Congratulations to the following winners of the FoD London 2019 Young Designers Competitions!

Paper Competition
Judges Winner Manjola Caro
Judges Runner-up Gemma Small
Audience favourite Gemma Small
Design Competition  
Judges Winner Anthea Schneider
Daniel Perez
Judges Runner-up Andrea Valerio
Francisco Rodriguez Salas
Jieying Chong
Audience Favourite Anthea Schneider
Daniel Perez

***The Future of Design Young Designers Competitions have now CLOSED***

The Future of Design 2019 conference will host two competitions for young professionals to showcase your innovation and lateral thinking for a chance to win some fantastic prizes.

Paper Presentation Competition

Submit a one-page paper of your innovative work or research.

Shortlisted entries will be invited to give a short presentation (10 minutes) at the conference on 13th September 2019, where final judging will take place.

Brief

The judging criteria are:

  • Originality & Innovation (60%)
  • Depth (20%)
  • Clarity and Form of Presentation (20%)

Participants are encouraged to focus on their personal role in the design or subject considered.

Timeline

19th August 2019, 8am – Deadline for submission
2nd September 2019 – Shortlisted entries notified
13th September 2019 – Presenting and judging at the conference

Prizes at the Conference

Judges Winner – £200 Cash Prize + More
Judges Runner-up – £50 Cash Prize + More
Audience Vote Winner – £50 Cash Prize + More

Design Competition – Canyon Crossing

Submit an A2 poster of your proposed design solution to the canyon crossing problem.

Shortlisted entries will be displayed at the conference on 13th September 2019, where final judging will take place.

Brief

Timeline

19th July 2019, 5pm – End of Question Period
19th August 2019, 8am – Deadline for submission
2nd September 2019 – Shortlisted entries notified
13th September 2019 – Display and judging at the conference

Prizes at the Conference

Judges Winner – £200 Cash Prize + More
Judges Runner-up – TBC
Audience Vote Winner – TBC

Q & A

Q: Does the footbridge have to be a suspension bridge as the title suggests?
A: No, the structure does not need to be a suspension bridge. As mentioned in section 3.0, “While choosing the typology of bridge they prefer, designers are expected to […].” The title of the brief has now been updated to clarify this.

Q: With regard to the design competition brief, it is noted that the submission should include the team’s identification number. Could you please clarify how this number shall be ascertained?
A: Each team wishing to enter the competition should send an email with the names of your team members to events@iabse.org.uk as soon as possible. The committee will allocate the team an identification number and reply via email.
Note that the purpose of the teams identification number is for anonymity during judging on the day. Also note that the allocation of a number does not bind the group to submit an entry for the competition, so why not get your team number right now?

Q: The brief says: “The design should account for the fact that materials will be delivered only to the top of the canyon and installation of the bridge elements will be from above.” Should I interpret the underlined as “no bridge elements can be installed under the bridge level” ?
A: No. Some of the bridge elements can indeed be installed under the bridge level. The intent of this sentence is to stress that access to the bridge location during construction will only happen from the top of the canyon (i.e. not directly from the trail paths).

Q: Is there any limitation regarding the materials that can be used?
A: No, there is no limitation regarding the materials that can be used.

Q: Can the construction be segmental by transferring parts of the bridge from above and assembling them at the bridge level?
A: Yes, parts of the bridge can be brought in from above and assembled at the bridge level, provided that the workforce and any equipment required is also provided from above.

Q: Do we need to account for lighting poles on the bridge deck?
A: No, there is no requirement for lighting poles on the bridge deck. It can be assumed that, as for the rest of the scenic trail, public access to the bridge will be limited to daylight hours.

Q: Is there a requirement regarding the width of the bridge deck?
A: No, there is no minimum width specified for the bridge deck. However, the dimensions of the bridge are expected to be sensible and adequate for its purpose and this will be considered during judging.

Q: In figure 2, section A-A, what should the 4.5m be taken to denote?
A: The “4.5m” shown on Section A-A in Figure 2 on the design brief represents the length along which the two trail paths overlap transversely, before terminating in dead ends.

Q: In figure 2, cross section, should the outline of the rock be considered accurate, and therefore be considered as an opportunity/constraint in our proposal?
A: Where dimensions are not given, the outline of the rocks in the sketch should not be considered accurate. Assumptions on the geometry of the canyon walls can be made if needed, as long as these do not contradict the data received on the design brief.

Go to Event Homepage