Google-Dwell-sponsored house design competition
-
It's possible that this is a topic that should be more general than the Architecture SIUG.
http://www.dwell.com/services/contests/design_your_dwelling.html
I assume that most people who read the SketchUpdate saw this. With some spare time finally I actually went through the rules and downloaded the site KMZ today, and there are some interesting points.
Normally I'm all for open competitions with financially-negligible prizes...after all, designing interesting buildings that will never be built on odd sites is something I do largely as a hobby (because I'll never, I'm certain, do any such thing no matter how long I work in architecture...that's just the way it goes!), and I like the stimulus of someone else setting the rules for a change...it makes up, slightly, for the vast and stultifying void, empty of all creativity and imagination, that is a career in architecture. But I'm a little disappointed in this particular competition.
For instance, take the site, which is in the middle of big, empty and flat Crissy Field, a former airfield and current public park east of the Presidio in San Francisco. That's hardly typical of the narrow and topographically challenging lots (think major grade changes!) I've always found fascinating about so much of urban San Fransisco. Every time I visit the city I find myself mentally developing all kinds of schemes for the ideal townhouse on one of those impossibly steep streets.
Actually, Google-Dwell's appointed sit is hardly urban at all...why did they specify this spot, if they had to choose something untypical of San Francisco? Why not--say--choose Alcatraz, if they're in the mood for places you can't put residential architecture in the Bay area? Or the Sutro Baths site?--can't beat that one for drama! Why not be totally random if you want impossible sites? Why not Deception Island off the Antarctic coast? The chosen location in Crissy Field is possibly the most un-urban spot you could choose in one of the most built-up urban areas in the United States (which certainly contributes to its interest as a city).
The rules for this competition are also a bit odd. Since this is a promotional piece for both Google and DwellMagazine (which, if you haven't read it, you should think of it as softcore porn for Modern Architecture fetishists), you might expect that they would reserve the right to publish and advertise with your submission without having to pay you anything (at all). But apparently they also have the right to modify your design once you send it to them, to change every bit of it.
And, most interesting of all:
@unknownuser said:
Incomplete entries or entries not created using Google SketchUp will be not be considered for judging.
Does that mean that your model must be created solelyusing SketchUp?
So does that mean if you render your SU model in VRay or post-process it in Piranesi, it is instantly disqualified? What if you use some of the new Ruby tools to make a Gehry-esque statement? Does the fact that you've used one of Dale's non-Google-published scripts to make something organic blow you out of the water? What if you're one of those compulsive people who have to work in CAD and then you use SU to make 3D models? Are you disqualified?
I see some issues here.
-
@lewiswadsworth said:
I see some issues here.
I see issues as well, but not with the competition.
I'm only surprised you didn't write the post with green text.
-
lewis, i understand your point, (johnsenior i don't really get yours, but i am a bit of a numbscull!)
hmm, it is a puzzler, seems like one descision couldn't be made so they just made all of them!
pav
-
@lewiswadsworth said:
we're supposed to design a house in the middle of a really popular one that caters to children? I'm not sure I'm capable of even a cynical entry.
Maybe that should be the challenge! -
You know it's also a fill-site? This is one of those areas, if I recall my San Francisco history correctly, where the terrain liquefies during a major seismic event.
I have the impression that whoever chose this particular site is neither an architect nor someone who works with architects very often. They're also probably not from San Francisco.
-
Just out of curiosity, I googled (ha!) Crissy Field. In fact, it's part of a United States national park, not just a local park.
At a period in U.S. history when there is even-greater-than-usual pressure to develop and exploit public lands and parks, we're supposed to design a house in the middle of a really popular one that caters to children? I'm not sure I'm capable of even a cynical entry.
So, what's the next Google-sponsored competition after this? A crude-oil pumping-and-transshipment station in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
-
Try not to focus on the obstacles but on the opportunities.
Chances that it is a real project is next to zero, so if you're going to enter do so with some zest for the competition and the site.
-
well said
pav
-
@unknownuser said:
Try not to focus on the obstacles but on the opportunities.
Chances that it is a real project is next to zero, so if you're going to enter do so with some zest for the competition and the site.
Oh, it's not a real project. It's just a really absurdly-sited fake one. Unfortunately, not absurd or unlikely enough to feel like an interesting fantasy (i.e., "house on Mars", "habitats in L4", "the floating skyscrapers", "DMZ re-imagined"...those sorts of things).
I may enter something...or not. I'm toying with the idea of submitting a post-apocalyptic house, after "the Big One" levels the rest of the city. Or perhaps this would be a time to make a point about the homeless population...and "design" a shanty-town like those so popular with socially-conscious students on rich Ivy League campus greens in the late 1980's.
But there are other concurrent competitions, including the Line of Site Brief 3 sponsored by Google (UK), that seem to be put together with a bit more thought and wouldn't require so much a cynical response. Even the Sportablescompetition that Google started at the 3DBC under the saintly aegis of Cameron Sinclair was better designed.
I'm just disappointed with Google. I assume that this was an attempt to demonstrate that SU could be used for ordinary, unsaintly but innovative residential architecture (yes, I know we know that, but the academic elite with which I unfortunately deal consider it a toy beneath the profession). A poorly-designed competition will result exactly in that sort of entry...and not do anything to legitimize the program in the eyes of the sort of people who have already heard that it can't be used for "serious" architectural work.
-
If you're going to give a site as a design competition feature (as opposed to just describing a hypothetical site and giving other criteria), it should make some sense. What can one consider about this site? If you know Crissy Field at all, it's not that it happens to be a public space. Pretend it isn't. It is just a flat site with an obvious view, but very idiosyncratic siting given the neighborhood and other features (freeway overpass,biking trails, "historic" structures);and loaded local planning issues. It would be like "Consider that you are to build a house here, but ignore everything except the view and private beach." Because otherwise... IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! Also if I owned that piece of land, I'd dream of letting it be a park. I don't think I'd want to do the competition. I'd get depressed.
That's it. I'd build a tiny caretakers cottage and sweep the walks in the park the rest of my days.
I guess I just said what you were saying. Sorry.
Interesting that the Presidio Park itself is the site of several hotly contended development issues with other colorful players like GAP owners and Disney. Actually a very rich planning / architectural discussion /controversy. Somebody(s) will write a book or two.
Advertisement