Death by Architecture

return to list

Stockholm Public Library Competition Final Results

Flash Player required

The City of Stockholm has held a two-stage architectural competition, the first stage of which was an open international competition to build an extension to the Stockholm Public Library designed by Gunnar Asplund. The intention is that the competition results in a high-class architectonic composition of which the Asplund library is an integral part in a combined library function. The library shall quadruple its public areas and an extension for the reading and learning of today and tomorrow will be built next to the present building with its special qualities and unique values. The library shall be a lively public building open to all round-the-clock and shall stimulate meetings, discussion, literary experiences and study.

The first stage of the competition was completely open and about 6,000 architects from about 120 countries registered for participation. A total of 1,170 proposals were approved and assessed by the jury. From those 1,170 proposals, 6 were chosen to move forward into the second round.

Today, the jury has unanimously decided to give the first prize in the competition to the entry "Delphinium" by Architect Dipl. Ing. Heike Hanada (Laboratory of Art and Architecture, Germany) and recommend it for realization.

The jury has also unanimously decided on the following other prizes and honorary mentions:

Shared 3rd prize:
"Cut" by Paleko Arch Studija, Lithuania and "Dikthornan" by Mauri Korkka of Finland.

Shared 4th prize:
"Blanket" by Stephen Taylor and Dirk Brockmann (Stephen Taylor Architects, U.K.) and "Book Hill" by Jakob Steen Christensen and Jan Yoshiyuki Tanaka (JAJA Architects ApS, Denmark) and "Nosce te ipsum" by Nicola Braghieri (Architetto Nicola Braghieri, Italy).

For the complete jury report and additional information regarding the finalists and honorable mentions, visit the competition website of the Swedish Association of Architects.

Discuss

11.20.07 boring. shameful. anticlimactic. / maharapa

11.21.07 sad / username

11.22.07 What a shame. The best thing architects can come up with is a glass box? / palazzo

11.22.07 I heard that the jury motivation was something like "the most buildable project", what is that? The cheapest? Why have an competition at all if you are going to choose a slab? Because you can understand how it's built? Come on! / /makingmeashamedofstockholm

11.23.07 This entry has a powerful source of appreciating the fact that the focus is the landscape. The building slips and slides and minimally dissapears to bring the sensuous folds of the land into its pattern and textural expressions. / nomita

11.25.07 the jury wasnt qualified enough to make decisions of what is high quality architecture. ugly building, no quality spaces. / gunnar

11.26.07 Which one is the coffin? / anonymous

11.26.07 Congratulations to the Winner...shame on the Jury. Their true timidity is revealed with their daring selection of honourable mentions...! / W

11.26.07 The world wanted to see two buildings making love, but instead is left with the legacy of an awkward child standing, at a distance, beside the coffin of her dead grandfather / ...

12.18.07 sad story, as the copenhagen opera house,.. very well redacted comp. texts. Complete lack of ambition at the end. No wonder that the nordic countries are cold...hearted. / anonymous

01.09.08 well.. looks pit plain at the first glance, but after thought, it is quite ok. one thing i find about nordic architecture, they are not very exciting in the outside, but is good detailed and well organized and inside is better looking. / leo

03.20.08 how come a project with floral pattern as facade is the best of 1170 other ideas. The same was with the Warsaw Museum of Modern Art competiton. It's all about lo-risk decision which leads to boring, fashionable projects. / popzx

05.01.08 i think it is the best proposals of the 6 finalists. whats wrong with slabs anyway? i think it could become very beautiful. / anonymous

05.05.08 i agree with 05.01.08. the sensitive integration of the landscaping, the scale, the response to the park(s)...what's wrong with that? non-participating observer / observatory