Archiprix

TOUR
tour>

index
2003

 jury report archiprix 2003

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. During the past year, the smaller academies of Arnhem, Groningen and Maastricht gained their independence. This has meant adjusting the maximum number of plans that each institution can select. The total figure has also changed as a result, from 28 in previous years to 27 from this year on. According to the conditions of entry the institutes concerned could each submit the following number of plans to Archiprix 2003: Delft 9, Amsterdam 4, Eindhoven 4, Rotterdam 3, Tilburg 2, Wageningen 2, Arnhem 1, Groningen 1 and Maastricht 1. This means that a maximum of 27 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 2003 is as follows:

  • Bernard Colenbrander - theory
  • Dick van Gameren - architecture
  • Adriaan Geuze - landscape architecture
  • Martine De Maeseneer - architecture
  • Tjerk Ruimschotel - urban design

Secretary to the jury is Henk van der Veen of Archiprix.

Adjudication
The entries were judged on January 15th and 25th 2003 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 the designs and the accompanying texts. It assessed each project on the basis of the criteria set down by the Archiprix.

GENERAL REMARKS
The institutions teaching design in the Netherlands selected 27 final year projects for inclusion in Archiprix 2003, the full quota for all institutions at this stage. Of the 27 plans 21 were in architecture, four in urban design and two in landscape architecture. These figures are normal for the Archiprix. What is remarkable is that the TU Delft failed to select one urban design entry. Again, whereas last year Rotterdam sites were a firm favourite, attention seems to have shifted more towards the region and abroad. A third of the plans are for a site in another country, marking a return to a similarly high proportion after a relapse during the past few years. Of the 33 participants only four are female, an exceptionally low figure. For years their input had been in the region of 30%. The percentage of female entrants has dropped to the level of 1988.

During the adjudication the jury was struck by the sheer diversity of entries. The broad spectrum runs the gamut from ultra-individual enthusiasms to socially engaged briefs. Both of these poles are well represented. Many in the category of personal plans gave form to a ritual, with Culture generations and Death and the City the most eloquent examples. Other plans that can be placed in this category include Time-out, New Netherlands Asthma Centre and Folie Fatale.

Concern for infrastructure in general and mobility aesthetics in particular is evidently not confined to professional practice. It is manifestly, not to say excessively, represented in this batch of final year projects by the likes of A2 - Commerce, Time-out, VASSO, Work and Experience, Olympic Games 2016, Allé Zwolle, Infrabuilding, Liège and Farm-Tycoon.

The jury notes with concern that generally speaking the relationship between three-dimensional design and theoretical underpinning is not as close-knit as it could be. Many final year students seem to have difficulty with this aspect. Even in plans where this relationship is of the essence, for example those proceeding from external briefs, the research component is often insufficiently developed. In many cases the research is limited to one aspect only, with no justification. If designers are to be successful in practice, it is very important that they are able to draw measured conclusions from complex planning preconditions. Inadequate underpinning makes the designed outcome seem haphazard. A small number of the more philosophically tinted projects such as Culture generations and Folie Fatale do come with an exhaustive design account. Yet even here it adds little value as no link has been forged between the theory and the resulting design.

Finally, the jury was dismayed by the fact that some projects - Farm-Tycoon and A2 - Commerce among them - failed to attain the highest quality in their entrants' area of specialization.
2003

Archiprix

TOUR
tour>

Prize and special mentions
The jury was unanimous in its assessment that one plan clearly stood out from the rest. This project has been awarded a prize. Six further entries possess exceptional qualities but are deficient in principal aspects of the brief. These plans receive a special mention.

Prize

Special Mentions