stage1.report

RIBAから、今回のコンペのリポートが送信されて
きました。ストックトンでの展示は今週末で終了
します。昨年末の応募状況からジャッジの方針、
基準等、決勝に進んだ案の選択した理由を細かく
説明してあります。
勝者が決定されるまで、まだ少時間がかかるようですが、
今回のコンペは王立英国建築家協会が運営管理している
だけあって、常に情報をメールで送ってくれていました。
それだけでも安心です。

初めての海外建築コンペでしたが、
ふりかえってみると、、
この設計競技を知ったのが、提出日の一月前、、
大急ぎで、エントリーの50ポンドとコンペ概要を知るために
中央郵便局へ送金する為の手続きをしに行きました。
たかが50ポンド（ユーロじゃなかったんだ。。）を送金
するのに、手数料とかなんちゃらで、結局1万円以上も
かかりました。
この時点で、A1パネル2枚と1/50の模型をイギリスまで
送ったら、一体いくらになるのだろう、、と不安が頭を
よぎりました。。
まあ、取りあえず、時間もまったくないので、締め切りの
10日前に送れば、なんとか着くだろう。という考えで
集中して構想4日、設計3日、プレゼン+模型で1週間
の合計2週間でなんとかデータ化したのですが、肝心な
翻訳を一番最後になってしまったため、千葉氏には
過酷な状況で翻訳のお手伝いをお願いしてしまった羽目に。。
わがままいって半日で出力してもらったK林様にも頭が
上がりません。。


ついでに、今回親身になって発送してもらった
Fed EXには、こちらの入力ミスで、大至急対応して
いただきました。。通常1週間かかる所を3日で
届けていただきました。。金額も格安で。。

そんなこんなで、なんとか締め切りまでに間に合った
訳ですが、なんと、発送した直後にイギリスから
大きな封筒が。。

もしや、、

コンペの概要でした。。

遅い！！！

やっぱり外人はルーズだな〜、なんて改めて思っちゃい
ました。

反面、一応送金できてたんだ。。という事で、、

今年になるまでなんの連絡もなかったので、
やっぱり駄目か〜。なんて思っていた矢先に、なにやら
RIBAから催促のメールが。。

どうやら、一次審査を通過した後に、メールが届いて
いた様で、もちろんそんな英語のメールなんか
毎日届いている迷惑メールに捨ててしまっていたようで、
大至急、そのメールの内容を千葉氏に翻訳をたのんで、
理解した上でデータを送り返した始末です。

その後は5日ごとくらいに状況を説明した
メールが届くようになっていったわけです。

結果、ベスト20入選と、エキシビジョンまで
展示していただいたと言う事で今回は幕を閉じる
訳ですが、それもこれも単純に海外で建築の仕事を
してみたい！という野望からなのです。

という事で、まず英会話も始めます。


NORTHSHORE ‘MAKE ME A HOME’ COMPETITION


Jury Report

Launched in September 2008 the competition ‘Make me a Home’ challenged architects to shape the future of family housing. The competition was organised by the RIBA on behalf of The Northshore Development Partnership, a joint venture between Urban Splash and Muse Developments.

The objective of the competition was to select a design team to produce designs that would help the delivery of a new housing typology at Northshore, a £300m redevelopment scheme in Stockton-on-Tees.

This paper describes the judging process for stage 1, the anonymous shortlisting of schemes.

Stage 1

Dates : 9th & 10th December 2008

A total of 112 submissions were received by the 1st December submission deadline. Submissions took the form of 2 x A1 boards plus a working model.

Jury Panel : Due to unavoidable circumstances both Paul Monaghan and David Adjaye were forced to withdraw from the panel at short notice. They were replaced by Neil Taylor, Director of Faulkner Browns and Christophe Egret of Egret West. Neil Taylor undertook the role of Chair.

All of the submissions were set out in the room and all panel members were given the opportunity to study them individually in the first instance. The judges were reminded of the assessment criteria :

- design quality – does it inspire, amaze and intrigue
- response to context – does it do justice to the site
- does the scheme successfully create innovative housing typologies
- does it deliver award winning buildings and space
- deliverability/viability of the proposal
- presentation of the submission – is it simply and clearly presented.

The judges then discussed the brief, and their individual aspirations. They agreed that the successful schemes would be those which seemed to successfully combine inventiveness and flair with practicality and deliverability. Designs have to work as a family home so this should be a primary consideration. The judges agreed that at this stage they should not regard the designs as finished schemes but they should look at their potential to be a high quality, deliverable solution.

From the first viewing it was clear firstly that the overall quality of entries was exceptionally high.

The first day assessment involved placing the schemes into three categories : ‘A’ ; ‘B’ and ‘C’. Schemes marked ‘A’ were considered to be strong contenders, and generally these were those where the judges were convinced by both the planning and the typology. They also needed to be convinced that the scheme would work within an appropriate density. Only 22 of the schemes were considered to be of the ‘C’ (not potential contender) category – a mark of the high standard of entries.

The second day involved a number of rounds of discussions. As the judges became more familiar with the submissions, they were able to compare and contrast between entries, and schemes were grouped according to their different ways of approaching the masterplan.

Each round involved the elimination of schemes, until the judges were down to six schemes – the shortlist.

To follow is a summary of the observations and comments made by the judges during their deliberations, which it is hoped helps explain the reasons behind their decisions :

- response to context, particularly the river, varied. Some turned their backs on the river or blocked it off completely whereas others successfully engaged with it, providing in some cases lovely outlooks towards it from the properties. Some responded better to the change of levels than others
- there were some beautifully crafted models however the judges were careful not to be seduced by these if the planning didn’t work or wasn’t well considered. The judges were put off by schemes that seemed overly complicated, both in terms of their overall planning and the presentation of the submission
- attitude to public realm varied - the judges looked for good quality public spaces, places for children to play, nice overlooked courtyards. Greenery rather than harsh landscape was favoured. There were some interesting ideas for community living, with nice use of shares spaces
- especially interesting were those schemes which seemed to have thought carefully about the people that would be living in the properties. Some were not designed for family living
- the judges appreciated schemes which offered different typologies or included nice ideas for varying elevations, and materiality
- some schemes were let down by confused routes through the site, poor linkages, circulation which didn’t flow, or route closed off by courtyards etc. A number of the stronger schemes were noted for their well thought out hierarchy of routes and private and public spaces
- a number of schemes seemed to have misunderstood the scale of the site
- the judges looked for overall flexibility, scope for ideas to be tweaked and developed
- good orientation was important, both in terms of the internal quality of the homes and also the quality and practicability of the outdoor public spaces


Conclusion

After much deliberation the judges identified six schemes which they would like to explore further at stage two :

Scheme 18
A good and dense finger block scheme which created some interesting public spaces, and some elegant contemporary house designs.

Scheme 57
A particular strength of this scheme was its integration with the river, with good views given to most residences. Generally the planning seemed good and consistent with the primary idea.

Scheme 61
The judges liked the housing typology and the way the planning offered a good hierarchy of private and public spaces.

Scheme 63
This was an elegant solution based on a series of courtyards, creating some very pleasant overlooked spaces. A very well presented scheme which achieves a lot. The housing typology and the unity of materials was especially liked.

Scheme 67
This was an original, clever and practical design, which creates a lot of variety out of its form. It has good connection to the river and a nice undulating route towards it.

Scheme 89
A good simple layout and attractive images. Quite traditional planning however nice elevations make this quite an interesting scheme. The judges thought this was an exciting and well considered design, and potentially a very buildable solution.

The judges agreed this presented a strong and diverse shortlist. The envelopes revealing the identities of the authors were opened revealing the shortlist as :

Scheme 18 – K2 Architects, Liverpool
Scheme 57 – Spine Architects, Hamburg, Germany
Scheme 61 – Tasou Associates, London
Scheme 63 – Impromptu Arquitectos, Porto, Portugal
Scheme 67 – Bertolone Plazzogna Architects, Treviso, Italy
Scheme 89 – Loates-Taylor Shannon Architects Ltd, London

The shortlisted teams were invited to make a presentation to the judges at a final assessment on 28th January.

The judges asked the RIBA to pass on their thanks and appreciation to all entrants for providing such an excellent and diverse range of submissions, and for the level of thought and commitment that has clearly gone into this competition.

2009年02月24日 : Text by tsumac   |