1

8th oistat theatre architecture Competition 2011

2 3

OISTAT is:oistat, organisation internationa-le des scénographes, techniciens et architectes de théâtre (international organisation of scenographers, the-atre architects and technicians), is the world-wide parent organization for scenographers, theatre techni-cians, theatre educators and archi-tects.

it was founded in 1968 with 8 mem-ber countries.

The mission of OISTAT is:• To stimulate the exchange of ideas

and innovations, and to promote international collaboration in pro-fessions which support live perfor-mance.

• To promote the formation of centres in each country in order to achieve these aims.

• To encourage life-long learning among live performance practitio-ners.

• To respect the integrity of all cul-tures and celebrate the diversity as well as the similarities of those who work in support of live performance.

oistat is a co-operative, non-govern- mental organization and has three categories of membership: oistat Centres, individual members and associate members. Currently ois-tat has Centers in 31 countries and individual/associate members around the world with a combined membership of over 20,000 members in 50 countries.

the essential activities of the orga-nization are undertaken by the com-missions. they work in the following fields: • Theatre Architecture• Scenography• Professional Training• Technology• Publication / Communication• Theory and History

theatre architecture Competition is one of the activities of oistat architecture Commission, held every 4 years.

Content:Preface 4

oistat Competion Rules 5

st. anna 10

Jury 14

Jury Report 16

1st Place 22

2nd Place 26

3rd Places 30

4th Places 38

Honorary Mentions 46

selected for Catalogue 56

Participants 66

Jury Meeting Impressions 80

Colophon 82

sponsors 83

5

8th OISTAT Theatre Architecture Competition 2011 – The Brief

4

where the character of the original building contributes significantly to the special atmosphere, and provides a sense of continuity with the past. these are the basic themes to be explored in this competition.

Provocation by Professor Dorita Hannah, Architec-ture Commissioner for PQ 2011 „The auditorium is often considered a static object designed to contain performance. But performance cannot be contained... it exceeds architecture, especially in this age of media specta-cles, fluid technologies and uncontainable bodies. So what role does the auditorium now play other than forcing us to perform as well-behaved spectators? If we acknowledge that architec-ture itself performs, as space-in-action, then perhaps we can explore new strategies for experiencing live performance as a more dynamic, creative and communal spatial event.“

The Brief / OverviewCompetitors are asked to design a theatre space for a particular type of performance, which must be defined by the competitor. this may be a conventional perfor-mance or something more experimental, using a ran-ge of media and technologies.

in this way it is hoped to encourage a deeper un-derstanding of the relationship between the perfor-mance itself and the space, which it inhabits.

the aim is to create a space, which supports the chosen type of performance in the best possible way. It should explore how a performance space could be designed to reflect the cultural ethos of the 21st cen-tury and whether performances in our time are best housed in purpose designed theatres or can take ad-vantage of more open, flexible settings, to meet the needs of artists and respond to an increasingly global information culture. in particular, competitors should attempt to answer the question on why people conti-nue to choose to visit live performances, despite the overwhelming amount of digital entertainment now available to them. Central to this is the sense of com-munity provided by a shared experience. In this way the TAC will underpin the central theme of PQ´s The-atre Architecture Exhibition, exploring the question –

Introductionthe oistat theatre architecture Competition (taC) is an international ideas competition, aimed at students and emerging practitioners, which is organised every four years by the architecture Commission of oistat (international organisation of scenographers, techni-cians and theatre architects). For more information on the activities of oistat please see: http://www.oistat.org

We are pleased to announce the launch ofthe next TAC, to be completed in 2011.

Selected entries of TAC are exhibited and cash prizes awarded at the Prague Quadrennial (PQ) the major in-ternational exhibition of scenography and theatre ar-chitecture, which takes place every 4 years in Prague in the Czech Republic. The next

PQ is due to take place in June 2011. It is considered by many to be the most important theatre design event in the world. For more information please see:http://www.pq.cz

Competition Theme for TAC 2011Most spaces for the performing arts (drama, music theatre, dance, concerts and other forms) are housed in specialized buildings, built for the purpose.

While there will always be a need for these buil-dings, there is increasing interest amongst theatre practitioners in the use of existing buildings and set-tings, which are not purpose built theatres, to present productions. these settings, sometimes known as ‚found space‘, can often provide a unique atmosphere, which resonates with a particular production or style of presentation, in a way that may not be possible in a conventional theatre. While these spaces may lack the technical infrastructure and facilities of a theatre, they can make up for this through the atmosphere provided by the special character of the place, its interaction with the performance and the opportunity to explore less conventional forms of presentation. Many new thea-tres are also created by converting existing buildings,

tradition is of the utmost importance if you are in the business of bringing together an actor, or a whole flock of that species, with – hopefully – more than one spectator, attracted by the unpredictable those actors promise to offer. sometimes this business means cre-ating a theatre.

the oistat architecture Commission has lived up to this challenge by organizing this competition in theatre architecture for 28 years running – at least the start of a tradition.

From various perspectives, all the seven previous competitions followed the question: Will it make a theatre? it is the aim of the oistat arch Com practiti-oners to create a basis where students and young pro-fessionals can discover the complexity and exciting particularities related to the challenge of designing theatres.

oistat arch Com is proud to present this catalo-gue showcasing the results of the 8th theatre archi-tecture Competition, held in 2011.

Displayed are the achievements born of the hard work of 185 competitors, students, young professio-nals or university teams from 44 countries all across the globe.

What is special about this 2011 competition?

in 2011, the building of st. anna, a former church in the middle of Stare Mesto, Prague, has not only been the competition’s subject, but also the location for ex-hibiting some of the best work during PQ 2011.

Previous competitions addressed urbanistic que-stions, technical aspects, the relationship between ac-tors and audience.

this time, a found space like st. anna with its unu-sual proportions and dimensions placed the focus on the question of how to interact with a place as it is.

this would not create a “good theatre,” of course. But it showed how performances and space could in-teract and be stimulated by accepting, refusing, de-nying or arranging oneself with a – found? - space as it is. to show that sometimes no theatre building is nee-ded to create a space where live performances might happen.

as before, this competition was also a reaction to the lessons learned by arch Com during the previous event. in addition, it was a response to the headline of the 2011 PQ theatre architecture section NOW_NEXT.

We, oistat arch Com, are grateful to oistat for both its economic and organisational support and to the sponsors, who generously supported this compe-tition with their donations.

to tim Foster, GB, who after the 2007 competition was once more responsible for the design brief.

We also want to express our gratitude to the jury, who had the pleasure and duty to go through all the entries in the course of four demanding days, compa-ring, discussing and finally making their decision.

From my side, my sincerest thanks to Christine Rieken, who once again carried the major burden of work to make this all happen.

Congratulations to all the winners, the creators of the works selected for this catalogue and the exhibiti-on in Prague.

the Chair of the oistat architecture Commission

Reinhold Daberto

Preface

6 7

will be organized during PQ 2011, as part of the event. Further details of events will be available later on the PQ website.

Drawings and photos of st. anna‘s will be available to download from the taC home page on the oistat website before the official start of the competition. (see Competition Rules, item 8)

Key Issuessuccessful performance spaces have some very parti-cular requirements, which competitors are expected to understand and explore in order to create an en-vironment in which the unique interaction between audience, artists and technology, which constitutes a live performance, can flourish. some key issues to be considered are set out below:

Audience Cohesionthe way in which an audience is arranged, in relation to the performance, plays a key role in creating a suc-cessful atmosphere where audiences feel engaged by the performance and performers can communicate well with them. How does this relationship work and what factors are at play in a successful performance space? this can take many different forms but the key is maintaining an appropriate human scale where a performer can command a whole audience. to achieve this the audience must be as close as possible to the performance and be able to see and hear well. Com-petitors are asked to highlight how their entries will support this essential relationship.

Sightlinesto see well the audience must be arranged so they can all see the performance. Not only must their view be free of obstructions, but they must also be sufficiently close to the performers to distinguish their gestures and appreciate the scenic or architectural space they occupy. there are many different ways in which this can be achieved, depending upon the type of perfor-mance and the configuration of the space, but the es-sential principles are constant.

AcousticsGood hearing is as important as good seeing. Diffe-rent performance types require different acoustic con-

“Now / Next – Performance Space at the Crossroads”.For more information please see:http://www.pq.cz/en/architecture.html

this is a competition to create and design a place for a particular type of performance and competitors are encouraged to inform themselves of the prece-dents and needs of their selected performance type.

Competitors can choose whether to work with the existing building or to propose a new design on the site. they can choose to design either a permanent building or a temporary installation. this is an ideas competiti-on and there is no intention to build the winning entry. Competitors are therefore encouraged to make propo-sals which are didactic, innovative and experimental.

Collaborations between architects and other the-atre practitioners such as directors, designers, techni-cians, actors, dancers, musicians, or students in those fields, will be welcomed.

The SiteThe site for the competition is Prague Crossroads, for-merly st anna‘s church, which will also be the site of the Architecture Section at PQ 2011. st. anna‘s is an important landmark in the cultural heritage of Prague and is a protected building. It was originally built as a gothic church, and has since been adapted to other uses.

It is now used as a cultural centre in Prague, which is owned by The National Theatre, and is operated under the title of ‚Prague Crossroads‘ by The Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Foundation VIZE 97, to promote the crossroads of different cultural influences, intersec-ting in Prague over the centuries. St. Anna‘s is there-fore a space with a high cultural significance, acting as a focus for cultural forces in Prague.

the prize winning entries and a selection of other entries will be exhibited in the building, during PQ 2011, giving them a special resonance with their set-ting and a prominent place within this prestigious in-ternational exhibition.

Competitors are invited, at their own cost, to visit Prague during PQ 2011 to experience the architecture exhibition and see the real site. Visitors will also have the opportunity to participate in design workshops on theatre architecture and other related topics, which

Competition Rules and Conditions

1. The Architecture Commission of OISTAT(the international organisation of scenographers, theatre technicians and theatre architects) is pro-moting an international ideas competition in a single stage, open to architects and students of schools of architecture. Collaborations between architects and other theatre practitioners such as directors, desig-ners, technicians, actors, dancers, musicians, or stu-dents in those fields, will be welcomed. architects or students associated with members of the jury are not permitted to enter. Jury members will be announced on the oistat website before the official start of the competition.

2. Documents to be Submitted2.1 Drawing requirements a Plans of each level, at least two sections and im-

portant elevations to a scale of not less than 1/100.b three-dimensional images of the building and the

theatre space.c auditorium studies showing it in use for a perfor-

mance or several performances.d site plan to a scale of 1/500e Models cannot be accepted, although photo-

graphs of models can be included.f Drawings and text documents must not carry any

means of identifying the entrant(s) apart from the code number referred to in para 2.2 (c) below.

2.2 Competition entries may only be submitted on a CD-ROM which should be clearly labelled with the code number, both on the CD and its cover. Every entry shall compromise an electronic copy of the following:

a A single panel at AO size (1189 x 841 mm / 46.81 x 33.11 inches) in vertical (portrait) format submit-ted in pdf format at 300 dpi resolution). the docu-

8th OISTAT Theatre Architecture Competition 2011 – The Brief

ditions to be best appreciated. speech, for instance, requires a less reverberant environment than that re-quired for un-amplified music. Where a space is to be used for a range of different performance types some means of varying the acoustic may be necessary. the acoustic of a room is determined by its shape, volume and materials. st. anna‘s is a church with a high rever-beration time, caused by its large volume, and this is-sue will need to be considered. Recorded or live sound effects and music will also play an important role in many productions. technical Requirements

Most performances rely upon some form of stage technology to facilitate them. this includes stage ligh-ting, projection and sound systems and mechanical systems, which are used to suspend or move scenery or to reconfigure the room. Provision for thesesystems needs to be integrated into the design and must be accessible and safe to use.

Interpretationthe style and type of performance and the way it uses a particular space to interpret a particular piece or to tell a story, including the use of lighting, sound and scenography, is a key consideration. The Purpose

You must state what type of performance(s) the design will be used for. Establishing a clear link bet-ween the performance and the architecture is a key aim of the competition. the design may be specific to a single performance, a particular performance type or a range of different uses. Drawings of the theatre space should illustrate how it will be used for a performance.

Accommodationthe size of the theatre space and other accommoda-tion will be constrained by the existing building, the site and the performance type but the following re-quirements need to be considered:• A space for a live performance with an audience,

either sitting or standing.• Facilities for the audience, including toilets and

the sale of tickets, food and drink.• Technical installations for the performance (ligh-

ting, sound, mechanical systems).• Accommodation for performers.• Safe evacuation of all occupants in an emergency.• Access for people with disabilities.

8 9

3.4 Entries must be despatched by mail on or before 11 March 2011. Late entries will not be considered.

• Entries will be disqualified if the postmark is dated after 11 March 2011.

• Entries must be received at the address given un-der item 3.6, no later than 25 March 2011. Compe-titors are responsible for ensuring their entry is delivered on time.

3.5 the entry fee for the competition is € 50 per entry. Competitors will pay via pay pal on the oistat website, no later than 11 March 2011, using their random six figure code no. to identify their pay-ment. Entries submitted without an entry fee will not be considered.

3.6 all entries and payments will be handled by a third party and the jury will not know the identity of the entries.

Competitors should send their entries to this address free of fees for the recipient:

Theater ProjekteDaberto + KollegenAugustenstraße 59D-80333 MünchenGermany

Entries must bear the six-figure code as mentioned un-der 2.2 c on the outside of the envelope and the words ‚TAC 2011, not to be opened before 25 March 2011‘

3.7 The six-figure codes of all received entries will be published on oistat’s website when the entry fee has been paid.

4. Prizes4.1 the first prize will be € 5,000, the second prize will

be €2,500 and the third prize will be € 1,000. the-re will be three additional prizes of € 500 each. in addition to these prizes, there will be honourable mentions. The jury reserves the right to modify the distribution of prize money, within the same total amount and number of prizes.

4.2 the results of the competition will be announced on the OISTAT website from 16 April 2011. Prizes will be presented at the Prague Quadrennial in

June 2011 at a ceremony to be held in st anna‘s church, and paid electronically to those unable to attend, after the prize-giving.

5. Publication5.1 the competition entries will become the property

of OISTAT and may be published and exhibited in any country at the discretion of oistat.

5.2 oistat will respect and acknowledge the copy-right of the participants.

6. Acceptance of Conditions6.1 By submitting an entry, participants or participa-

ting teams will: a agree to the rules and regulati-ons as set out in this programme.

b declare that the proposed design is their own work.

c agree to accept the decisions of the jury as final.d agree not to disclose their identities or publicise

their entry in any way before the jury have made their selection. any breach of this rule will render the entry invalid.

7. Jury7.1 The international jury will consist of 4 architects

from different continents, plus one other expe-rienced theatre practitioner.

7.2. In case of the absence of a juror, OISTAT will as-sign another qualified person as a member of the jury.

7.3 The jury will produce a report explaining the rea-sons for its decisions and commenting on the pri-ze-winning and honourably mentioned entries.

7.4. The report of the jury will be published on the oistat website and distributed by the oistat Centres.

7.5 The jury will select at least 25 entries for an exhibi-tion at the Prague Quadrennia in June 2011.

7.6. a brochure illustrating at least 25 entries will be published and will be available at the Prague Qu-adrennial 2011, after which distribution will be by way of the oistat Centres or via the internet.

7.7 oistat will offer the results of the competition to the press (publications covering theatre design and architecture)

8. Time schedule

1 July 2010official start of the competition Brief and Conditions posted on the oistat Website and notification sent to oistat Centres and schools ofarchitecture.

1 October 2010Final date for questions. Questions can be submitted by email to tac2011@oistat.org. Questions received af-ter this date will not be considered. answers to que-stions will be posted on the oistat website from 1 November 2010.

11 March 2011Closing date for despatch of entries and payment.

25 March 2011Latest date for receipt of entries.

30 March - 13 April 2011Jury meeting and report.

16 April 2011Notification of the prize-winners.

16-26 June 2011Exhibition of prize-winning and selected entries at the Prague Quadrennial.

17 June 2011official announcement and prize-giving at the archi-tecture Section of The Prague Quadrennial to be held at Prague Crossroads.

© Copyright: oistat 2010

Competition Rules and Conditions

ment itself and the pdf file will be identified by a random six-figure code (e.g. 123456/dwg.pdf)

b A short written description of the project, the per-formance to be housed and an explanation of the design concept (maximum 200 words). The text will be incorporated on the panels but must also be submitted separately as an a4 size Word docu-ment. the document and the pdf file will be iden-tified by a random six figure code (e.g. 123456/text.doc)

c Both the drawing and text documents and the files containing them are to be identified by a code of six numbers to be chosen at random by the competitor(s), appearing in the top right hand corner of each document,10mm high.

d a completed entry form in Word format, including the same code no. as in para 2.2 (c) above. the entry form can be downloaded from the oistat website. in cases where competitors form a team, all collaborators must be named. information provided here will be used in all publications, so please double check spelling!

e a closed envelope containing the completed entry form with the same six figure code (e.g. 123456) on the outside.

f All text is to be in English. Advisory Competitors are reminded that if their entries are selected for publication, they may be reduced, in whole or in part, to a4 size or smaller. Competitors should check their layout and line weights on a printer to ensure the quality of printing, if selected for the exhibition or catalogue.

2.3 this is an ideas competition and there is no inten-tion that the winning entry will be built.

2.4 Entries will not be returned by oistat. Competi-tors should retain copies of their work.

3. Competition Schedule3.1 the competition documents and conditions will

be available from 1 July 2010 on the oistat Website: www.oistat.org/content.asp?path=c1qgp8ps

3.2 Competitors questions of can be sent by email to TAC2011@oistat.org Questions should be written in English and must be received no later than 1 oc-tober 2010.

3.3 the answers to the questions will be posted on the Website from 1 November 2010.

10 11

927 Czech Prince Václav founds St. Lawrence’s church

11–12th century, construction of the Romanesque rotunda of St. Lawrence 1232 Templars settle at St. Lawrence’s 1312 Knights of Malta buy the church 1313 Dominican nuns from st. anne’s

convent in Újezd circa 1360 1372 Eastern chancel keystone is laid after 1372

Třeboň altar Master paints murals in the presbytery

15th cent. The only Prague church not to be affected by the Hussite wars.1553 historian Václav Hájek of Libočany

is buried in the church crypt 1616 the church is reconstructed due

to Queen Anne’s efforts 1676 the nuns’ chancel is newly constructed 1727 the interior stucco decorations

are finished 1782 the convent church is abolished and

deconsecrated under Joseph ii

Brief history of the church and Prague Crossroads

1795 printer Jan Ferdinand of schönfeld purchases it

1816 printing works established; the church is divided into storeys; a service lift is constructed

1880 three upper storeys of the tower are removed and the Gothic ribbed vault is torn down

1956 archaeological research 1970 roof and truss reconstruction 1992 reconstruction of the middle wing for the

National Theatre ballet ensemble

1997 the Havel Foundation finds the church and considers its reconstruction

1998 the Foundation conducts renovation of the church

1999 the Dagmar and Václav Havel Foundation VIZE 97 rents the church from the National theatre for 99 years

1999 the church reconstruction begins according to architect Eva Jiřičná’s plan; the removal of the modern plaster layers from the church walls is started; first uncovering of the fresco paintings

12 13

B

A

B

C

C

A

Ground �oor

edge 1.�oor

entr

ance

hal

l

access

rostrum

CHURCH

ENTRANCE TOTHE CHURCH

EW15

D3

St.Anna Pragueground floor level

2010-06-30scale 1:100and restoration of the church walls

2000 expert discussion with conservationists about the final version of the project

2001 reconstruction of the eastern wall; use of electro-osmosis for dehumidification of the wall

2002 archaeological research; restoration of the church gate and restoration adaptation of the original truss parts

2003 the reconstruction itself – removal of the storeys and modern tie beams, removal of the service lift, window renovation, installation

of a service walkway in the truss, restoration and completion of a part of the Gothic staircase in the tower, installation of vaulting ribs imitating the original shape of the Gothic ribbed vault, insertion and installation of the stage and new heated floor, reconstruction of the part of the cloister used as the church’s rear area

2004 installation of the “altar picture” – Adriena Šimotová’s drawings – the Ecstatic Hero; restoration of the frescoes

2004 (5 oct ) the PRAŽSKÁ KŘIŽOVATKA spiritual cultural centre starts activity by awarding the Dagmar and Václav Havel Foundation VIZE 97 Prize to Professor Petr Vopěnka concerts by Magdalena Kožená and Iva Bitová, Struny Podzimu (Autumn Strings), Religious Convention, opening of the Helsinki Conference and others

2005 (5 Sep ) a votive gift – a purse of silver coins from the time of King John of Luxembourg – is found by the restoration firm tRaDiCE

restoration of the fresco paintings on the northern and southern walls of the church interior; reconstruction of another part of the cloister

2005 (5. oct ) the Dagmar and Václav Havel Foundation VIZE 97 Prize is awarded to Professor Philip G. Zimbardo

Iain Mackintosh Oxford educated Iain Mackintosh has combined careers as scenographer, producer, designer of theatre-space and theatre historian. At the Oxford Playhouse in 1961 he designed the second production in the world of the turn of the screw and the first production of the Prospect Theatre Company which he ran until 1973 ta-king 75 productions to 125 theatres in 21 countries including those at Bra-tislava and Vienna in 1969.

This experience led to designing theatrespace for Theatre Projects Consultants for which he was De-sign Director for thirty years. He col-laborated with architects and colle-agues on many new theatrespaces: from the Cottesloe at Britain’s National Theatre (1977) to Glyn-debourne (1994); from the orange Tree Richmond London(1991) to the Martha Cohen Calgary (1985); from the Founders’ Theatre Lenox Mas-sachusetts (2001) to Hall Two at The sage Gateshead (2004).

studying theatre painting and theatre architecture, in particular of the 18th century, resulted in three major exhibitions in London and elsewhere including Making Space for theatre, 40 years of British the-atre Architecture at Prague in 1995. His publications include Actor, Au-dience and architecture published in 1993 by Routledge.

Iain Mackintosh took part in six PQs between 1976 and 2007. In 1995 he was the first Briton on the PQ jury. In 1999 he received the Gold Medal for Architecture on behalf of the new Glyndebourne.

He was guest speaker at OISTAT conferences at Reggio Emilia 1982 and 1985, Warsaw 1983, Budapest 1985, Prague 1991, Caracas 1993 and taiwan 2004.

in the Czech Republic he has also given papers at five of the re-cent annual conferences on Baroque theatre at Cesky Krumlov and has worked on research and restoration projects for the baroque theatres at Valtice and Kacina and on studies for a new opera house at Pilzen.

Mónica RayaScenographer born in Mexico City, Mónica Raya attended her first scenic Design master class in Wales, 1989 working on Ubu Roi under the supervision of British designers: John Bury, Patrick and Rosemary Vercoe and arianne Gastambide.

Graduated as an architect at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in 1990, she got her M.F.A. at the Yale school of Drama in 1993.

While living in the Usa she worked for the source theatre, the John F. Kennedy Center for the arts, the Puertorrican Travelling Theatre and as the resident scenic designer

The OISTATJury2011

for the Gala Hispanic Theatre. Back in Mexico in 1995, she be-

came a full-time professor at the National Autonomous Univer-sity of Mexico and has designed sets, costumes and lights for more than a 100 productions in more than 30 different venues. she has been awarded the Beca para Jóve-nes creadores en diseño escénico 1996–97,the Distinción Universidad Nacional 2000 para Jóvenes acadé-micos for artistic achievement and the Sistema Nacional de Creadores in 2008. she was awarded with the Gold Medal for Costume Design at the World stage Design 2005 and as outstanding scenographer at the WSD 2009. Her work had been exposed on the Mexican Pavillion at the Prague Quadriennales 2003 and 2007, where she had the honor to participate as a member of the international jury. She is a doctoral student at Aalto University in Hel-sinki and her design work will be seen again at the next Prague Qua-driennale 2011.

Martien van Goor born 1944, graduate of amsterdam academy of architecture, mana-ging partner of Greiner Van Goor Huijten Architecten bv. The office specializes in theatres, museums, buildings for (mental) healthcare, schools, offices, interior design and

feasibility studies. Examples of his work are: renovation / restauration plus new stage house for the Royal Carré theatre amsterdam, theatre De Spiegel, Zwolle, feasability stu-die for centre for the performing and visual arts iJmuiden, isalathe-atre / musical school Capelle aan den iJssel, renovation municipal theatre Venray, renovation and ex-pansion of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, renovation and ex-pansion of the Royal Museum of Antiquities Leiden, Academic Psy-chiatric Centre amsterdam, renova-tion and expansion nH Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky amsterdam, renova-tion ‘De Volharding’ office building The Hague, lay-out exhibition ‘Van Gogh and Gauguin’, lay-out Miho-exhibition in Leiden.He is currently working on the de-sign for the Assen Cultural Quarter (in collaboration with BAM and De Zwarte Hond) and the renovation of theatre Kunstmin in Dordrecht.

Martien is a member of BNA (Ro-yal institute of Dutch architects), oistat and member of the recom-mending committee of the Prague Quadrennial. From January 2001 till January 2009 he was a member of the Urban aesthetics Committee of the City of Utrecht.

For more information about projects by Greiner Van Goor Hu-ijten Architecten, see www.gghar-chitecten.nl

Taesup Leeborn 1954. south Korea. scenogra-pher, theatre Consultant.

Education: 1989, MFA in Design, Graduate school of Brooklyn Col-lege of the City University of New York. 1985, MA in Scene Design , Ga-duate School of Hongik University , Seoul. BFA in Painting, Chungang University, seoul Carreer: Associate Professor, Head of Production and Design, Dept. ofTheatre and Musical, Present-1995, Dean of College of art and Culture, 2007–2010, Chairman of Education affair of Yongin University, 2011, south Korea.Projects: Theatre Consultant; 2006–2010, Gangdong arts Center, 2009–2010, Arts Hall of Anyang Arts High School, 2005, Sadari Arts Cen-ter. 2004, Renovation of Mary Hall at seogang University.2004, Sangmyong Art Hall. 2004, Chunggang small theatre in Chung-gang College. 2002, Latt Children’s theatre.Scenographer: Over 200 Productions with Oedipus Rex of National Thea-tre, 2011, Syrano de Bergerac of My-ongdong art theatre, 2010. Giselle of seoul Ballet theatre, 2009.

Virginia J W Ross1991 Registered architect, ar-chitects Education & Registration Board, Victoria1986 B. architecture, University of Auckland, NZassociate, australian institute of architects (previously Raia) Associate, New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA)Victorian Buildings appeal Board Member, 1994–2000Raia Victorian Chapter Councillor, 1992–1994 RMIT Architectural Design Lectu-rer, 1988–89, 2004Williams Ross Architects: Mana-ging Director and Design Manager 2007, Director 1992Virginia specialises in cultural/per-forming arts design, working pri-marily in the pre-design and early design phases. Williams Ross ar-chitects has designed and built over twenty theatres and undertaken studies on more than 60 theatres, most of which were led by Virginia.Awards: 2011 Oamaru Opera House, NZ: NZIA Public Architecture Award 2010 Whitehorse sportslink: aia Victorian Chapter Award – Public architecture2007 the Drum theatre, Dande-nong: aia Victorian Chapter award – Public Architecture, 2007

Iain Mackintosh Mónica Raya Martien van Goor Taesup Lee Virginia J W Ross

14 15

17

A preliminary discussion examined the design competition Brief and its requirements. these included the Provocation by Architecture Com-missioner Professor Dorita Hannah with its suggestions of dynamic, spatial performance. a key consi-deration was that competitors were asked to ‘design a theatre space for

a particular type of performance’, whether temporary or permanent. submissions therefore had to defi-ne their chosen performance type and demonstrate their response to it, the audience experience and functional requirements specific to that performance event. Discussion explored recent performance expe-

TheOISTAT Jury Report2011

riences of the jury which contrasted considerably with ‘traditional’ per-formance and media.

The proposed jury agenda was discussed and the assessment pro-cess for the first round was agreed.The jury then visited St Anna’s Church and tried to deduce the history of the building and its fea-tures. an historical summary listed key events in the former Church’s life while a display of renovation photos helped discern original fab-ric and recent additions.

In the first day the jury viewed all submissions via a set of Dina3 colour prints identified only by number. Digital projection with a higher resolution was available on request. in later rounds shortlis-ted schemes were viewed and dis-cussed by the whole jury together with digital projection of the sub-missions and their texts.

On the first round jurors viewed all submissions individually and selected them on a Yes/No basis. At this stage only, the jury invited the two administrators to participate. a long-list of 59 entries was arrived at, based on all schemes with 3 or more votes by the 5 member jury and two administrators.

16

argentina 3australia 7austria 1Belgium 3Bosnia Herzegowina 5Brazil 1Canada 26China 5Columbia 1Croatia 1Czech Republic 3Egypt 1Finland 1France 8France/italy 1Macedonia 1Georgia 1Germany 15Germany/oman 1Greece 2Hungary 1israel 10

Jury Process On Monday 4th April the five jury members and two administrators met for the first time, in Prague.185 entries were received from 44 different countries.

italy 2Japan 2Latvia 2Mexico 1New Zealand 4Poland 4Portugal 1Portugal/Italy 1Portugal/UK/Czech Rep 1Russia 8serbia 2slovenia 1south Korea 10spain 3sweden 5switzerland 1taiwan 15The Netherlands 6UK/Canada 1UK 5Uruguay 1Usa 11

18 19

Refer to the full list of Entrants at the rear of the Catalogue.

in the second stage on 5 april all 59 entries were projected and discussed. The five jurors then se-lected submissions individually on a Yes / No basis, resulting in 26 schemes with one or more votes. all schemes with only one vote were presented by their supporter to the jury. If the sole supporter chose to do so, that submission was inclu-ded in the reduced field. this resul-ted in 20 remaining schemes.

it was then agreed that the pri-ze winners and honorary mentions merit awards would be chosen from these 20 submissions and that all 20 finalists would be included in the Exhibition and Catalogue. In the third stage, on 6 April, the jury

reviewed and discussed the merits of all 20 schemes. at the conclusi-on of this each jury member chose their preferred 6 schemes. this re-sulted in a short-list of 11 submis-sions which had received one or more votes.

these votes were collated and re-sulted in six schemes with 3 or more votes, from which the prize winners would be chosen. these schemes were not ranked at this stage.

At the next stage, each of the five jurors presented, in order drawn by lot, their three preferred schemes, again not ranked. the merits and disadvantages of each proposal were debated.

From this process four submis-sions emerged with substantial support. A discussion of the six

schemes ensued in which the jury sought prize-winners representing a balance of the different design ap-proaches.

Considering the six finalists, unanimous agreement was reached for the first and second prize win-ners from the four most supported schemes. Given the degree of sup-port for the remaining four sche-mes, the jury agreed by consensus to have two equal third prizes and two equal fourth prizes. this repre-sented a reallocation of the six pri-zes stated within the competition rules.

Honorary Mentions were then identified from the 20 finalists for their unique qualities as proposed by jurors.

013338 022606 023925 030709 030786 031111 040611 061636 073459 091184

101543 111111 120210 123581 126141 126263 130581 143104 152805 160408

164032 170687 172027 188305 197359 199508 212324 224417 237124 241330

254703 269255 294759 312762 314159 315738 356768 385678 444444 493736

523623 552223 611522 617491 663399 698355 705323 735112 741962 827882

830924 905416 934627 939881 962586 978354 995111 HA46EX X3B7UL

OISTAT Jury Report 2011

59 works taken to second round

013338 040611 073459 091184 170687 188305 224417 237124 254703 315738

356768 523623 552223 617491 698355 705323 741962 905416 962586 995111

Jury Competition Overview

These 20 finalists …

the 8th oistat theatre architec-ture Competition was centred on a particular building. Previous briefs called for new buildings that ex-pressed a theme and that fulfilled specific criteria such as a seating capacity or a stage for a particular type of performance.

in contrast in 2011 almost the only limitations to this ideas com-petition were introduced by the chosen building, st anna’s, situa-ted in Stare Mesto, central Prague. this deconsecrated church is a protected historic monument and has a long history of alteration and intervention. Much of the more in-trusive interventions, such as the introductions of many floors for ni-neteenth century printing presses, have been stripped out leaving only a mezzanine on five baroque vaults within this otherwise empty Gothic space. the walls show traces of suc-cessive incarnations of this sacred building.

this volume measures 9.5 met-res wide, 43 metres long and 17 me-tres high to the underneath of the transverse beams of the timber pit-ched roof.

While some competitors were able to visit st. anna’s, this was of only limited advantage; the jury found on their visit that the experi-ence of this long, narrow and high volume confirmed what could be

learnt from the survey drawings and from the many photographs supplied to entrants.

Competitors were invited to let their imaginations loose, limited only by the practicalities of their chosen performances.

the approach of the 185 entrants could be categorised as follows:• Introduction of one or more self-

contained structures to create per-formance spaces more manageab-le than the whole volume of over 6,500 cubic metres.

• Expansion of the building out-wards, so as to provide more con-ventional performance spaces, or upwards to further emphasise the height of st anna’s, presently 29 metres from the floor to the ridge of the roof.

• Insertion of horizontal galleries to create large performance spaces which celebrate all or most of the volume and which offer large the-atrical opportunities.

• Introduction of labyrinths within the volume that take the visitor on a journey.

• Or, a combination of the above.

st anna’s, not surprising for the character of a building that has seen centuries of religious celebra-tions which are no more, is myste-rious. The jury was delighted by the

many imaginative responses to this enigmatic quality. they also noted that the most successful reconcili-ations of the fabric of the past with the purpose of their individual pro-posals depended on keeping struc-tural intervention to a minimum.

20 21

OISTAT Jury Report 2011

Jury Citations

First PrizeEntry 741962 – A State of Decay

The proposal creates a flexible per-formance space, inspired by a con-temporary performance company. a three storey scaffolding is erec-ted within and parallel to st anna’s walls. the audience become par-ticipants in the spectacle, moving within the temporary, changeable and tenuous galleries.

st anna’s is left essentially un-changed, although experienced in an entirely new way.

The extraordinarily evocative drawings portray a space full of the mystery and decay of an old buil-ding in which one can imagine an inspiring encounter, perhaps of a very unconventional kind.

it creates possibilities of future genres unknown to us. Creating such an ephemeral structure is a delicate and sensitive intervention. Artists would enjoy the invitation to work with the idea of decay and renewal – such a powerful provoca-tion.

Second PrizeEntry 741962 – Cocoon

the proposal embeds an organic timber cocoon within the church providing a performance space in a short traverse form. this is accessed by a ramp that winds up through the church and on within and bey-ond the auditorium. around and below the sculptural cocoon, the church remains largely unchanged for use as an exhibition, foyer and so on. Glazing of the roof is inten-ded to make the cocoon visible. a glass stair tower in the courtyard provides access and signals the per-formance as a light tower.

the proposal contrasts two striking sculptural interventions – the organic cocoon and linear tower. the cocoon is a dramatic, inviting, womb-like form, in which life can be created. Placing an enclosed form within the church provides an acou-stically contained volume and crea-tes a dramatic tension between the old church and the new insertion.

the sculptural forms and sen-suous winding journey animates St anna’s even when performance is not occurring.

Third Prize EqualEntry 237124 – CrossingRoads

Theatrethe proposal divides st anna’s un-equally between four spaces. the first is created by enclosing the vault with a deepened floor to make a small auditorium. the second is a full height galleried auditorium in the choir. the third is an informal café bar on the upper floor, and the fourth is an intimate room in the roof structure. in the large space four tiers either side embrace the performers.

this considered proposal crea-tes different performance spaces which would allow a wide range of activities. the main galleried cour-tyard successfully uses both the linearity and verticality of the chur-ch. the drawings evoke a powerful sense of audience engagement.

Third Prize EqualEntry 962586 – Theatre for

Acrobaticsa sinuous ramp writhes up and through st anna’s over three levels and a variety of potential zones for performance, with the audience ar-ranging themselves on the ramps according to the location. after an introduction by a narrator in the vaults, the audience progress up the ramps and acrobats descend from above.

The proposal explores theatre as a mystical journey. The standing audience follows the path around

the room, experiencing both the space and performance. the series of scenes portrayed by the drawings show a strong understanding of the expressive possibilities of light, sound and space. this scheme evo-kes great atmosphere with minimal intervention.

Fourth Prize EqualEntry 188305 – Do More With Less

the proposal divides st anna into three spaces while providing for ancillary facilities in adjacent buil-dings. The vault is excavated a full storey creating a well-proportioned end stage theatre with retractable seating enabling variable format. a generous double helical stair pro-vides vertical access. a wall divides st anna’s to create a second variab-le format dance space on the upper floor, with a further balcony of au-dience seating. the full height choir is used as foyer and bar. the vaults are opened out into the courtyard and a new entry proposed from Li-liova street.

this proposal creates a perfor-mance centre with clarity and simp-licity within the wider setting of the st anna’s monastery. it demonst-rates an excellent understanding of conventional performances and creates three quite different and successful spaces. the double heli-cal stair celebrates the verticality of st anna’s.

Fourth Prize EqualEntry 995111 – The Building Sound300 pipes of varying sizes are inserted into the church; artists and audien-ces are invited to interact with this new musical instrument. Random LED lights are activated by audiences or artists. the roof is glazed, making the church a lighthouse at night. a

foyer and bar are located in the vaults and a flexible, mounded carpet on the upper floor invites occupants to lounge during performances and vi-sits. a small four sided performance pit is recessed into the choir floor. Viewing platform balconies are inser-ted into the existing windows of the church at various levels and provide views of the surrounds.

this is an original proposal to make the building a musical instru-ment by means of a sensual, mini-mal intervention.

Honorary MentionEntry 705323 – Sight of Sound

this scheme envisions spaces for very particular audio-visual perfor-mances. the volume of the church is clearly divided into 3 main spaces: a foyer gallery opening to the out-doors; a steeply raked auditorium with sloping walls and a full height ambient sound space in the choir.

the simplicity of the proposal is admirable, but unfortunately the architecture is poorly resolved.

Honorary MentionEntry 013338 – Spiderman

is comingThe proposal portrays an experience of the space rather than an architec-tural intervention. the humorous graphics suggest the audience can move in three dimensions in han-ging seats within a blackened space. the proposal could attract new au-diences to innovative live perfor-mance.

Honorary MentionEntry 905416 – The Crossroads

Brewerythe proposal conceives st. anna as a brewery and drinking place, where the performance is provided

by both machinery and clientele. the space is articulated with stairs, platforms and the sounds of beer making.

the witty idea of a giant bar in which the entertainment and the architecture provide a theatrical ex-perience is convincingly conveyed.

Honorary MentionEntry 040611 – Indoor Storm

Circusan audience lies on bean bags on the dished ground floor, while abo-ve an aerial audience is suspended in a variety of configurations.

this unusual scheme allows the audience to inhabit a similar space to the performers and to explore the full verticality of the room.

The major intervention is the technical grid from which the seating and performers are suspen-ded.

Honorary MentionEntry 073459 – Touching

the Sound this proposal is uniquely directed at people with differing hearing abilities. the audience sits on a membrane which transmits the sounds of performers or the sound-track through vibrations.

this is an imaginative scheme which uses the entire space and has the potential to develop new possi-bilities of sound design.

22 23

“…to make space speak, to feed and furnish it, like mines laid in a wall of rock which all of a sudden turns into geysers and bouquets of stone.” Antonin Artaud

In examining the role that architecture plays in performing as the theatrical live setting, this design presents an alternative to the confines of the traditio-nal stage in the hope to offer a more dynamic environ-ment for the performer and spectator to engage.

This design offers a flexible performance space for the contemporary Italian performance company So-cietas Raffaello Sanzio. Considering the essential re-lationship between performance and site this design is concerned with the restoration and conservation of Saint Anna’s and conditions of deterioration and phy-sical decay.

As the architecture we encounter continues to de-cay we erect scaffold towers to hold the walls in place. A city’s story magnifies the walls, revealing frescos in the cracks where the paint and plaster begin to peel.

look closer. A hammer rings out and echoes in the gloom. What are they building over there? Some sort of bridge, or some sort of stage, its hard to tell.

A state of constant flux is reflected in the perfor-mative essence of Saint Annas where time does not still and nothing is static. No ideal state exists, there is only constant shift and motion. The physical con-dition of a building in slow decay is a transformation through a series of physical states.

Our recognition of an ‘ideal state’ is demonstra-ted by our practice of conservation and restoration, which are dedicated maintaining a building’s origi-nal privileged state.

This design attempts to encourage the audience themselves to be spectacle, it considers the relation-ship between the architecture and its audience, both as an active presence that contributes the atmosphe-re and spatial dynamic.

741962 / Ana Mc Gowan / New Zealand

A State of Decay

1. Prize / 741962 / Ana Mc Gowan / New Zealand

1. Prize

24 251. Prize / 741962 / Ana Mc Gowan / New Zealand

26 27

The lot is located virtually in downtown Prague, in the ancient St Anne’s church. The church has long been Prague’s cultural centre, and the contest’s task inclu-des modernization, renovation and an effort to find a new way to use the church’s internal volume to make it an entertainment venue.

We suggest to embed new volume into the church in which theatrical performances, concerts and festive events will be held. We carefully embed an original co-coon that does not touch the walls and hangs in the upper part of the building into the body of the church. The reason for our decision is that, first of all, this is quite an old church where the original frescos have re-mained intact; second of all, from the functional point of view, a church and an entertainment venue are not the same thing. What we want to do is to conserve the whole volume of the church. The only part that we plan to change is the roof – we suggest glazing in order to make the cocoon visible from the street. By embedding the modern volume we implant into the

church we communicate the spirit of modernity to the church, give it a new perception and new func-tional sense.

By embedding the new volume we make it pos-sible to held several events simultaneously in the body of the church: it is possible to hold a concert in the cocoon while in the lower part under the cocoon people can come to a temporary exhibit. We plan to save the historical main entrance. When you enter it, first through the arch you see the apse of the ca-thedral and only after you go further you can see the new volume. We add a tower from the side of the courtyard; this tower will be used for the subsidia-ry premises needed for the theatre. The tower serves also as an additional escape route from the cocoon and as a distinctive light indicator in the city’s sky-line. The illuminated tower attracts people signalizi-ng that “The show is about to start!”. The performan-ces can be held at the square in front of the tower.

552223 / Andrey Nekrasov / Aleksandr TsibaikinDaria Lyalyaeva / Andrey Yanshin / Russia

Cocoon

2. Prize / 552223 / Andrey Nekrasov / Aleksandr TsibaikinDaria Lyalyaeva / Andrey Yanshin / Russia

2. Prize

28 292. Prize / 552223 / Andrey Nekrasov / Aleksandr Tsibaikin

Daria Lyalyaeva / Andrey Yanshin / Russia

3130

3. Prize / 237124 / Laurent Blondeau / Maria Anastasia KefalakiJulia Henning da Silva / France

Under the vaulting of an ancient church, one can feel even smaller.

What are we? What should we believe in?

Pure and impure, fair and unfair, heaven and hell are no longer separated. At the “Crossing Roads Theatre” the borders between Good and Evil are blurred. Reality is complex and truth is only relative.

Four paths lead the viewer to the play, through four settings, four stories, four different points of view influencing him.

The rooms, with their architectural characteristics reinforced, are organized for each and every different encounter between the audience and the comedians.

Under the vaulting, the characters share a me-mory; in the backstage, a moment of intimacy; in the roof space, a secret, and faced with the screens, they denounce the present time.

Once all the viewers have gathered on the main stage, each one has to discover his own point of view among these narratives. We find ourselves involved in a vertically developing scene. The audience and the comedians are a living scenography among with the stone walls and the steel structures.

237124 / Laurent Blondeau / Maria Anastasia KefalakiJulia Henning da Silva / France

CrossingRoads Theatre

3. Prize

32 33

3. Prize / 237124 / Laurent Blondeau / Maria Anastasia KefalakiJulia Henning da Silva / France

3534

The distinction between audience and performance is entirely constructed, and as such is reconfigurable. This scheme proposes an intervention that exploits the verticality and richness of the interior of St. Anna, to provide a ramped transitional space for audiences viewing aerial acrobatics.

The scheme aims to deliver the following:• Enhancement of the audience experience and greater

interaction with the performance.• Greater audience feedback for the performers.• Greater understanding of the building through the

performance.

Aerial acrobatics are an ancient and continually com-pelling form of performance. The narrative format al-lows the performers to step away from singular tricks and into a story telling roles through dance, gymnas-tics and dialogue.

The ramp structure is conceived as performers formed from a nomex fibre honeycomb, suspended using steel saddles.

The divide between the audience and the per-former that exists in many conventional theatres denies the opportunity for the audience to become performers in their own right. That is to be active participants in the narrative.

The audience is drawn into the proposed choreo-graphed performance through discussions with ac-robatic characters and actors embedded within the audience. The performers are given live feedback, driving specific audience relationships that provide the opportunity for intimate communication of the-mes.

This project does not address all issues of theatre design but instead proposes an reconfiguring of the audience’s role within acrobatic theatre.

962586 / Sarosh Mulla / Patrick Loo / New Zealand

Theatre for Acrobatics

3. Prize / 962586 / Sarosh Mulla / Patrick Loo / New Zealand

3. Prize

36 37

3. Prize / 962586 / Sarosh Mulla / Patrick Loo / New Zealand

38

“Do more with less” is the starting point of this architectural path of discovery that meanders around the existing structure, slowly revealing the Gothic church. Buildings adjacent to the church have been incorporated into the project to meet the additional needs of the theatre.

Separating the church in two parts delimiting au-dience and performance spaces is reminiscent of the initial two-stage construction of the church. Three areas were built in different spaces: a multi-functional hall under the vaults, a reconfigurable space currently dedicated to the dance show “Spillout” (where dan-cers’ shadows are projected onto existing walls) on the mezzanine, and the foyer in the choir. The bar is

also located in the choir, where two helicoidal glass stairways (inspired by those designed by architect Eva Jiricna) intertwine, revealing the frescoes.

The adjacent cloister becomes an extension with glazed accordion doors allowing for an opening out to the courtyard. This area is connected to the church through the opening of the vaults, and its transpa-rency allows the rediscovery of the church’s facade. All new interventions were guided by a module, in-spired by the dimensions of the courtyard‘s rectan-gular windows, and those interventions are diffe-rentiated from the existing ones through the use of contemporary materials.

188305 / Joannie Brouillard / Marie-Pier Dubreuil / Canada

Do more with less

4. Prize / 188305 / Joannie Brouillard / Marie-Pier Dubreuil / Canada

39

4. Prize

4. Prize / 188305 / Joannie Marie-Pier / Brouillard Dubreuil / Canada

40 41

42

Our project turns St. Anne’s Church space into a City Contemporary Musical Instrument. 300 pipes will sound in resonance, activated by artists, visitors or via Internet.

A new space for Contemporary Performances, sup-ported by a random LED lighting system attached to the metal pipes.

A Glass Roof allows us to admire the original woo-den construction, and illuminates the city, creating a new urban icon for Prague.

Short description:a. The Building Sound. Inside the building, 300 pipes,

all in different diameters and lengths, allow several performances. Artists, schools, people, will interact with this huge new musical instrument.

b. The Lighthouse. We replace the opaque roof with a new transparent lass surface. To do so, daylight en-ters the space gently. At night, the Old Church beco-mes a lighthouse.

c. LED and Randomness. Attached to the pipes, a random system of Led lighting illuminates the Church Space. Lighting patterns are activated by people using cell phones, or become an artist’s performance as well.

d. Multi propose hall. As the scale of the Sound Inter-vention (the pipes) involves the whole building, and in a sense the town itself, we propose not to separate functions of bar – exhibition – lobby – theatre, but to integrate these functions, adding other new interpretations, into a flexible new to-tal space.

e. Occupation. On the first floor, a flexible resilient carpet (with no individual seats), allows a relaxed occupation during performances and visits.

995111 / Carlos Campos / Yamila Zynda Aiub / Argentina

The Building SoundRandom Lighting and Resonance

4. Prize / 995111 / Carlos Campos / Yamila Zynda Aiub / Argentina

43

4. Prize

4. Prize / 995111 / Carlos Campos / Yamila Zynda Aiub / Argentina

44 45

46 47Honorary Mentions / 705323 / Jason Lim / Asami Takahashi / USA

The SighT of Sound re-imagines St.Anna’s as a house for contemporary audiovisual performances. it is re-designed to enable artists/musicians to explore the integration of sound and vision in the creation of novel experiences.

Two shell structures are introduced into the exis-ting space that divide the space programmatically, and celebrate the spatial drama and verticality of the gothic structure. The two main spaces in the volume are: i) a ground level that is an exhibition space for am-bient sound and art installations and ii) an upper level that is a theater for immersive audiovisual performan-ces. These vaults are free-standing structures that lea-ve the existing walls, vaults and roof-trusses intact.

Acoustically, the immersive theater’s volume has been decreased to reduce reverberation time, so as to cater for performances based on speech. it is shaped to increase early reflections to the seats, creating better acoustic performance. At the lower level, the kaleidoscopic wall helps create a more diffuse sound field for ambient sound works.

Visually, we propose the extensive use of curved Led screens and Led nets for the upper immersive theater and the use of projections for the lower am-bient space. These are controlled digitally to coordi-nate visual spectacles with sound performances.

705323 / Jason Lim / Asami Takahashi / USA

The Sight of SoundWhere Sound and Vision come together

HonoraryMentions

Honorary Mentions / 013338 Maria Alejandre / David EsteegmanAna Leon / Adriá Escolano / Luis Montoya / Spain / Germany 4948

our initial concept was a variation or inversion of the maritime theatre in hadrian‘s Villa (Lazio), where the audience moves around a series of central stages. This configuration enabled productions of great complexi-ty. We found this inversion of topics fascinating, and decided to investigate a similar concept for St Anne’s church. in our proposal, the centre-periphery duali-ty takes on a slightly different form: we consider the whole floor and the walls of the church as the stage, and the void they define, the seating area. We would propose applying a tinted (black) varnish on the walls, as a reference to Prague’s well known “black theatre”. Seats for the audience would actually be harnesses hanging from cables, motorised so as to have three

degrees of movement in space, as well as the pos-sibility of 360 degree rotation. The result would be an extremely flexible performing arts venue, where the audience could be situated at any height, positi-on and orientation. This would enable productions where the seats are concentrated around a particular area, or dispersed throughout the church, taking ma-ximum advantage of a difficult (annoyingly linear) space. As for the fact of presenting a comic book pre-sentation instead of a classical architectural one, we just thought that the best way to investigate a space designed to contain narratives would be to construct one of our own.

013338 Maria Alejandre / David EsteegmanAna Leon / Adriá Escolano / Luis Montoya / Spain / Germany

Spiderman is comingProject, performance and design concept

HonoraryMentions

50 51Honorary Mentions / 905416 / Hailey Boadway / Canada

Catching the light, the clear golden amber colour and creamy head beckons…

Inhale…Whirl gently to release the floral aroma, raise the glass to your mouth and inhale deeply. Relish for a moment the aromas of fresh baguette, earthy hops and honey-suckle.

Savour…

And now it is time…

don’t hurry. drink deeply.

Slightly sweet, somewhat malty, the honey nut fla-vour sparkles on the tip of your tongue, and slides into your mouth where tart citrus flavours and warm caramel bitterness builds quickly before slipping down your throat full of rich body, thoroughly re-freshing...

And… the aftertaste… the sharp, distinct bitter-ness overlapping with caramelised sweetness lin-gers and develops on your palate.

Who could resist another tingle tongued deeply gratifying swirl, savour and swallow when the first was so superb?

Pilsner urquell – the pure pilsner from Pilsen.

905416 / Hailey Boadway / Canada

The Crossroads Brewery

HonoraryMentions

Honorary Mentions / 040611 / Billy Guidoni / Delphine Borg / France52 53

St Anna’s church is part of the urban heritage of Prague. it needs to continue to represent its history, while serving a positive, modern function in today’s context of urban sprawling.

As spectators have many entertainment options to choose from, real-life shows of the new generati-on have to stimulate all senses to be attractive – with sound, light, touch and space ; and the whole audience has to become actor of the experience.

indoor Storm Circus uses St Anna’s generous space to allow for aerial spectacles, such as variations of tra-peze, rope, equilibrists, or tightrope walkers : constant motion and random animation are happening simul-taneously, generated by the performance as well as the audience moving three-dimensionally around it.

indoor Storm Circus lets the audience interact with the show, as its members become actors of the performance and get to chose their own optimal position individually, from lying on pillows on the slopping ground below the performers, to flying and feeling the dizziness above the show, comfortable in the suspended pillows – and anything in between! The pillows also serve as baffles to balance the very high reflection of sound in St Anna.

The whole performance appears like snowflakes moved by the wind - like an indoor storm.

040611 / Billy Guidoni / Delphine Borg / France

Indoor Storm Circus

HonoraryMentions

Honorary Mentions / 073459 / Natasha Desic / Sonja Egic / Nikolina GrbicIvana Đuric / Zvjezdana Amidžic / Bosnia Herzegovina54 55

The aim of the idea for developing scenic design for deaf people was to make the same space feel more humanly, flexible in terms of design and use and to neutralise the difference within people, especially for those with special needs. This particularly takes into account the interaction between the public and space, enabling those that have difficulties with hearing to experience the sound. in order to do this, a special type of acoustic membrane was placed between the general public and the source of the sound, where the sound vibrations enable moving of that membrane. This membrane is actually wrapped around the inside walls of the church structure. Within existing loft, a sub construction would be placed in terms of modular fields within which sound system can be placed. The elastic membranes would cover the sound system in order for them to work.

The membrane covers the entire floor area and is also tightened against the side walls of the structure, and within some areas it starts becoming part of seating or an actual stage, and is regulated by vertical mo-vement of a sub construction and emphasised by lighting. The mechanism that produces vibrations is placed within corners of module sub construction and is formed of magnets, electric wires providing power, where changeable magnetic field forms mo-ving the solenoid onto which the panel that vibrates is fixed. This system is fixed onto the sound system. in this way the music provides movement that au-dience not only can hear but can actually get a sen-se and feel of touching it. The modular fields of sub construction map onto the ceiling also where they are used for storing the reflectors as well as acoustic speakers.

073459 / Natasha Desic / Sonja Egic / Nikolina GrbicIvana Đuric / Zvjezdana Amidžic / Bosnia Herzegovina

Touching the Sound

HonoraryMentions

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 254703 / Wladimir Mensing / Germany

56 57

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition

58 59

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 315738 / Tim De Pessemier / Karel Bruyland / BelgiumSelected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 617491 / Doris Cole / Hal Goyette / USA

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 224417 / Daria Rashevskaya / Varvara Mikhelson / Russia

60 61

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 091184 / Beatrice Bonzanigo / Italy

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 698355 / Andrey NekrasovAleksandr Tsibaikin / Oxana Klimacheva / Russia

62 63

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 356768 / Jana Petkovic / Žiga MisjakVesna Lenart / Aleksandra Rakinic / Slovenia

6564

Selected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 170687 / Maria Alves / PortugalSelected for Catalogue and Exhibition / 523623 / German Tortora / Felipe Reyno / Uruguay

001337Hannes KarlssonSweden

001984 Rodrigo PhenixBelgium

010387 Anna KolmakovaRussia

012558 Obi OkoyeUnited Kingdom

013338 Maria AlejandreDavid EsteegmanAna LeonAdria EscolanoLuis MontoyaSpain

020183 Kelly Russo USA

021270 Adriana Vazquez Argentina

022606 Ninoslav IlicSlobodan GelicDejan StanisljevicBosnia Hercegovina

023925 Miguel Blasco Martin Ben Elliott United Kingdom

030583 Ionathan Lazovski Israel

030709 Marion LacroixStefano Cerolini France/Italy

030786 Katarzyna MillerTomasz JasiakPiotr DobrowolskiPoland

031111 Maclain SchrammRichard DeRicco USA

036772 Merav AlbocherIsrael

040611 Billy GuidoniDelphine Borg France

66 67

All 185 entries of the 8th OISTAT Architecture Competition 185 individuals, teams of stu-dents and young professionals took on the challenge of making a proposal for St. Anna.

185 concepts arrived before the deadline.

Of these 185 concepts, only 20 were selected, which means that 164 concepts were not in the run-ning for the prize.

However, TAC 2011 would not have been complete without the-se entries. Many thanks to all of their creators with deep respect for the work they put in.

042327 Chung-Wei LeeKuo-lun WeiYu-hsiang Lin Taiwan

050612 Hye Won DoHey Jund MoonHye Mi Lee South Korea

050687Julia SchluneGermany

052580 Jessica Coburn Canada

060711 Angel MartinezAugustin PrebischUSA

68

061636 Vincent BeaudoinMicheline Dufour Canada

061827 Aneta Kramer Germany

071278 Hina Sajjad United Kingdom

071421 Tilmann Winter Germany

073459 Natasa DesicSonja EgicNikolina GrbicIvana DuricZvjezdana Amidzic Bosnia Hercegovina

081182 Rotem TauberIsrael

091184 Beatrice Bonzanigo Italy

100219 Kyung Jae KimHoang NguyenHyoju LimKyunghwan JinChiehwan SungUSA

101543 Olga ShamaevaAlexey Shamaev Russia

102227Jelena Smiljanic Dragana SavicSanja GlamocakMaja Gavric Bosnia Hercegovina

102938 Carolina Mellado Canada

105189 Kareem NemsMohammed SragMohammed Hassan Egypt

110310 Tadashi SaitoHidenori IzumiMasataka Hashimoto Japan

110390 Yury TsintsevichPolina SemernikovaIvan SosninEleja ZubaydullinaNatasha KosenkoRussia

111111 Michael FungPepe Niemeijer Sweden

111222 Jullie DayshKelly Silver New Zealand

111521 Bekim AlijiKarl Oscarsson Sweden

112233 Kuan-Ting LinCiao-Rong LiZih-Syuan YeYu-Ming JhangZih Ling Wei Taiwan

120210 Sarah Krahe Germany

121872 Oldrich NavratilRadovan Zelik Czech republic

123321 John LillieWu ZhaoBrett van EmdenYan Luo Australia

123581 Amok ArchitekturesWiliam HayetLinda CoretThierry VerdierHugo TessonnieresFrance

126141 Fajer Wennerberg Sweden

126263 Joyce Chan Canada

69

130508 Mario van MegenJaron Agelink The Netherlands

130581 Thomas WegenerJeanne Wellinger Switzerland

135779 Gautier Baur France

140324 Zuzanna ErnstAnna KokowaskaAnais Meon Austria

143104 Nuria MantblanchRose Plotek UK/Canada

152805 Alexey Vorobyev Russia

156029 Laurene BachandMaxime Riopel Canada

160408 Lia SilvaDavide Roth Portugal/Italy

161756 Jowita Adamczyk Poland

164032 Jean-Francois BolducFrederick St-Germain Canada

168168 Jyun-Chen HuangYu-Hsuan LinFen-Yuam DuhChun-Tin SingChia-Sheng Hong Taiwan

170687 Maria Alves Portugal

172027 Ariane Lourie HarrisonSeth HarrisonMatt PersingerSerra KiziltanCory Collmann USA

178602 Evija Libaze Latvia

180587 Marta Alonso Villanúa Sweden

188305 Joannie Brouillard Marie-Pier Dubreuil Canada

191280 Emmy van Eijk The Netherlands

191709 Uros MicicNenad StankovicIgor Stegic Serbia

197276 Bahar Seirafi United Kingdom

197359 Tang DoudouZhang YingShi QianlanSun Dongping China

198219 Wang yi-HuaLee Wei-Kang Taiwan

198612 Juan Pablo Gaitan Carlos UrregoFelipe RodríguezSantiago Buendía Andrea Salas Colombia

199508 Etienne DionMathieu St-AmantCanada

200281 David Aloni Israel

201102 Roland PouwAlain-Celest de BuckTimo Van de Ven The Netherlands

203106 Caroline GeffriaudJean-Sébastien LebretonCharles Mariambourg France

203205 Son InsungDeok-Ju ChoiYoun-Soek HwangSo-Yeon KimMan-Yeon Han South Korea

212311 Cyrille RochambeauNadia BenzeraraHerizo Randrianarison France

212324 Lars Sterzel Germany

70 71

215933 Maude PichetteJanie Lacoursiere Canada

186367 Michal Macuda Czech republic

224417 Daria RashevskayaVarvara Mikhelson Russia

230281 Shoval Omer Israel

230585 Friedrich Fischer Germany

232798 Tilmann Graupner Germany

233582 Martina PokornaMilan PokornyIvan ProchazkaKlara Volakova Czech republic

234619 Olivier De WispelaereGregoire FettweisAnne MagerNemo Welter Belgium

237124 Laurent BlondeauMaria Anastasia KefalakiJulia Henning da Silva France

239879 Yalin Hu China

240827 Tim CalderaAshini de AlwisDave Gonzales Australia

241330 Kanchan Quinlan Canada

244069 Simon Tsing Swan Mok Canada

250625 Jana CulekMarija HorvatDora Jerbic Croatia

250690 Lauren BroerenTom JonesKarolina BartkowiczDean Lau Tim Ling Australia

251525 Noa Maitityahou Israel

254703 Wladimir Mensing Germany

260288 Ana Altberg, Beni Goltsman Barzellai,Guilherme Barcellos Lozinsky, Mariana Magalhães Costa Brazil

260884 Nina Potapova Georgia

261495 Sabine PriglingerBoris Murnig Germany

264514 Alejandro GutiérrezValeria Matayoshi Argentina

269255 Bárbara PalaciosMarta Niño Saco Spain

280981 Ana Luisa Moura The Netherlands

281156 Eleftherios Eleftheriadis Greece

281206 Weronika Kierszstejn Poland

294759 Anis Paeglitis Latvia

300201 Lo Chun Yip Yufa China

302703 Martyna Zdrojewska Poland

303751 Liberty Cherney Israel

308125 Don Hee Kim Australia

72 73

312762 Ilana Prac Israel

314159 James GoldbergMaz StaruchGeorg Price United Kingdom

314159 Kai-Luen ShiauChen Hsiu Hao Taiwan

315738 Tim De PessemierKarel Bruyland Belgium

356768 Jana PetkovicZiga MisjakVesna LenartAleksandra Rakinic Slovenia

366278 Avital Marmelstien Israel

377952 Welland SinAndrew ChauYoung Alana Canada

382563 Scott TurnerAndy Yoonyoung Oh Canada

385678 Aleksandr KarpovRoman Kuzmich USA

387618 Sam ConckieLejla KebicEmma Parkinson Australia

394141 Pedro AibeoRolf Kruse Germany/Oman

400004 Sophie Norris New Zealand

402190 Min-jung KimChang-yeon PyoEui-man Hong South Korea

423212 Elisavet AntapassiEftihis EfthimiouThodoris Kittas Greece

433327 Enca ChanKristi WilliamsCharlie DuTony Tian Australia

443749 Jeongheok SeoChangdae Choi South Korea

444444 Caspar Maria van der Zanden The Netherlands

480141 Christoff Oltmann Germany

493736 Alexis DornierElisabeth KrasnerIlija Bentschneff Germany

497048 Yi-Ching KuoYa-Wan SongYi-Ting KuoYi Jyun DaiYao-Song TsaiTaiwan

520829 Wie-Yang Hsu Taiwan

523623 Labo BGerman TortoraFelipe Reyno Uruguay

526551 May Makia Canada

545418 Daniela DimitrovskaSofija Ristevska FYR Macedonia

552223 Andrey NekrasovAleksandr TsibaikinDaria LyalyaevaAndrey Yanshin Russia

611522 Elena Lioubachevski Canada

612094 Tane Um Canada

617491 Doris ColeHal Goyette USA

620910 Szu-Chun LinChao-Jung Chen Taiwan

653871 Nikola MilanovicNastasja MitrovicJelena Stambolic Serbia

7574

654321 Marc RocaEnric DulsatPol JordaMar Roca Spain

646464 Jussi Ukkonen Finland

663399 Aleksandr Karpov USA

666666 Hui Wen LinYu-Chia LuiShang-Jie GaoSyuan-Ci KuoYong-Han Chou Taiwan

698355 Andrey NekrasovAleksandr TsibaikinOxana Klimacheva Russia

705323 Jason LimAsami Takahashi USA

718170 Golnaz Karimi Canada

725831 Antoine AllorentLaurence LeroyJulie De LeggeJuliana Gancalves France

732146 Hanson Mak Canada

735112 Chelsea Chan Canada

827882 Joao CortesaoCarolina FillippiniInes Jorge Portugal/United Kingdom/Czech

830924 Marco Ceballos Mexico

847729 Yi-Ling WuYu-Shian LinHung-Lin PengYing-Chen LinHung-Chi HuangPei Jyun LiouWei-Jheng Li South Korea

848484 Vance Fok Canada

850830 Natalie Bondar Israel

76 77

741962 Ana MC Gowan New Zealand

756134 Claudio EspositoDavide LucaAgostino MaiuranoLuca BellentaniGuiseppe Di Fazio Italy

763463 Jin-Kam Park South Korea

780917 Hui-Wen LinPei-Yin LinSin Yi SuNa-Yi ChuHsin-Chiang Chou Taiwan

781220 Hui-Wen LinJui-Lin TsengJia-Hong JhuYi-CianYu-Fan Niu Taiwan

790509 Hui-Wen LinBo-Yi LouJian-Nan CaiPei-Shan YuWen-Ling Xie Taiwan

808873 Tom Wauben The Netherlands

820505 Adrienn RokosniAtilla Kiss-Gazda Hungary

821821 Valeriy MoorAlexey GavrilovEkaterina Demina Alena Komarova Russia

790202 Hui Wen LinStang-Lin JhaoSheng-Mao HuangChia-Chun SuJing-Yu Jhu Taiwan

861206 Wu Yi China

861629 Luisa TavaresSabina Moutinho Portugal

881221 JinYong ChunJiHee ChoiSeongWoo HanYeRim ChoiSangEun Jo South Korea

889225 Henning Hille Germany

890420 Ning Fei Goa Canada

890924 Krista Smith Canada

658032 Hanako Matsukawa Japan

905416 Hailey Boadway Canada

911305 Natalia Reisig Germany

925525 Katharina Thil Germany

934627 Yang Yuzheng China

939881 Dajana Rokvic Bosnia Hercegovina

941356 Lewis MooreJasmine PlacentinoAlix Griffeth Australia

962586 Sarosh MullaPatrick Loo New Zealand

978354 Richarda Helmes Germany

X3B7UL Melanie BareyMaxime PerrinMagali GueraudGermain MorisseauGregoire Ferrand Jean-Jacques BareyRomain Barreau France

Fc707200 Pei-Shan HsiehYi-Wen ChenWei Tse ShihMu-Huan HsiehChin Wen Chin Taiwan

HA46EX Tim Rowson Canada

OX1827 Young Min KooDeok Ki HongIk Soo JangJung Suk KimHyung Suk SeoYuna SoKi Seok ChoiCho rok KimEun Gyung ShinSouth Korea

SUKOR6 Chihchena SuYungchung KangYulun ChienChingcheng Lai Taiwan

B77M22 Bassam Daoud Canada

7978

995111 Carlos CamposYamila Zynda Aiub Argentina

997997 Kyle Reich USA

0SGBIM Jung Dae ParkSeong Yun ChoiJin Kyu Lim Korea

33005U Maja DilasSrdan Susnica Bosnia Hercegovina

a2euse Ashley Eusebio Canada

902100 Stephen BaronSorayos ChuenchomphuDeane Madsen USA

Jury Meeting Impressions

80 81

82

Colophon Sponsors

OISTAT Architecure Commissionworking group competitionTim Foster, United KingdomReinhold Daberto, Germany

J U R yIain Mackintosh

Mónica RayaMartien van Goor

Taesup LeeVirginia J W Ross

This is a publication ofOISTAT Architecture Commisson

Graphic DesignJörg Wilhelm, Germany

Printed byMayer & Söhne, Germany

price of catalogue 15 EUR

Organisation Internationale des Scénografes,Techniciens et Architectes de ThéâtreInternational Organization of Scenographers, Theatre Architects and Technicians

Suite A, 2F, No.7, Sec.2, Renai Rd., Taipei 10055 TaiwanTel: +886 (0)2 77260088 Fax: +886 (0)2 7726 0808

email: secretariat@oistat.org BÜHNENPLANUNGWALTER KOTTKEI N G E N I E U R E G

MBH

ROFITECMaschinen- und Anlagenbau GmbH

ROFITECMaschinen- und Anlagenbau GmbH

GERLING + ARENDT PLANUNGSGESELLSCHAFT mbH

83

84