Nyt stadion i Aarhus: Tre projekter konkurrerer stadig

Besigtigelse af stadion

Tre projektforslag er så stærke, at bedømmelsesudvalget har valgt at udpege dem alle til ligeværdige vindere af det netop afsluttede udbud i arkitektkonkurrencen om et nyt fodboldstadion i Aarhus. Dermed går der nu en 2. udbudsrunde i gang, hvor de tre vinderforslag skal bearbejdes, før den endelige vinder bliver udpeget til november.

De tre hold, der fortsat er med i konkurrencen om at tegne et nyt fodboldstadion til Aarhus, er:

Bedømmelsesudvalget har fundet, at alle seks forslag er af virkelig høj kvalitet, og at særligt tre projekter på hver deres måde har vinderpotentiale.
Alvaro Arriagada, projektdirektør, Kongelunden

"Men alle forslag har også haft elementer, der ikke var belyst tilstrækkeligt eller skal bearbejdes yderligere”, fortsætter Alvaro Arriagada. Derfor er han glad for, at man nu kan henvende sig direkte til tilbudsgiverne i modsætning til den første bedømmelsesproces, hvor bedømmelsesudvalget af hensyn til neutralitet i bedømmelsen ikke vidste, hvilket projekt der var tegnet af hvilket hold.

Et spadestik dybere kræver tålmodighed

”Vi ved godt, at vi på den her måde strækker tålmodigheden hos en masse AGF-fans og andre langt. Men et stadionbyggeri på en så særlig placering er en ekstremt kompleks opgave, hvor arkitektur, funktionalitet, økonomi og andre væsentlige forhold alle skal gå op i en højere enhed. Derfor er det en god ting, at vi nu har mulighed for at komme et spadestik dybere med disse tre fantastiske forslag, før man udpeger en endelig vinder,” slutter Alvaro Arriagada.

Det er forventningen, at bedømmelsesudvalget kan offentliggøre vinderprojektet til november. En to-faset bedømmelsesproces har hele tiden været et sandsynligt scenarium og skubber ikke til den aktuelle tidsplan. Et nyt fodboldstadion står efter planen klar i 2026.

Projektforslagene vil blive offentliggjort og udstillet efter den endelige bedømmelse.

Her kan du læse uddrag fra den dommerbetænkning, der er udarbejdet på baggrund af bedømmelsesprocessen. Bemærk, at teksten er på engelsk, da projektkonkurrencen om et nyt stadion er udbudt på engelsk.

Extract from the Jury Report:

”There is no doubt that the tenderers have put great creative efforts into the work on designing a New Stadium in Aarhus, of which the material shows clear signs. The jury had to take a position on convincing, thoroughly prepared and also very different proposals. All six proposals are consequently outstanding proposals for a solution, and at a very high professional level they have generously contributed to illustrating the design project.  

Based on the three evaluation criteria: ”Architecture and functionality”, ”Technology and the environment” and ”Consulting fee”, the jury's task was to find the winner/winners of the design contest.

It is gratifying that the winning proposals also represent three very different architectural approaches to the task. A fact which also holds interesting aspects in the further processing.

The winners of the design contest "New Stadium in Aarhus" are:

The three winners have been selected as equal winners who in various ways have distinguished themselves in a highly positive way in respect of obtaining an architectural iconic building with suitable and optimum functions within the construction limit available.

Proposal no. 1 (Red.: Cobe, AFL Architects, Buro Happold DK) has managed to present a beautiful and functional stadium which, by way of a sympathetic architectural simplicity, adapts to the location and shows relevant understanding of the identity of the location. In addition, the project demonstrates great understanding of working integrated with all technical disciplines, respecting the financial framework given.

Proposal no. 3 (Red.: Zaha Hadid, Tredje Natur, Sweco) distinguishes itself by way of a uniquely strong main concept – beautiful and poetic section, reaching out to its surroundings and resulting in a spectacular experience around the building. The concept and construction of the proposal are found to be extremely robust.

Proposal no. 6 (Red.: Dorte Mandrup, Kristine Jensen, Schlaich Bergermann Partner) is a thoroughly prepared project in which a strong and sympathetic main concept with a clear composition by virtue of the trisection of the building outlines particularly robust and flexible architecture convincingly balancing the iconic status of the building with a sensitive adaptation to the location. The proposal is also based on rational constructions and efficient use of materials.

Other proposals

Proposal no. 2 (Red.: 3XN, HKS Architects, Schønherr, MOE, Arup) has been positioned as no. 2.

All in all, the proposal is good and beautiful. The proposal is, however, evaluated as having a high complexity both in form, construction and façade. This lack of simplicity gives rise to concerns among the jurors, and it is assessed that, in the event of further processing, the proposal will not maintain the otherwise smart and sympathetic main concept and also observe the financial framework.

Proposal no. 4 (Red.: SCAU, LYTT Architecture, Buro Happold UK, Cowi) ended in a shared third place together with Proposal no. 5.

All in all, the proposal is good and has been thoroughly prepared. The proposal is, however, assessed to be a too sharp contrast in terms of architecture to the historical facility both in respect of the location, the landscape and the historical buildings.

The proposal is assessed not to obtain coherence between design, cost drivers and buildability.

The proposal is assessed not to be sufficiently robust for tolerating further processing. 

Proposal 5 (Red.: Dissing + Weitling, Kengo Kuma & Associates, MASU Planning, MOONN)

All in all, the proposal is good and has been thoroughly prepared. The proposal is, however, assessed to be a too sharp contrast to the historical facility both in respect of the location, the landscape and the historical buildings.

The geometrical characteristics and construction of the proposal seem simple, but the scope and dimensions are generally large, which makes the proposal highly more expensive. The proposal is assessed not to be clearly based on the financial framework for construction costs.

The proposal is assessed not to be sufficiently robust for tolerating further processing."

 

 

Bedømmelsesudvalget består af:

  • Jacob Bundsgaard, borgmester
  • Rabih Azad-Ahmad, rådmand for Kultur og Borgerservice
  • Steen Stavnsbo, rådmand for Teknik og Miljø
  • Jens Bjerg Sørensen, bestyrelsesformand, Salling Fondene
  • Henrik Lind, direktør, Lind Invest
  • Christian Budde, Politisk Følgegruppe for Kongelunden
  • Mette Bjerre, Politisk Følgegruppe for Kongelunden
  • Bjarne Hammer, arkitekt MAA og fagdommer, partner i Hammer Arkitektur + Design
  • Martin Krogh, arkitekt MAA og fagdommer, partner i Adept
  • Anne Mette Boye, arkitekt MAA og stadsarkitekt, Aarhus Kommune
  • Trine Berthold, arkitekt MAA og chefkonsulent i Kongelunden

Bedømmelsesudvalget er i processen blevet bistået af en gruppe af faglige og tekniske rådgivere, hvor blandt andet AGF Fodbold A/S har været repræsenteret.

De tre øvrige arkitekthold i 1. udbudsrunde var:

  • 3XN (DK), HKS Architects Ltd (UK), Schønherr (DK), MOE (DK), Arup (UK)
  • SCAU (FR), Arkitema (DK), LYTT Architecture (DK), Buro Happold (UK), Cowi (DK)
  • Dissing + Weitling (DK), Kengo Kuma & Associates (JP/FR), MASU Planning (DK), MOONN (DK), Walt Galmarini AG (CH), Arup (DK)

I alt 42 teams ansøgte Aarhus Kommune om at blive prækvalificeret til projektkonkurrencen om et nyt stadion i Aarhus.