 |
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 graduation projects and submit these to Archiprix. The institutions make their selection in accordance with the conditions of entry and selection criteria set down by Archiprix. The conditions of entry set a maximum to the number of submitted projects, proportionate to the size of each institution. So for Delft the maximum is 9, for Amsterdam 4, Eindhoven 4, Rotterdam 3, Tilburg 2, Wageningen 2, Arnhem 1, Groningen 1 and Maastricht 1, giving a total of 27 projects. All the institutions submitted their maximum number to Archiprix 2008. Besides these formal regulations, the conditions of entry contain the criteria underlying both the selection of projects by the institutions 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 project was arrived at. When judging the projects the following elements are successively taken into account: the analysis of the brief; the project's conceptual strength; the spatial quality of the design together with a sensitive deployment of resources; an account of the project 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 issue raised by the brief into an appropriate three-dimensional solution.
The jury
Each year Archiprix's executive board assembles a new independent jury of experts. In the interests of fairness, no persons directly connected with preparing a submitted project or directly related to a designer of such, may sit on the jury. The jury's task is to assess the projects 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 cultural philosopher. The line-up of the jury that judged the final-year projects of Archiprix 2008 is as follows:
- Yttje Feddes, landscape architecture
- Albert Fien, urban design
- Marlies Rohmer, architecture
- Ed Taverne, theory
- Robert Winkel, architecture
Secretary to the jury is Henk van der Veen of Archiprix.
Adjudication
The entries were judged on January 30th and February 7th 2008 in Delft. Before those dates the jury received for each project a text composed by the designer giving the essence of his or her entry. The jury studied these written explanations in the period between the two judging sessions. It assessed each project individually in terms of its qualities, proceeding from the criteria established by Archiprix and stated in the conditions of entry.
Statistics
The institutions teaching design in the Netherlands selected 27 final-year projects for inclusion in Archiprix 2008. Of the 27 projects 20 were in architecture, four in urban design and three in landscape architecture. Eight projects are located abroad. After a brief revival last year, the number of female participants has dropped to 13 per cent. With just four entrants this year, it makes a stark contrast with the number of female students, who constitute almost half the total student population.
|
General remarks
With one or two exceptions, the submitted projects are of a high quality. Generally speaking, the designs have taken all aspects of the set task into equal consideration. It is encouraging to see designs being done contextually, in the broad sense of the word. Most entries have close ties with the theoretical, historical and spatial contexts and seek fundamental responses to the self-imposed briefs. On the whole, appropriate strategies are developed when the brief called for it; the presented solutions are not limited to setting stone upon stone. As a rule, the projects are well underpinned by exhaustive studies that contribute substantially to the quality of the whole. Some entries overshoot the mark in their concern for research, blowing up this aspect out of all proportion to the design which then looks skimpy by comparison.
All considered, the presentations are successful and bring out the substance of the projects to full effect.
Some currently pressing themes requiring solutions from the design disciplines are conspicuously absent from the submitted designs for buildings. There are none that tackle head-on such issues as the reduction of CO2, or the Cradle to Cradle approach, or the problem of fine particle pollution. And this when sustainability should be high on the agenda of the architecture schools. However, it does get treated at length at the urban design and landscape levels in such themes as dwelling in relation to nature development, wind energy and the energy problem.
The step from idea to design is problematic in a number of cases. At times the relationship between the stated issues and the design is so superficial that the project lacks any real theoretical underpinning. This brings to light an important job for tutors, who should monitor the project's consistency in light of the brief.
It is encouraging to see urban design making a comeback. After years on the sidelines, this year sees it well-represented in terms of both quantity and quality. Even the 'dark' side of the city gets the attention it justly deserves. This shift in attention to urban design is just as visible in projects from the other disciplines. There are a number of plans by architecture graduates that pointedly operate in the province of urban design and even landscape architecture. For this reason the jury would like to take up the cudgels for stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration at the schools. This might not just improve the quality of the projects but prepare the way for the graduates' entry into professional practice where many players work together. Remarkably often, the chosen site is a fracture zone which is then healed with urban design interventions.
As for architecture as the main subject, the jury notes something of a decline. There are certainly a few good examples among the entries of projects where the space for the programme it is to contain has been comprehensively developed but generally speaking the design approach is less probing and innovative than the jury had hoped.
|
Prizes
From this year's entries the jury selected five whose quality they consider to be superior, honouring them with a first prize, two second prizes, a third prize and a special mention. The prize-winning projects score high on all criteria and additionally offer a new perspective. The reasons for choosing them are outlined below. For the full assessments see under 'The projects'.
Poliphili on the river foreland: a production park in Arnhem designed by Ruud Smeelen
An exquisite project for a willow plantation in Meinerswijk at Arnhem. This inspiring new duty gives the area a new lease of life and at the same time preserves the unique received qualities; a case of the new justifying the evolved.
Marker Park designed by Sander Lap
With its all-in approach to Markeermeer, this proposal adds a new dimension to plans for this area. Each part of the design has been worked up with an acupuncture-like precision.Urban Incisions-Urban Decisions designed by Anne Seghers
This project presents a valuable new attitude towards the city; its highly original angle opens up new perspectives on urban development in general.
PowerFlood - A power plant and recreation complex in Zeeland designed by Shany Barath and Gary Freedman
A fascinating water-machine which extends the Dutch tradition of dealing with the water to include generating energy for recreation.
fACTUAL production LANDSCAPE designed by Iwan Westerveen
This model farm makes intensive pig farming acceptable by rationalizing its internal organization and embedding it well in the landscape.
|