Nyheder
AGF-Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nyt stadion / Ny Ceres Park

SteenA

Well-known member

The winners of the design contest "New Stadium in Aarhus" are:​

The three winners have been selected as equal winners who in various ways have distinguished themselves in a highly positive way in respect of obtaining an architectural iconic building with suitable and optimum functions within the construction limit available.

Proposal no. 1 (Red.: Cobe, AFL Architects, Buro Happold DK) has managed to present a beautiful and functional stadium which, by way of a sympathetic architectural simplicity, adapts to the location and shows relevant understanding of the identity of the location. In addition, the project demonstrates great understanding of working integrated with all technical disciplines, respecting the financial framework given.

Proposal no. 3 (Red.: Zaha Hadid, Tredje Natur, Sweco) distinguishes itself by way of a uniquely strong main concept – beautiful and poetic section, reaching out to its surroundings and resulting in a spectacular experience around the building. The concept and construction of the proposal are found to be extremely robust.

Proposal no. 6 (Red.: Dorte Mandrup, Kristine Jensen, Schlaich Bergermann Partner) is a thoroughly prepared project in which a strong and sympathetic main concept with a clear composition by virtue of the trisection of the building outlines particularly robust and flexible architecture convincingly balancing the iconic status of the building with a sensitive adaptation to the location. The proposal is also based on rational constructions and efficient use of materials.
 

Stig AKA Frank Heskjær

Well-known member

The winners of the design contest "New Stadium in Aarhus" are:​

The three winners have been selected as equal winners who in various ways have distinguished themselves in a highly positive way in respect of obtaining an architectural iconic building with suitable and optimum functions within the construction limit available.

Proposal no. 1 (Red.: Cobe, AFL Architects, Buro Happold DK) has managed to present a beautiful and functional stadium which, by way of a sympathetic architectural simplicity, adapts to the location and shows relevant understanding of the identity of the location. In addition, the project demonstrates great understanding of working integrated with all technical disciplines, respecting the financial framework given.

Proposal no. 3 (Red.: Zaha Hadid, Tredje Natur, Sweco) distinguishes itself by way of a uniquely strong main concept – beautiful and poetic section, reaching out to its surroundings and resulting in a spectacular experience around the building. The concept and construction of the proposal are found to be extremely robust.

Proposal no. 6 (Red.: Dorte Mandrup, Kristine Jensen, Schlaich Bergermann Partner) is a thoroughly prepared project in which a strong and sympathetic main concept with a clear composition by virtue of the trisection of the building outlines particularly robust and flexible architecture convincingly balancing the iconic status of the building with a sensitive adaptation to the location. The proposal is also based on rational constructions and efficient use of materials.
Nogen der kan huske/har overblik over hvilke stadion de 3 hold tidligere har designet?
 

SteenA

Well-known member
Nogen der kan huske/har overblik over hvilke stadion de 3 hold tidligere har designet?
Hvis du klikker på mit link i forrige post, hvor de tre tilbageværende projekter nævnes, så er der link til deres hjemmesider på deres navne. Her kan man se de nogle af de ting de har skabt.

Edit: Her er de:

https://cobe.dk/
https://www.afl-architects.com/
https://www.burohappold.com/projects/

https://www.zaha-hadid.com/archive
https://www.tredjenatur.dk/portfolio/underskoven-vision-for-kongelunden-i-aarhus/ (det indsendte forslag)
https://www.sweco.dk/projekter/

https://www.dortemandrup.dk/work
https://www.kristinejensen.dk/projekter/
https://www.sbp.de/en/projects/?terms=91 (kun stadionprojekter her)
 
Senest redigeret:

Stig AKA Frank Heskjær

Well-known member
Hvis du klikker på mit link i forrige post, hvor de tre tilbageværende projekter nævnes, så er der link til deres hjemmesider på deres navne. Her kan man se de nogle af de ting de har skabt.

Edit: Her er de:

https://cobe.dk/
https://www.afl-architects.com/
https://www.burohappold.com/projects/

https://www.zaha-hadid.com/archive
https://www.tredjenatur.dk/portfolio/underskoven-vision-for-kongelunden-i-aarhus/ (det indsendte forslag)
https://www.sweco.dk/projekter/

https://www.dortemandrup.dk/work
https://www.kristinejensen.dk/projekter/
https://www.sbp.de/en/projects/?terms=91 (kun stadionprojekter her)
TAK!!!
 

SteenA

Well-known member
Om de tre projekter der er sorteret fra, fremgår det at man prioriterer simplicitet og det at stadion passer ind i omgivelserne højt.
At man fravælger noget meget avanceret giver mening i forhold til bekymring for at budgettet holder;

Other proposals​

Proposal no. 2 (Red.: 3XN, HKS Architects, Schønherr, MOE, Arup) has been positioned as no. 2.

All in all, the proposal is good and beautiful. The proposal is, however, evaluated as having a high complexity both in form, construction and façade. This lack of simplicity gives rise to concerns among the jurors, and it is assessed that, in the event of further processing, the proposal will not maintain the otherwise smart and sympathetic main concept and also observe the financial framework.

Proposal no. 4 (Red.: SCAU, LYTT Architecture, Buro Happold UK, Cowi) ended in a shared third place together with Proposal no. 5.

All in all, the proposal is good and has been thoroughly prepared. The proposal is, however, assessed to be a too sharp contrast in terms of architecture to the historical facility both in respect of the location, the landscape and the historical buildings.

The proposal is assessed not to obtain coherence between design, cost drivers and buildability.

The proposal is assessed not to be sufficiently robust for tolerating further processing.

Proposal 5 (Red.: Dissing + Weitling, Kengo Kuma & Associates, MASU Planning, MOONN)

All in all, the proposal is good and has been thoroughly prepared. The proposal is, however, assessed to be a too sharp contrast to the historical facility both in respect of the location, the landscape and the historical buildings.

The geometrical characteristics and construction of the proposal seem simple, but the scope and dimensions are generally large, which makes the proposal highly more expensive. The proposal is assessed not to be clearly based on the financial framework for construction costs.

The proposal is assessed not to be sufficiently robust for tolerating further processing."
 

Martinstranger

Administrator

»Vi ved godt, at vi på den her måde strækker tålmodigheden hos en masse AGF-fans og andre langt. Men et stadionbyggeri på en så særlig placering er en ekstremt kompleks opgave, hvor arkitektur, funktionalitet, økonomi og andre væsentlige forhold alle skal gå op i en højere enhed. Derfor er det en god ting, at vi nu har mulighed for at komme et spadestik dybere, før man udpeger en endelig vinder,« slutter Alvaro Arriagada.
 

Dine ulæste indlæg

Top