[10 Years of Design Competitions, 30 Public Architecture Selections] Sanmaroo Playground

SPACE November 2023 (No. 672) 

10 years have passed since the design competition system was overhauled as a consequence of the Act On The Promotion Of Building Service Industry. As multiple adjustments and corrections have been made over time to the operation of design competitions, the system has given birth to numerous selections that populate our surroundings today. If these winning designs, which were born out of the creative struggles of individual designers in their respective times and places under the aegis of ‘good public architecture’, were to be assembled in a single space, what would stand out? SPACE have selected 30 distinguished examples of public architecture that have been recognised by the architectural scene over the past 10 years. We compared images of the winning designs and their results, and interviewed the architects. Our selection criteria was primarily based on being honoured with selection, but we also wanted to offer as diverse an outlook as possible according to type and year of competition, ordering institution, and use or function, to offer a wide spectrum of examples. When it came to public residences, we decided not to feature them in this article as they are a unique breed in terms of scale and programme. By reviewing all stages, from planning, examination, selection, and the post-construction phases, and after hearing from those responsible for them about the obstacles that they faced on their journey towards good public architecture, we hope that the testimonies of these people who witnessed the various aspects of the design competition system will give us a sense of continued direction as to where we should be heading in the next 10 years. 

©Jo Jinman Architects

©Yu Cheung-oh 

Q1: From the design competition to construction, what was the main task when it came to the completion of your project? In which areas do you think your project did well, and what made this possible?

A1: During the competition stage, our decision to spatialise the site’s unique properties and reinterpret the site’s history via a morphological narrative led it to be selected. A team of two parts consisting of artistic members (OK Public Art Studio) and landscape designers (Wul Landscape) was assembled at the early design and planning stage to oversee an integrated design approach that would draw together architecture, the playground facility, and landscaping. We avoided installing typified artificial rides to allow children to admire the cityscape from the hill at Changsin-dong while making up ‘plays’ on their own terms with the surrounding natural elements such as dirt, sand, water, and trees. After construction, we also composed a specially devised local community council composed of people from the region’s urban revitalisation center, the children’s home, and a forest commentator to reflect user opinion and to actively put their suggestions into practice. Our efforts to go beyond a simple playground to establish a representative common meeting yard for the entire neighbourhood by holding numerous discussions with the local residents as well as assistance from the client to ensure a smooth transition from the early vision statement to the actual management marked this project out from our previous public architecture projects.

Q2: What suggestions would you make to improve the way design competitions are conducted in Korea?

A2: Countless projects are being built under the aegis of fairness. However, one should also contemplate why this has not led to a greater number of examples of ‘era-defining architecture’ with brilliant achievements in architectural and technical aspects despite the large number of competitions. As people start to refer to the examples of previous winners and reviews that are now available in database format on websites as study references, I wonder if the expectations and thinking patterns of participants and reviewers alike have all implicitly become typified and standardised.

​2016 invited design competition

​Architect  

Jo Jinman Architects (Jo Jinman)

Location  

23-350, Changsin-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul

Programme  

facility for the elderly and children (children’s library and playground)

Gross floor area  

205m²

Design cost  

budget –  86.6 million KRW / actual cost – 86.6 million KRW

Construction 

cost  budget –  2 billion KRW

Competition year  

June 2016

Completion year  

Feb. 2019

Client  

Jongno-gu Office

Prize  

LCDC Korea Award (2019)​