 |
Facts and figures
This year the institutions that teach design in the Netherlands have together submitted 26 final-year projects, two less than the maximum number allowed. Wageningen Agricultural University and Eindhoven University of Technology each selected one plan less than the number permitted them. Of the entries just one was from a student specializing in landscape architecture. There were three for urban design and two for urban design and architecture combined, the remaining 20 plans coming from students specializing in architecture. Six projects were designed by pairs of students, bringing the number of participants to 32. A third of this year's designers were female, the same percentage as last year. The number of entries for sites in other countries (three) was the lowest in ten years.
Conditions of entry
Each year the Dutch institutions of higher education whose main subjects are architecture, urban design and/or landscape architecture select their best final-year projects of the past year and submit these to the Archiprix. The selection by the institutions takes place in accordance with the conditions of entry and selection criteria set down by the Archiprix. According to the conditions of entry the institutes concerned could each submit the following number of plans to Archiprix 2001: Delft 9, Rotterdam (including Arnhem and Groningen) 5, Amsterdam (including Maastricht) 5, Eindhoven 4, Tilburg 3 and Wageningen 2. This means that a maximum of 28 could be accepted. Besides these formal regulations, the conditions of entry contain the criteria underlying both the selection of plans by the institutes and the adjudication. The quintessential requirements are: that the outcome of the entry is an architectural, urban or landscape design; that this has an explicitly stated issue or issues as its basic premise; and that there is a detailed account of how, working from the above issues, the scheme was arrived at.
When judging the plans the following elements are successively taken into account: the analysis of the task; the conceptual strength of the project; the spatial quality of the design together with a sensitive deployment of resources; an account of the plan in words and images; and lastly the cohesion enjoyed by these elements. This cohesion is of major importance as it serves to demonstrate the entrant's mastery of the entire process insofar as this translates the set task into an appropriate three-dimensional solution.
The jury
Each year the Archiprix's executive board assembles a new independent jury of experts. In the interests of fairness, no persons directly connected with preparing a submitted scheme or directly related to a designer of such, may sit on the jury. The jury's task is to assess the submitted plans on their own merits and briefly comment on the substance of each. In addition it has to select the best entries and divide the prize money among them accordingly. There are five members of the jury, four experts in the three disciplines concerned and a theorist. The line-up of the jury who judged the final-year projects of Archiprix 2001 is as follows:
- Herman Hertzberger - architecture
- Hilde Heynen - theory
- Martin Knuijt - landscape architecture
- Michiel Riedijk - architecture
- Ton Schaap - urban design
The entries were judged on January 9th and 16th 2001 in Delft. Before those dates the jury received for each scheme a text composed by the designer giving the essence of his or her plan. In the period between the two dates the jury studied these design accounts. It assessed each project on the basis of the criteria set down by the Archiprix, also taking into consideration any innovative qualities that project might possess.
General remarks
When adjudicating the entries for the Archiprix a number of more general tendencies came to light that the jury consider worthy of mention. These are briefly enumerated below.
Presentation. On entering the exhibition space where the entries are displayed, one is first struck by the riot of graphics the participants have called into play to present the projects. The accent on presentation has increased hand over fist, a tendency facilitated by computer hardware and software. In some cases a mind-boggling presentation tends to conceal the substance of the plan rather than give a better understanding of it. In others, such as in the project Maison fleximum, the presentation is in perfect keeping with the design, with the use of the computer in the presentation doing much to clarify the designer's intentions.
The entries span a wide range of themes, amongst which a great many tasks of social relevance. It is encouraging to observe that final-year students are concerned with issues that require solving in practice, especially when they seek new ways of dealing with them.
Recycling existing buildings is steadily gaining importance as a design brief. Archiprix 2001 includes two interesting examples which enter into the problematic of abandoned structures, both with innovative aspects. Zombie unfurls a promising strategy for vacant office buildings in urban areas. Silo transforms an abandoned grain silo in Rotterdam into a cultural centre so that the silo's supremely specific honeycomb structure is reanimated for another use form altogether, generating an unexpected spatiality.
Water is a relevant and interesting theme that gets tackled at different scales. Elbeiland and Circulation bring up realistic solutions at the macro level, and Where the river meets the city addresses living on the flood plains.
Setting. Insertion into the context does not always get the attention it deserves. A relatively large number of schemes have a magnificent setting which then gets savaged by the design.
Dwelling is back with a bang as a final-year design task, and rightly so. More than a third of the plans are devoted to this subject, one aspect being the combination of living and working.
Compaction. Possibly the turn of events most relevant for the future look of the Netherlands is the compaction of its cities, whether this concerns preserving unbuilt areas or reanimating urban ones. Accordingly, the fine focus on this theme and the high quality of its treatment is most encouraging. More than half of the entries deal in some degree with intensifying existing urban areas. The three proposals for compacting central-city areas, Implanted city, An underground Leidseplein and Elbeiland, add new elements to the discourse on this theme.
Technique. In recent years, technique has been lagging behind as a result of the overwhelming ascendency of the 'concept'. It seemed as though a new academicism had surfaced. So it is gratifying to see the technique of building in the broadest sense of the word the focus of so much attention, together with the evident pleasure written all over the proposals for technical innovation such as An underground Leidseplein and especially Maison fleximum. This may well be an initial step towards a new 19th century with successors to Paxton and Eiffel who can help architecture to catch up with industrial design.
Lastly, the entries to Archiprix 2001 once again prove just how great is the influence of OMA on the way students think and work.
|
Awards
After having assessed each project individually the jury took stock of the results. That rare gem, a plan entirely beyond reproach, was conspicuous by its absence, as all entries require some degree of critical comment. Remarkably often, there is no logical transition from analysis to urban design rules and/or the three-dimensional design. There is, though, a fairly broad top layer that scores high in many of the set criteria. The list of candidates for awards and special mentions was whittled down to the following projects (in alphabetical order: 16 volumes of reflection by Hanneke van Wel & Gert Anninga, Elbeiland, delta flowscape by Natascha Krömer, Maison fleximum by Angie Abbink, MS2G: Mobility, urbanistic and social generator by Hans van Loon & Marco Visser, Silo by Marten de Jong, V low Track Recumbent and roller-blade shelter in Haarlem Spaarnwoude van Eddy Verbeek, Where the river meets the city by Olja Limarenko and Zombie by Vincent Jeanson. Of these plans, those whose quality diminished at the development stage were then excluded. The jury was unanimous in its decision to award two prizes and three special mentions:
First prize
- Maison fleximum by Angie Abbink (Amsterdam Academy of Architecture), a project extruded from the set task with the greatest consistency
Second prize
- Silo by Marten de Jong (TU Delft) a particularly inspired conversion scheme
Special mentions
- 16 volumes of reflection by Hanneke van Wel & Gert Anninga (TU Delft)
- MS2G: Mobility, urbanistic and social generator by Hans van Loon & Marco Visser (Fontys Academy of Architecture and Urban Design, Tilburg)
- V low Track Recumbent and roller-blade shelter in Haarlem Spaarnwoude by Eddy Verbeek (Amsterdam Academy of Architecture)
|