WINNERS: New Housing New York Design Ideas Competition

Click on the picture to launch the entry page of the winners listed

 

Site A - Manhattan

First Prize- Choi Law and Clinton W. Brister

This is an attempt to address new technologies as form givers, which was seen as virtue by the jurors. The architectural statement is clear; it didn't try to rework what's on the block while it stays in scale with the surrounding buildings. It offers many different types of
living units for diverse families, including seniors, transitional, i.e. not a homogeneous population, making a good response to the city's changing demographic, and market needs. But, like other awarded schemes, this one had some shortcomings: it was hard to tell if the plans would work, in fact several jurors said they wouldn't
Second Prize - Andrew Berman Architect

The jury applauded the livability of this contemporary interpretation in the Harlem context. The incorporation of state-of-the-art technology in support of a well-worked section was complemented by the provision of individual, usable, private outdoor space balanced by common open
space on grade. But the jury felt that the representation was not up to the same standard as the ideas presented and questioned the uniformity of the unit plans.
Third Prize - SYSTEMarchitects

This scheme looked more speculative than many others, it tried to invent a new kind of vertical communal space; it's strong in section, noted the jury.  But they had trouble with the applied nature of the façade. "You wish the vertical circulation would work better," said one juror, adding "it looks applied, rather than integrated." Another juror said it was "a missed opportunity. It should wrap the fabric of the façade around the roof, making the roof a public space."
Honorable Mention - Motonobu Kurokawa

It's interesting how the program was placed into the façade, including benches and water, commented the jurors. Because it's an infill site, and because contextual zoning is so restrictive, "you can only fill the façade under those rules," one juror noted. The scheme was criticized
for not being "a 3D solution"

Site B - Brooklyn

First Prize- Blostein/Overly Architects

None of the entries, the jury concurred, fully met the criteria set forth by the competition: innovation in design, sustainability, transfer-ability to another site, economic viability. But the jury singled out “Casual Encounters” by Beth Blostein and Bart Overly, because of its "thoughtful social component." It is about keeping young people in the city, providing a place where they can live and meet and
socialize, as well as inject new energy into an old neighborhood. "In the U.S. context it is unnatural to see housing without elevators," remarked one juror, but for a youthful population it works. "This offers a clear vision of how a community can be created among a certain
group of people," another juror noted. On a lighter side, one youthful juror recognized "every TV show" in the scheme. "It's a sex machine. This is x-rated co-housing. This is a product of a young mind, reflecting the way young people live in residence halls." A jury lament: street life didn't seem to be supported by the scheme
First Honorable Mention - Sven Schroeter and Karen Hock

Numerous competitors submitted proposals that employed technologies based on prefabrication, adaptation of alternative modular units, and the incorporation of new means of fabrication. When one juror asked "who wants to live in a shipping container?" the group said, unanimously, "no one". Contextual modularism stood out and was
applauded for its careful incorporation of industrial economies and "green" initiatives combined with an understanding of the urban context, especially the reinforcing of the public pedestrian realm along the avenue.
Second Honorable Mention- Mitchell/Giurgola Architects

One juror lamented the "effect of land values on housing costs" and the market driven design that has resulted from the current cycle of development in our cities. This proposal for 4th Avenue, with its increased density, forward looking use of materials, and integration
into the existing tapestry of a residential block was seen as a viable approach to making housing affordable.

Site C - Queens

First Prize- ARTE New York

Well integrated into the site; promises opportunity for a number of architectural expressions. Very well conceived and appropriate urban design response to a large site. The plan respects both the man-made and natural contexts, while proposing a phased and sustainable economic
approach to an expanded mixed use urban community. The architectural massing provides an excellent opportunity for several "guided" individual architectural expressions. The proposal for phasing reflects the way cities are built. In this case, though, it seems more
conceptual than real, but it was recognized as one of the few schemes that mentions phasing at all. The jury underscored the dynamics of the massing and the implicit richness of the land uses that this scheme could accommodate.

Second Prize - Judith Kinnard and Noel Murphy

Universally recognized as "intelligent and serene," the scheme was criticized for being too site specific. It addresses the issue of inserting big box retail into a dense borough by tucking it under the park. It integrates housing and retail well. But the scheme implies that it needs to be done by one hand, not leaving room for more varied architectural expressions. This uniform architecture sets up a separate precinct. It maybe too calm, some
jurors said, therefore not New York.
Third Prize - Deborah Berke & Partners Architects

Urban farming is an idea that can help neighborhoods develop habitat, keep the earth and keep it producing in an urban context. This connection to nature needs to be thought of when building human settlements. Would have been nice to see the sequence of farming that may actually clean up the land.