JURY REPORT

General

The jury was impressed by the range and variety of the 222 submissions from all over the world. The number of entries was a record. Most students had thought very carefully about site and climatic conditions, local culture and principles of sustainability. Almost all entrants had carefully considered the needs and character of the author for whom they had decided to work, and most showed an interest in literature unusual in a notoriously ill-read profession.

But the brief called for concern with detail, and not all entries showed proper understanding of the tectonic qualities of architecture. In some cases, there was lack of consistency between drawings which, even interpreted in the most generous manner, showed lack of three-dimensional understanding.

Yet such problems were exceptional. As a jury, we were (in the end) unanimous in our choice of the first, second and third prizes, and in selection of the best submission from a student in the first or second years. Honorary mentions have been made of entries to which we were unable to give a prize, though they were impressive and often inventive. All prize winning and mentioned projects are, in very different ways, examples of placemaking and attempts to live in harmony with the planet.

Winners

First prize (£1200): Henry Williams, fourth year, University of Adelaide, Australia
The project is executed with great simplicity and clarity. It has an extraordinary sensitive relationship to its site, rolling downland studded with trees. Sensuous links between writer and the surrounding grassland were very carefully considered, with the house party dug into the slope, so that desk and grass seem to grow together. It would undoubtedly be a calm and tranquil place to work in.

The work is very well detailed and beautifully drawn, so the textures and almost the smell of the materials are forcibly projected from the boards. It is always difficult to present the spatial, luminous and tectonic qualities of a minimalist design on paper in two dimensions yet the entrant has managed to do so admirably.

Second prize (£500): Ujjval Tanchal + Sachin Soni, fifth year, School of Architecture CEPT, Ahmedabad, India.
Group work prize (£200)
In contrast to the rural setting of the first prize-winning project (and indeed the majority of entries) the authors of the second prize-winning scheme chose to reinterpret the dense texture of old Ahmedabad. The scheme takes its form from the traditional tenement, illuminated and ventilated by chowks: light wells penetrating the mass of the building.

The jury was convinced by the excellent arguments for the design, and by the way in which the chowk of the tenement had become the focus of the new work, which shows sequences of space and light that are both appropriate to tradition and the city, and to the calm and quiet a writer needs. Some jury members were worried by the relative lack of technical and environmental information about the design.

Third prize (£200): Vongai PP Pasirayi, third year, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
The jury was impressed by the spatial and luminous qualities of the third prize-winning project. It offers both comfort and calm, and great experiential range within a small compass. Relationships of interior spaces to the beautiful site were particularly well considered. The brief was carefully and inventively interpreted. But some jury members had reservations about the external appearance of the house which, they thought, seemed naïve and clumsy. Nevertheless, the house would undoubtedly create a real and stimulating sense of place.

Prize for entrant in first or second year (£200): Stephen Lammas, second year, UNITECH School of Architecture,
Auckland, New Zealand
The affinity of this project to its magnificent site was thought by the jury to be exceptional. The brief was clearly and economically interpreted. Yet the design is far from minimalist, and it would undoubtedly provide a series of small but very varied and stimulating spaces for an active and fit writer.

Jury members were impressed in general by the number and quality of entries from first and second year students, so this prize was won against stiff competition.

Honorary mentions

Unathi Lincon, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Jurors were excited by the simplicity of the entry, and by its re-interpretation of traditional South African township forms, while providing a stimulating and (when necessary secluded) place for the writer to work in. Balance between public and private realms was very carefully considered.

Mia Visser, second year, University of Pretoria, South Africa
The jury was very impressed with the drawings of this project, which showed (as does the first-prize winner) and exceptional ability to impart spatial and material qualities on paper. But the choice of writer (Isabel Allende) seemed inappropriate to a design so heavily influenced by the north, and the relationship to the brief sometimes seemed a little vague.

William Paul Norris, second year Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
This welcome urban entry makes creative use of an old brick viaduct by suspending a lightweight studio under one of the arches. The device of having a writing area which can be moved to take advantage of season and time of day is ingenious and could be stimulating. But argument about environmental control seemed rather unconvincing, and planning was clumsy in places.

Mark Jooste, second year, University of Pretoria, South Africa
A bold and deceptively simple approach to building on the Sugarloaf Mountain which would undoubtedly be marvelous (if hot) place to work in. But development of any kind in the very sensitive area was regarded by some jury members as an unfortunate precedent.

Too Wing, PD student, University of Hong Kong, China
All jury members were impressed by the layered nature of this re-interpretation of a Chinese urban site for the poet Li Bai. The process of composition was admirable, but the proposal was not sufficiently worked out in detail.

Rebecca Murphy, second year, Queensland Institute of Technology, Australia
Few entrants paid more attention to the narrative of the client’s life than is shown in this entry. The relationship between artifact and surrounding bush is very well imagined, if somewhat prosaically.

Foo Suk Yin, fifth year, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
As an exercise in the handling of light and space, this project was outstanding for ingenuity and invention. But its planning was oddly dull, and detail was not sufficiently explained.

Koji Misaki, fifth year, University of Tsukubu Art and Design School, Japan
No jury member could resist the elegance and power of the drawings of this scheme and their extremely interesting implications for light control. But the jury could not understand the design in detail because the text was in Japanese. This project was not eligible for a prize because of its origins outside the commonwealth.

In Conclusion

This competition (the only one of its kind) has proved so successful that all jury members thought that the Commonwealth Association of Architects might consider expanding its terms of reference to allow students from all over the world to enter. While appreciating that this would cause problems, the jury suggests that such a widening of horizons would stimulate quality even further.

Submissions in the sixth competition were received from as far afield as Japan and Germany, Turkey and Vietnam. Luckily, none of these was short-listed for a prize, but the problem can only become more acute in years to come.

Philip Kungu (CAA President, Kenya)
Patrick Stanigar (Jamaica)
Mira Fassler-Kamstra (South Africa)
Peter Davey (United Kingdom – Jury chairman)

Download the Results