Jury Chairman's Introduction
Since the first edition of the International “Sustainable Architecture” Award, originally launched about 20 years ago by the Department of Architecture at the University of Ferrara and Fassa Bortolo, the number of international participants from all continents has grown steadily. This provides the opportunity to offer some reflections and to illustrate the procedure for evaluating and identifying architectural qualities throughout the entire process.
The absence of specific details about the completed projects under evaluation in the competition announcement is not due to negligence or superficiality, but rather to extreme openness regarding the distinctive characteristics of the buildings, with reference to the remarkable variety of their functional, technical, material, and ideal properties.
The aim is to discover, at each edition and with an ever-expanding pool of participating architects, how and through what means buildings demonstrate not only what has been conceived and has served as inspiration for the study of projects, but also how their physical presence provides tangible proof of the feasibility of such projects in specific local conditions. The fact that the building sector needs to shift its focus and change in many respects is an important aspect, according to the long-standing belief that a convincing example is the best demonstration.
Regarding the selection process, there remains the question of the jury’s evaluation procedure: what needed to be clarified in advance and what has been maintained over the years.
The decision was reached to continually change the jury members and appoint new ones, with different perspectives in terms of specific climatic, regional, and cultural characteristics, in order to clearly show that the competition aims to raise awareness about an extremely important global topic. The selection is therefore not limited to a single style, although it does provide an opportunity to explore a kind of individual regionalism, as the characteristics and unique features of buildings express the much-invoked genius loci.
The jury’s evaluation of the submitted works begins with a thorough on-site inspection of each individual project, previously assigned to a specific group on the basis of its intended use. At the same time each jury member makes a personal selection, initially without discussing it with others; this selection depends solely on a personal evaluation, free from external influences, and it is based on the knowledge, experiences, and expertise of the individual juror.
This initial phase, involving a synchronous procedure for everyone, determines where the preferences lie. Only the projects that have not received a single vote, that is, those not nominated for the longlist with a chance of winning or receiving an honourable mention, are then examined in a further joint procedure and finally put to a vote in evaluation groups.
Normally, this involves 20%, at the most 30% of the works. Since jurors vote differently based on their backgrounds and experience, the selection of the award winners usually sparks an intense, diversified debate among the jury
Of course, the task of the jury consists in prioritizing the identity of architectural creation among the requirements and selection criteria. Other essential evaluation criteria, such as energy efficiency and sustainability, are not overlooked. However, these aspects are not adopted as a priori criteria for evaluation from the beginning of the jury’s work and for all the submitted projects; they are only considered for the works included in the longlist.
The goal of the entire process is to identify architecture of a high standard that can serve as a model, the indispensable cultural condition for standing out in the competition.
It is not about the kind of spectacular and obvious works that receive the plaudits of the media or fashion. Rather, innovative works are sought that enhance what has already emerged and established itself architecturally in relation to the place and the cultural aspiration of durability within the social context of the project.
An eloquent example of this attitude is the Department of Architecture itself at the University of Ferrara, a city that has been a symbol of exciting architectural homogeneity for centuries.
Marianne Burkhalter
Chairperson
Thomas Herzog
President Emeritus
Jury
Thomas Herzog – Germany | Marianne Burkhalter – Switzerland | Vladimír Šlapeta – Czech Republic | Román Cordero – Mexico | Luca Rossato - Italy
