Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Seven sweep Edinburgh's Ross Pavilion shortlist

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

June 20 2017

Seven sweep Edinburgh's Ross Pavilion shortlist
Seven competing designs have been shortlisted from 125 entrants to revitalize Edinburgh’s Ross Pavilion, giving the public the chance to get a feel for how the new pavilion and a reimagined West Princes Street Gardens might look.

Released by competition organisers Malcolm Reading Consultants they include a scheme led by Adjaye Associates, with Morgan McDonnell, BuroHappold Engineering, Plan A Consultants, JLL, Turley, Arup, Sandy Brown, Charcoalblue, AOC Archaeology, Studio LR, FMDC, Interserve and Thomas & Adamson.

Adjaye’s solution takes the form of a ‘garden temple’ dubbed a sculptural pleasure palace within which people may indulge in performances and community events with its stone clad features embedded within the landscape.

They are joined by Bjarke Ingels Group, incorporating JM Architects, WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, GROSS.MAX., Charcoalblue, Speirs + Major, JLL, Alan Baxter and People Friendly, who propose to build a transparent ‘undulating canopy’ to allow uninterrupted views of the castle from the gardens while also framing views.

Next up is Flanagan Lawrence who are collaborating with Gillespies, Expedition Engineering, JLL, Arup and Alan Baxter who have penned ‘sinuous landforms’ in the shape of a performance space and visitor centre which make the gardens a more connected space.

Page \ Park Architects, West 8 Landscape Architects and BuroHappold Engineering, alongside Charcoalblue and Muir Smith Evans, have composed a ‘grotto fed by springs’ in a classical garden tradition, supplying a space for assembly, marriage, song and dance at the foot of Edinburgh Castle’s rocky ramparts.

Also in contention are Reiulf Ramstad Arkitekter who, in collaboration with GROSS.MAX., AECOM, Charcoalblue, Groves-Raines Architects and Forbes Massie Studio, have conceived of a ‘simple but bold design’ complete with water terracing whuch reflects the long drained Nor Loch.

In with a chance also are wHY, GRAS, Groves-Raines Architects, Arup, Studio Yann Kersalé, O Street, Stuco, Creative Concern, Noel Kingsbury, Atelier Ten and Lawrence Barth, a sprawling team which can also count Alan Cumming, Aaron Hicklin, Beatrice Colin, Peter Ross, Alison Watson and Adrian Turpin among their extensive number.

Their ‘butterfly’ pavilion takes its inspiration from symmetry and organic forms to assume the appearance of a ‘highly decorated tent’ sitting within the landscape.

Last but not least stands William Matthews Associates and Sou Fujimoto Architects with BuroHappold Engineering, GROSS.MAX., Purcell, Scott Hobbs Planning and Filippo Bolognese who have crafted a ‘place for people’ by building on the concept of stone circles and the circular form of the original bandstand with distinctive overlapping rings.

Each concept will be on show at Edinburgh’s City Art Centre from 21 June through to 30 July.
Bjarke Ingels Group aim to unite the dividedd landscape with a visually transparent canopy
Bjarke Ingels Group aim to unite the dividedd landscape with a visually transparent canopy
Flanagan Lawrence's sinuous proposal mixes drama with accessibility
Flanagan Lawrence's sinuous proposal mixes drama with accessibility

New York-based Why aim to heighten senses with lightweight butterfly wings beneath a carpet of grass
New York-based Why aim to heighten senses with lightweight butterfly wings beneath a carpet of grass
Page\Park have looked further afield to Ancient Greece and Rome for their Nymphaeum
Page\Park have looked further afield to Ancient Greece and Rome for their Nymphaeum

Reiulf Ramstad Arkitekter propose a flexible performance space to inspire visitors
Reiulf Ramstad Arkitekter propose a flexible performance space to inspire visitors
William Matthews Associates with Sou Fujimoto Architects plan to house facilities beneath a light and floating spiral
William Matthews Associates with Sou Fujimoto Architects plan to house facilities beneath a light and floating spiral

12 Comments

basho
#1 Posted by basho on 20 Jun 2017 at 16:18 PM
Flanagan Lawrence, WHY or Page & Park all seem good options. The others, whilst exciting architecturally, completely overwhelm the site.
Will this ever get built though, whoever wins?
David
#2 Posted by David on 20 Jun 2017 at 17:29 PM
I was immediately drawn to the Flanagan Lawrence scheme but looking again at that particular render, it's really disappointing that the large oversailing roof, as elegant as it is, completely obliterates views to the castle when you're in the venue. Surely this is THE main feature of the site?
Inahuf
#3 Posted by Inahuf on 20 Jun 2017 at 21:11 PM
The big gigs here, the festival fireworks and Hogmanay, are all about the view of the castle and the sky. Why three of the schemes would obscure that with enclosing or over-expressive roofs is beyond understanding. I like the WHY scheme, a real landscape response.
dipsy
#4 Posted by dipsy on 20 Jun 2017 at 22:26 PM
#teletubbies
Reiulf seems to have gone bananas with the landscape design but it is fairly endearing.
David
#5 Posted by David on 21 Jun 2017 at 09:22 AM
I was immediately drawn to the Flanagan Lawrence scheme but looking again at that particular render, it's really disappointing that the large oversailing roof, as elegant as it is, completely obliterates views to the castle when you're in the venue. Surely this is THE main feature of the site?
Mr Boring
#6 Posted by Mr Boring on 21 Jun 2017 at 11:49 AM
Sou Fujimoto or BIG should get it although Fujimoto is my pick for the win. Edinburgh is a city of bridges and a walk through the city is often a journey that transcends topography. I can see it being a destination for events and for those wanting to walk the spiral simply as an experience.
CADMonkey
#7 Posted by CADMonkey on 21 Jun 2017 at 15:30 PM
As per usual a competition has architectural designs that have not had a QS blink at them.
The only 2 that in any way look like they have been designed to a sensible budget are Adjaye Associates and possibly Page/Park.
Wildly different proposals with ridiculously varying scopes that don't even look like they are part of the same competition.
It doesn't look as though this has been particularly well run/controlled and should be rerun.
Anticipated construction costs should also form part of any public exhibition.
H A M M E R & H A M M E R & H A M M E R
#8 Posted by H A M M E R & H A M M E R & H A M M E R on 21 Jun 2017 at 17:08 PM
Love these. All of them are so amazing. Great work guys. You are all guys aren't you? I can tell. Great. Anyway, as we hoped it looks like they've all totally ignored the context and just dropped shiny objects into the garden! Brilliant! and If you don't win, you can drop it into another garden somewhere else!

This is what I love about architecture - eventually everywhere will look exactly the same.
Yawn
#9 Posted by Yawn on 21 Jun 2017 at 22:12 PM
Disappointing. Emerging local practises could have done a better job..certainly of understanding the context..as P&P have done, albeit it looks rather miserable...as does DA's.
The international Starchitects have gone nuts with their anonymous, irrelevant shiny rings as expected.
All in all a bit rubbish.
Soccer Thug
#10 Posted by Soccer Thug on 21 Jun 2017 at 22:45 PM
Some good comments on here.

I am very weary of the green roof proposals. Its one thing sticking a green roof on top of an office that nobody will see, but this is a highly prominent site and sensitive roofscape will be critical. If the green roof doesn't turn out green its going to look terrible.

I like the concept of embedding the works into the gardens, enhancing the wider setting in doing so, but cautious.

Clearly the brief has been very loose and I'm left wondering what the venue will actually be used for? Some of these proposals will limit the capacity of the venue in practical terms very much indeed.
Christopher Dinnis
#11 Posted by Christopher Dinnis on 30 Jun 2017 at 12:38 PM
Flanagan Lawrence and the firm from New York proposals are the one's to be developed. They respect the existing topography and also have potential for good acoustics. The others have little respect for the acoustics and are too formal and rigid in concept for the site. Where are the local Architects proposals??
Tom W
#12 Posted by Tom W on 11 Jul 2017 at 11:01 AM
William Matthews or Bjarke Ingels are my fevourites. This place is practically dead 9.9/10 times a year, so whinning that complete reconstruction of the scheme will ruin the fireworks view TWICE a year is seriously out of place. To be honest anything is way better than obscure toilet building which the pavilon is at the moment. Sometimes this sleepy town needs a shake, so go bold!

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to June 2017

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.