How to win architecture competition? | Painters’ Lake House

In this article, we continue our series on Competitions.archi, presenting a collection of articles on different architectural competitions. Today, we will be featuring the 2nd prize winner of the Painters’ Lake House Competition – an article from Architecture Competitions Yearbook 2023.

____________________________________________________________________

Competition background

Throughout the summer of 2022, I enlisted and participated in the Painter’s Lake House International Competition brought by Buildner / former BeeBreeders.com. The competition’s aim was, as suggested by the title – to design a temporary home and workshop for painters along the shore of Cernostes Lake, Latvia. The process of this sedulous task which met its conclusion in December was the most rewarding and compelling experience, and so, throughout this article, I will attempt to share a few insights from my experience. My submission managed to win the second prize.

Support and initiative

I cannot go any further without thanking my wonderful professor and guide, Ph.D. Arch. Beatrice-Gabriela Jöger, whose support and knowledge were crucial to me. As students, we know the value of the encouragement and guidance of a tutor, which I consider the pillar of my today’s practice of architecture. As mentioned before, I started working on this project during the summer, at which point I analyzed the brief, the site, the topography, and the existing structures and drew my first conclusions. I always enroll in competitions only at the point when I have the Idea, whether it refers to the shape, the aesthetic, or a philosophical statement. No matter how obscure or unformed, I prefer to have a base, a hypothesis, or a notion. This Idea, in its purest form, is expanded and molded once I formulate my design goal, uncover solutions for specific problems and bring coherence and clarity to my line of thought. I think this refers to the saying; ”The first idea is always the best”, which I often heard my professors say, and along with experience I also gained the certainty that it may very well be true. I think many young architects are struggling to find their authentic voice when creating. We can all admit that there are a plethora of solutions, concepts, and aesthetics when approaching a project; your aim should not be to design according to standards but to filter and reinterpret what you read, see, study, etc. Sometimes you need to even contradict the brief and propose a new solution, which in your view is more suitable, this being my case as well in this project.

Analysis

Reading the brief carefully is the obvious first step. Extracting keywords is also a helpful tool to understand the essence of the client’s requirements. Don’t get lost in the details, focus on the main objectives of the brief and start from there. In the Painter’s Lake House case, I could safely say that the brief was straightforward: a sustainable, versatile, inspiring design referencing the vernacular architecture of Latvia. Though this last detail may not always be mentioned in briefs, I believe that a rich history discovered on-site should always be referenced in contemporary solutions. If you take a look at previous competitions organized by Buildner, you can see that the jury appreciates taking inspiration from traditional architecture. The building program featured two existing structures (the barn and the house) to be demolished and replaced, accommodating two painters with their families who would live in the new house for three months. These artists would then vacate to make room for another two painters to replace them. The brief also suggested balancing privacy and interaction between the two families, maintaining the view of the lake, and incorporating sustainable and low-cost practices.

The barn, situated closest to the lake and therefore more exposed to harsh winds, would act as the future site for the multi-purpose painter’s workshop and the one-story house would be replaced by a two-story structure/ two separate buildings for the two families, with separate areas for each family and common areas. Other factors to be considered were the oldest trees on site, which were required to be preserved, an old well, existing foundations abandoned near the barn, the proximity to the lake and the harsh northern winds, the steep slope of the site, and the rich habitat of bats, birds and insects populating the area. When working with harsher climate conditions, you always need to relate to the cardinal directions and existing ecosystems. In this case, the lake was oriented to the North and the tree part was parallel to it. Thus, the front yard was facing South allowing for both a cooling breeze and warmth from the sun. These obvious but crucial facts are what jump started the direction of my design. To maintain the lake view and benefit from southern exposure, the new structure would be required to have long extensive spaces, similar to the existing.

Vernacular architecture

As mentioned before, the project needed to reference vernacular Latvian architecture. I truly believe this to be not the limiting of imagination, but the artistic expression of the past into today’s architectonic design, the reinterpretation of tradition, human scale, and the relationship between human-architecture-nature. To do this, I thoroughly researched Baltic architecture and Latvian architectural practices dating back to the 14th century and even contemporary iterations. Due to harsh climate conditions and ever-changing weather, the Latvians adapted their architecture to be resource efficient and make use of their surroundings. The typical Baltic dwelling was isolated in nature, with private areas, common areas, and stables under the same roof. Building locally with wood, small openings, and singular typology minimized heat loss and material used in construction. To add more specificity, the Latvian dwelling was typically a timber frame, log building, and strut or lattice construction, with a double pitch roof, or a double pitch roof with hip ends. Straw, reed, and also shakes were used for roofing. The hearth was positioned in the center of the house, with human-scaled rooms adjoined and benefiting from its warmth. This type of planning resulted in generations of Latvians developing a strong communal mentality, which I planned to integrate into my design.

Approach and exploring ideas

The best thing about Buildner competitions is the long period you have at your disposal to experiment and explore ideas. As such, after the long process of analysis and documentation, drawing the first conclusions, I began experimenting with shapes, layouts and optimizing my design. I concluded that a two-story house with a footprint stretched as far as the site limitations allowed me to would have the appropriate amount of sqm to fit all my functions. A single structure would also be less invasive in the landscape, while making use of the existing foundations would mean the soil would not be disturbed unnecessarily and it would perpetuate my vision of the communal experience learned from Baltic traditions. Going against brief requirements, although allowed in this competition, can be proven risky, so my advice is to have strong reasonable arguments when making such a decision, and also illustrate through sketches, diagrams, and text such arguments, to convince not only the jury but the client.

A strong factor in my proposal was the powerful presence of the lake, even more so than the vegetation. Extensive views accessible from the interior would be a no-brainer, but also the insertion of terraces, which would act as a meeting point for the two families. Immersed in nature, during the hot summer days, a terrace would benefit from the lake’s cold breeze and would also be a great painting spot. Now, I had made three important decisions driven by rationality and functionality: the two-story singular structure, the elongated nature of it, and the integration of terraces; it was time to start exploring shapes.

You will see in my sketches I considered this described volume at one point as an entity with an adjoined “branch” that would act as a studio, or two or three volumes intersecting, each volume with a different function. This solution was used by the first-prize winner team, however, I thought it would deviate from my concept and the previously mentioned factors, so I arrived at the most basic shape: a simple box. To fit all the required functions, I added a high-pitched roof for extra space and began to explore options on a layout of 7×18 linear meters.

After concluding my stoic search for a volume I had to decide on the structure. Given that wood is the most accessible material in the area I chose a wooden structure of studs and beams with a 500 mm wall width for properly insulating the interior. Due to the extensive span of the studs (7 meters) I had to find an innovative solution that would allow for a timber structure, and after researching multiple possibilities, I designed a truss structure incorporating metallic reinforcements, an ideal fusion of the old and new technologies and structures.

I positioned the structure on the existing site of the house, closer to the road, and integrated a series of terraces that would bring my ground level to 0. The main terrace was positioned adjacent to the house, at the same height level, facing the lake. Secondly, I wanted to maintain the idea of the center point of the house. As the vernacular Latvian dwelling had the hearth, I wanted to elevate an element that would immediately draw attention to its center. I chose that element to be the staircase which had access to the second floor. The main problem proved to be separating the two areas: the workshop and the living area. I considered that dividing the structure in half would solve this problem, ensuring privacy for the painters on one part and proximity to the bathrooms for cleaning up. The living area, kitchen, and dining are positioned to have access to the terrace, and the bathrooms are accessed through the foyer. The second floor features 4 bedrooms, two for the parents oriented towards the lake and two for the kids facing the front yard. One final decision was making the studio a double-height space, allowing plenty of northern light to bathe the interior (northern lighting is the best for painting), and given the fact that this space had plenty of room, I decided to fit in here the working area and carpentry workshop area also required in the brief.

Poetry

The poetry of architecture. What I mean by this is mostly the aesthetic and atmosphere of the spaces created, materials, colors, and lighting. I named my project after the aesthetic ideal of picturesque – it refers to the charm of discovering a landscape in its natural state. As you can tell from the visuals I created I was heavily inspired by the picturesque paintings and desired to capture the stillness and quietness of country life and the delicate art of painting. Renderings and strong visuals are your best friend in competitions – the most compelling tool to communicate your concept. All is revealed through materiality, light, and a deep connection to the landscape. The interiors are luminous and warm-toned as I mostly used different types of wood finishes, and the exposed truss structure references traditional architecture. The fenestration was designed to frame the landscape as paintings, and is somewhat balanced, as I avoided any glass facade insertions to limit heat loss. The light penetrates the structure through the arched windows in the studio, adding luminosity and atmosphere. Another opening on the higher level in the form of a circle watches carefully its occupants and adds a focal point to the space. The black stained facade, typical for Latvia, was divided using wood niches to further integrate it into its landscape. Nothing in nature is smooth and perfect, so why should a building be? This articulated facade is also friendly for bats, birds, and bees who seek shelter or a resting place. I often seek inspiration for materials and compositions from great architects such as Carlo Scarpa, Peter Zumthor, and Louis Khan, which is what I advise anyone who needs references throughout the design process.

Visuals, boards and final result

One of the most important pieces of advice I can give anyone entering a competition is to plan your boards. The layout, hierarchy, and breathing space should all be taken into consideration as well as what you want to showcase and convey through your drawings. There is no reason to waste time on details at first; your drawings need to speak for themselves, informing the viewer about concept, functionality, structure, and atmosphere. What I also find important is to have strong renderings and good linework for your plans and sections. Diagrams, sketches, and other visual aids are secondary pieces on your board, but crucial for understanding the process and idea. Finally, you can add details once you have these items ready.

For this particular competition, given the simplicity of the scene, I used Sketch-up for modeling which allowed me flexibility and great ease whilst working. For more complicated models, I recommend Revit or other BIM Software. Once I am satisfied with the proportions and composition, I export the model to 3dsMax and add details. Positioning your camera in the scene is extremely important: I often prefer it aligned centrally in the perspective, but other dynamic angles work too if it underlines your concept. I then render the architectural elements of my drawings and add vegetation, human scale, and a great deal of filters in Photoshop post-production. Here is where you can improve your drawings with great simplicity, by simply styling them and adding coherence aesthetically. I never use mood boards but I always draw inspiration from paintings or other architectural drawings for chromatics, brightness, contrast, and overall atmosphere and style (realistic, hybrid, collage). What I recommend is to test different variations of your design throughout the process and place them all side by side, so you can see what is better. The same goes for creating the board/panel. Finally, I place all my drawings as planned on their boards and edit once more, to match the brightness and saturation of all elements. Taking breaks when working on a project like this might help you have a better outlook on things, especially when you feel stuck.

Ultimately, I would encourage students and young architects, especially “shy” architects who struggle to find their authentic style and approach to participate in such competitions – you can only learn and discover when you practice. Find competitions you are passionate about, develop your conceptual thinking, research, and find other competition entries you connect to – learning from others is likely the most intuitive way to better your design approach and develop a personal methodology and workflow.