This competition seeks to explore and expand the idea of, and opportunities for, green buildings that address the challenges of our northern environment. It seeks to engage, stimulate and challenge Yukon's architectural design firms to create innovative, inspired designs that harmonize building functions with sustainability.
The challenge was to design a small institutional building - a visual arts education space - no larger than 3000 square feet. Design firms were given the choice to select one of two sites located next to the Yukon Arts Centre. Their designs had to conform to demanding "green" performance criteria and meet client needs.
The competition was be carried out in two stages. Stage One included a goal setting workshop, an integrated design process (IDP) charette and energy analysis software training. The goal setting workshop resulted in clear design goals for the visual arts education facility collectively developed by the clients, designers and stakeholders, and facilitated by green building specialists. These goals were translated into green performance criteria and incorporated into the Call for Proposals in Stage Two (Conceptual Design). The integrated design process charette provided design firms with a framework to guide their design decisions in Stage Two. Funding was be available to all design firms participating in this stage.
The competition was restricted to research and conceptual design and did not include plans and funding to construct the winning proposal. However, a successful competition that features outstanding, innovative submissions and a high level of community interest and support could attract the interest of funding agencies.
The Green Building Design Competition honoured design excellence, resource efficiency, teamwork and creativity. It rewarded achievement in each of these components, but more importantly, the exceptional design that grows out of their integration.
Each one of the designs offers a sense of person. There are three very different design personalities using three different approaches and three different sites.
The Team A "person" seems to be an engineer with a passion for energy performance.
This was the only team to properly dimension the building close to size requirements.
They did a very thorough job on the technical approach and provided a very strong written submission.
Rammed earth floor is interesting. The Studio would work well as an open studio.
The submission demonstrated a dedicated effort to address the challenge, follow the guidelines, learn from the experience and present a viable green building.
The submission needs to pay stronger attention to form.
Inside space excited me more than the outside. It seemed to provide a conducive atmosphere to create artwork.
The Integrated Design Process description is thorough and honest as it moved from stage to stage--moving apart and back together.
The Team B "person" seems to be an artist, with the design being carried by form.
Unique design and the jury as a whole responded well. Fantastic creativity demonstrating how lyrical a building might be. One of best features is the welcoming atmosphere.
Strong visual presentation. The Model was exemplary. It gives you the feeling of being on the site in its finished state. A very clearly recycled building in so many ways.
Very site-crafted and therefore designed in direct response to site. Small footprint that blends into landscape so nicely & effectively. However, site outside of guidelines.
There was a strong focus on form. More solid background on the green building components would have been helpful.
Impressed with the integration of art and green building concepts.
There wasn't a clear sense of how I would feel inside and how it would function. But there was indication that the spaces perform multiple functions which was good.
The Integrated Design process suggested that the team did not reach out very broadly. There was a feeling that the building was designed by one person - showing a stronger dominance than integration.
The building dimensions weren't clearly marked but seemed to be somewhat oversized.
The Team C "person" is a builder and they used their flat site as a blank canvas.
Their approach to education mixed with technological innovation was very good.
It felt like a good space artistically.
Architecture is being used to help mechanical systems, which demonstrates innovative engineering and an integrated design approach.
Great drawings that provide a good sense of layout. Informative engineering drawings.
Provided a balanced visual and written submission with the best form + function report. The site did not give them many challenges that they overtly addressed.
The residence on second floor was a challenge and they did it well.
Demonstrated an effort to reach a little more broadly on the sustainability front.
They seemed to use an effective approach although a team structure wasn't identified.
The building was clearly oversized.
(Excerpt from the jury's comments)
Michael L. Barton, Architecte
Neil Graham, Artiste
Joanne Jackson Johnson
David Reid, Architecte de paysage
Stage One: Goal setting and professional development
Call for Expression of Interest: February 8, 2002
Letter of Intent: February 20, 2002
Goal Setting Workshop: March 5-6, 2002
EE4-CBIP energy modeling and RETScreening training: March 12-13, 2002
Integrated design process charette: March 14, 2002
Stage Two: Conceptual design
Call for Proposals: March 27, 2002
Letter of Intent: April 3, 2002
Release of $2,500 design funds upon receipt of Letter of Intent: April 3, 2002
Conceptual design proposal submission: May 24, 2002
Announcement of winning design: May 31, 2002
Ask the right questions before building, The Yukon News, 2001
Architects strive for a better arts centre building, The Yukon News, 2002
Green building design competition, The Yukon News, 2002
Green building goal setting, The Yukon News, 2002
Honors but no cigar, for green-building design, The Yukon News, 2002
- Appel de candidatures
- Appel de candidatures
- Appel de candidatures
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Monographie post-concours