2010 COLORBOND® steel Student Biennale Jury
The following are general comments by the jury in relation to the nature, content and scope of submissions, as well as views on major design projects in Australian schools of architecture. These comments serve both as observations on the submissions received, and as a guide for future entrants.
It heartens the jury to see a high degree of creative thinking and diversity of modes of expression in the competition submissions. The broad range of project types and ideologies is a continued celebration of difference in Australian architectural education.
In general, there are four major project types. Firstly there is a notable interest with urban interventions, towards more smaller scale dispersed projects, and away from expressions of monumentality. Within this project type is the influence of recent discussions on landscape urbanism, and it is refreshing to see a more holistic view of the built world. A focus on adaptive reuse projects with an emphasis on interior spaces, and challenges to existing planning regimes, is probably due to a heightened awareness of sustainable design.
The second is the emergence of a new romanticism and return to craft and drawing. These projects emphasise the poetic and narrative nature of the design process, with healthy doses of nostalgia and whimsy, and in several cases a welcomed sense of humour. However, many proposals tend to suffer at the level of detail resolution.
Thirdly, there is a strong seam of digitally-based explorations of new typologies, particularly around issues of sustainability. These projects, usually accompanied by exciting imagery, pose a difficult problem for the jury as the processes of form generation, which are almost as important as the architectural objects, are frequently undocumented or remain difficult to access. The jury suggests that in future submissions, entrants should organise their submissions with a clear ‘storyboard’ to ensure a sense of continuity in communication of concept, process and resolution.
Lastly, conventional large-scale signature architectural projects remain a constant, however the concept of monumentality and its senses of awe and excess have been used to provoke norms towards eliciting social and cultural change. Differences between projects in given briefs and self-selected briefs, although a general trend, was particularly evident in this category. Projects with self-selected briefs were more far ranging in terms of answering a particular design or research topic, although there tended to be disadvantages in relation to detailed planning and resolution owing to time available for the completion of a studio. Projects with given briefs tend to remain within a limited range of formal and spatial articulations with a higher degree of resolution.
The differences in the project typologies, the diverse interests of the jury members, and the unsurpassed number of entrants, made it challenging to compile the shortlist at Stage 1. However, there was a clear and immediate consensus on the shortlist of commendable projects in Stage 2, at which point jury members with conflicts of interest stepped aside from the selection of the winner.
Generally, the jury was delighted by the talent, enthusiasm and passion of participating students, and would encourage, with the assistance by schools of architecture, an even wider participation in the future.
COMPETITION JURY
Stephen Loo RAIA, Jury Chair, Academic/Architect, Tasmania
Ken Maher LFRAIA, Architect NSW, Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medalist 2009
John Schenk LFRAIA, Academic, South Australia
Alysia Bennett, SONA, University of Tasmania