen, Faculty of Engineering)

“HBPG 2” by Gergő Batizi-Pócsi and Barna Hajdu (University of Debrecen, Faculty of Engineering)

”K1N1BOG2T” by Hunor László Kovács, Péter Lassu and István Szigetfü (Budapest, University of Technology and Economics)

FINAL GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE JURY

The jury has drafted a general evaluation of the competition. Wooden materials were used in a very versatile, wide and creative way in the competition. One can say, they were used comprehensively. The proposals were innovative which looked to the future. Thus the competition can be called successful. The jury was satisfied with the general level of the works, especially with the unbiased competition proposals of young students.

The general artistic level of the competition was high, but the decisive factor is the applicability of the idea as a facade element. It should withstand several years of rain, sunshine, snow and ice without greater maintenance.

No such technical problems exist for internally used elements. This opens up limitless possibilities for almost all of the competition proposals as eg. acoustic sound boards for interal use.

The jury is looking forward to the results of the workshop with utmost interest. Carefully evaluated international student competitions should be organized in the future.

Jury of the Wood Cave Competition 2011

Daniel Kovacs, Chief Editor of hg.hu (Chairman of the Jury)

Peter Kovacs, Architect

Peter Pozsar, Architect

Unto Siikanen, Professor of Architecture

Markku Tonttila, Cabinetmaker

-

Pokko Lemminkäinen, Secterary of the Jury

Niina Niemi, Assistant of the Secretary of the Jury

Competition call

WOODCAVE - Coat for a Pavilion
Finnish-Hungarian Student Design Competition 2011

Finnagora, the culture and science institute of Finland in Budapest and Hungarian architecture and design magazine hg.hu is pleased to announce the launch of a competition for Hungarian and Finnish students to design a public art piece with the innovative and creative use of wood.

The aim of the competition:

To design wooden ornamentation for a 30 meter long and 3 meter high surface. The surface is one side of the WoodCave pavilion, in which a temporary exhibition will take place. The surface consists of modules size 2.5x3m – the decoration must be efficient on the size of a single module as well as on the whole surface. The two basic ideas of this project are the use of wood as an innovative building and surfacing material, and the self-contradiction that lies in setting the museum as a function against the temporary character.

Design a coat for the pavilion! Exploit the possibilities of wood and the ideas in cultural application. Play around with the material, the surface, the space – saw, burn, split! Use easily accessible, local or recycled wooden materials in realizing your conception.

Type and format of competition:

The competition is voluntary and anonymous. The participants have to be formal undergraduates or university students of a Finnish or Hungarian university or academy.

Submission requirements:

A 30x30cm part of the design, which demonstrates that the project is feasible and lasting. Moreover, an illustrated introduction of the whole concept on 1-3 wooden or paperboard with the size of 30x30cm. The jury is international, thus the language of the competition is English: descriptions must be written in English.

The competition is anonymous, passworded. The password must be indicated on every piece of the submission, personal information (name, age, postal and e-mail address, phone, university) must be attached in an enclosed envelope with the password written on top. With the absence of these the entry cannot be accepted.

Individual and group (with max 3 members) candidates are both accepted.

Jury:

Pokko Lemminkäinen, architect, designer of WoodCave concept
Unto Siikanen, architect/SAFA , professor
Markku Tonttila cabinetmaker, director of Pro Puu (Pro Wood) Association, Lahti
Péter Kovács, DLA architect, associate professor at University of Debrecen
Péter Pozsár, architect (Új Irány Csoport)
Dániel Kovács, art historian, editor-in-chief of hg.hu

Submission deadline:
25 March 2011 (final date of postmark or personal delivery)

Submissions must be sent in a closed package to the following address:

HUNGARY:
Kovács Dániel
Ombrello Média kft.
1033 Budapest, Bogdáni út 1-3

FINLAND:
Pokko Lemminkäinen
Pro Puu ry
Satamakatu 2 A
FI-15140 Lahti

Awards:

The awards for the entrants chosen to be the best by the jury of the competition will be the opportunity to participate in two workshops: one in Lahti, Finland, in June 2011 and the other in Budapest September 2011. All costs of the participants in the workshops will be covered. In the workshop in Lahti the participating students gain insight in the theory and practice of wood as versatile and multi-functional material both in architecture and design. Moreover, they will be given the opportunity to realize their conception submitted to the competition. The second workshop in Budapest will include the finalising of the pavilion with students’s coating innovations. All tasks will be guided by the Finnish and Hungarian professionals on site.

Announcement of results:

Results will be announced in mid-April.