Arkitekturtävling, Europan 9, Tjörn : att tävla i arkitektur (2007:26)

Detta är en L3-uppsats från SLU/Dept. Of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management

Författare: Esbjörn Kjell; [2007]

Nyckelord: arkitekturtävling; tävla; Tjörn; Europan 9;

Sammanfattning: To me, competing in architecture has always been slightly odd and at the same time exiting. These competitions are one of few occasions were architecture is almost like art. The competition generates a variety of ideas and projects and these are often expressed in a more appetizing and artistic way than traditional architecture. It's also an art to master the special circumstances and requirements of a competition. I wanted to participate in an architecture competition to see what it meant to be competing in architecture. The choice of competition was Tjörn, a Europan 9 site. One of my questions was "why do we compete in architecture"? Is there one answer or is it impossible to give one answer to this question? Maybe it's just as impossible to answer the question as it is to compete in architecture? However, I did find an answer and what I hope to be the reason for competing in architecture. We compete to evolve architecture and to evolve as architects. The competitions are a chance to question traditional architecture. We are not constrained by our commitment to employers or customers. The project gives us freedom to explore ideas and try out new methods. This benefi ts both architecture as subject and the architect. I believe that architecture is something we evolve together through discussions and the sharing of ideas and thoughts. All projects contribute to evolving architecture but since competitions are given so much attention, I think they are most important. To be develop our projects within the loose reins of a competition, and watching others do the same, inspires us to evolve further. There are obviously many different answers to the question "why do we compete in architecture"? Depending on who you are you might have a different opinion. My answer is to be seen as an architects' point of view. The goal with this project was to find the answers to my questions about competing and to participate in the competition. By doing this I've done just what I believe is the meaning of a competition. I've evolved as an architect and feel more self-secure as an architect and more aware of my strengths. During the project I got more and more interested in projects that focus on the entire context, projects that connect land, water and buildings, where infrastructure and landscape are balanced and benefi ts from each other. I think it's important that architects are involved from the start in this kind of project, from master plan to detail. One of the architects'responsibilities is to make sure there is a red thread connecting the big picture and the details. Through this project I have somehow participated in evolving architecture. Maybe not through all my grand ideas, not that many actually, but through participating and sharing my thoughts of architecture, within the limits of the competition, I've been able to be a part of the debate. This text is something of a conclusion of my thoughts about architecture competitions and about this specific project. It's written in a personal way and does not claim to be scientific. Instead I hope it is considered as interesting, self-assure, fun and at times provoking. In other words, it's a little bit like me.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)