FEBRUARY 2015 COMPETITION

 

The Rotating Section ///

 

Sections reveal relationships between forms and spaces.  Lines perpendicular to gravity orient floors, ceilings, windows, etc.  What if a section began to rotate on itself?  How does the perception of space change when gravity shifts, walls begin to tip away, and roofs become floors?  How might a section that was designed for one position be affected by rotation?  How might a section be specifically designed to function at multiple rotational positions? What happens when sections begin to rotate?
 

Participants may consider sections that rotate continuously, intermittently, or only once.  Submissions may be conceptual, technical, and/or artistic.

 

 

JURORS ///

 

Allison Carafa

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
M.S. in Critical, Curatorial, and Conceptual Practices in Architecture - Columbia University

 

Ryan Edwards

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

M.Arch, Wentworth Institute of Technology

Firm: Helicon Design Group

 

Donna Mena

Brooklyn, New York, United States

B.Arch, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, California

Firm: Ashe + Leandro

 

 

ENTRIES ///

 

30 Entries from 14 Countries

EC
1
T6
3
2

Nicholas Paley

Melbourne, Australia

 

Bin Du

Hefei, Anhui, China

 

Ungureanu Adrian Danut

Bucharest, Romania

 

 

Owen Nichols 

New York, New York, United States

 

Kim Tran

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

 

Owen Nichols 

New York, New York, United States

 

 

Brendan Vogt

New York, New York, United States

RESULTS ///

 

1ST

Nicholas Paley

Melbourne, Australia

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"This entry receives high marks in all three categories called for in the brief; it is conceptual, technical and artistic.  Although perhaps this entry does not specifically engage in a rotation whereby the 'roofs become floors,' it embodies the idea of rotation nonetheless and through both its concept and graphic qualities, completely deserves to be included in the final jury."

 

"Amazing graphic. Concept is conveyed immediately. The amount of detail and intricacy in the design and functionality answer the brief in a way that doesn't just follow the brief’s “rotation” request; but its taken one step further and the 2d section is rotated AND expanded to play with space. What is most impressive about this submission is its ability to be a completely plausible manifestation. Would really enjoy to see this come to life!"

 

"Graphically this entry is really well done. The idea is simple in the way it answers the brief... it is just a rotating section. I find myself wanting to experience the accordion of spaces it creates and see how I could mess with it and its then corresponding section."

2ND

Bin Du

Hefei, Anhui, China

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"Good graphic. Each module in carefully designed and its use is well depicted to represent a specific use. I enjoy this technique because the space is given a function and its rotation would affect the initial function and force it to adapt to its new orientation. It is easy to see how the rotation can alter the use and function of space. Reads well."

 

"Although technically a very literal interpretation of the brief, this entry is graphically engaging and surpasses many for is clarity and execution of the brief requirements.  In addition, this entry is dynamic and stimulating, providing the viewer to engage with the entry much more so than some of the other entries, which have a similar concept."

3RD

Ungureanu Adrian Danut

Bucharest, Romania

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"This entry engages the brief simply and effectively, in a manner which is both easy to understand and fun.  Although a number of entries were similar in nature to this entry, what stands apart is the graphic clarity and execution of the concept."

TOP 6

Owen Nichols

New York, New York, United States

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"Visually fun and interesting to look at. Ambiguity of section and plan makes you think about how the drawing functions and in what way it should be read. Its ambiguity make it a successful submission. The color palette is chosen well and creates depth with mystery and intrigue." 

TOP 6

Kim Tran

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"I am not sure that I see how this particular design works, but I like the pushing, pulling, and folding of space that the designer is trying to represent. It may not be the most original of the entries, but I think it is asking a good question."

TOP 6

Owen Nichols

New York, New York, United States

JURY COMMENTS ///

 

"I like not knowing if this section slice was done long after the life of the buildings, when there was nothing left but bones, or if this is the beginning of the buildings and the slice is part of the design."

Editor's Choice

Yingxue Wang

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States

Brendan Vogt

New York, New York, United States

Gamze Akyol

Ankara, Turkey

Jake Pfahl

Dayton, Ohio, United States

Dong Hwan Oh

Seoul, Republic of Korea

Jorge Almeida

Porto, Portugal

Will Ogburn

Arlington, Texas, United States

Sylvain Bilodeau, Architect (Architecturama)

Montréal, Québec, Canada

Alex Willms

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Andersson Cubillos Quintero

Bogotá, Colombia

Marcela Gracia Acosta

Charlottesville, Virginia, United States

Ha Gyuseok

Daegu, Republic of Korea

Kim Tran

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

Pelin Nane

Ankara, Turkey

Alexis Malone

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. United States

Hyo ri ,RYU   

Dalseo Yigokdong, Daegu, Korea

Arnold Wong

Hong Kong

Federico Valverdi

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Tuan Nguyen

Arlington, Texas, United States

Federico Valverdi

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Jasper Tuinema, Architect (studio Plots)

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

David Rubio Tintoré

Castellón de la Plana, Spain

Jonathan Kayton

Incline Village, Nevada, United States

Jonathan Wong

London, United Kingdom