Can they just make this an open call competition? I just saw the finalists for 2012 and can't help but notice a trend. There have been an unhealthy dose of Harvard GSD-affiliated finalists over the last few years, some that have had little to no work/recognition. Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee. Here are just a few that I spotted:
2012:
IK Studio - Mariana Ibanez has been a GSD core studio critic for years.
Cameron Wu - Another core studio critic who doesn't have his own office, never built anything, and will most likely design a hyper-rationalized projective geometry Scott Cohen replica.
2011:
Interboro - Daniel D'Oca was teaching a GSD options studio at the time and is currently an urban planning core critic.
MASS Design Group: Actual students from the GSD.
IJP - George Legendre teaches a GSD options studio every spring on how to make pristine white waffles.
2010:
So-Il - Florian is a regular core studio critic.
BIG - Kind of a stretch, but Bjarke did have an options studio in the fall.
2009:
MOS - Meredith was a regular core critic for many years.
!ndie Architecture - Paul Anderson was a core critic at the time and taught pattern-making.
"Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee."
I'm certain the selection committee is perfectly capable of influencing their own decisions. Look back through the past nominees. Most of them had little or no external work/recognition at the time (it's kind of what PS1 is looking for and a huge part of the selection brief).
"Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee."
You should really take a look at the interviews with some of the finalists and winners from the PS1 website. Some explain how they were positioned to be nominated.
However, someone on the committee really liked Michael Meredith from MOS. He and his firm were nominated three times (2004, 2007), finally winning in 2009.
i find it interesting that you specifically call out the gsd, but don't mention that two of this year's finalists are professors at upenn (simon kim of ik studio and mathias hollwich of hwkn)
I like this winner. It looks a bit like the moon lander, shaped however the heck it wants to be to do it's function, like a wacky Dr. Suess machine. Nice big scale, too.
Bottom line: GSD gives rise to over-rationalized boring architecture. After swinging with the digital Columbia crowd, PS1 might have decided to be more "serious"
What is happening to PS1?
Can they just make this an open call competition? I just saw the finalists for 2012 and can't help but notice a trend. There have been an unhealthy dose of Harvard GSD-affiliated finalists over the last few years, some that have had little to no work/recognition. Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee. Here are just a few that I spotted:
2012:
IK Studio - Mariana Ibanez has been a GSD core studio critic for years.
Cameron Wu - Another core studio critic who doesn't have his own office, never built anything, and will most likely design a hyper-rationalized projective geometry Scott Cohen replica.
2011:
Interboro - Daniel D'Oca was teaching a GSD options studio at the time and is currently an urban planning core critic.
MASS Design Group: Actual students from the GSD.
IJP - George Legendre teaches a GSD options studio every spring on how to make pristine white waffles.
2010:
So-Il - Florian is a regular core studio critic.
BIG - Kind of a stretch, but Bjarke did have an options studio in the fall.
2009:
MOS - Meredith was a regular core critic for many years.
!ndie Architecture - Paul Anderson was a core critic at the time and taught pattern-making.
Yeah, but this is what happens when you let a lesser, philistine school design such an important project:
"Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee."
I'm certain the selection committee is perfectly capable of influencing their own decisions. Look back through the past nominees. Most of them had little or no external work/recognition at the time (it's kind of what PS1 is looking for and a huge part of the selection brief).
"Somebody at the school is obviously influencing the decisions by the selection committee."
You should really take a look at the interviews with some of the finalists and winners from the PS1 website. Some explain how they were positioned to be nominated.
However, someone on the committee really liked Michael Meredith from MOS. He and his firm were nominated three times (2004, 2007), finally winning in 2009.
as far as i know they stopped making it
i find it interesting that you specifically call out the gsd, but don't mention that two of this year's finalists are professors at upenn (simon kim of ik studio and mathias hollwich of hwkn)
winner: http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/32201
I like this winner. It looks a bit like the moon lander, shaped however the heck it wants to be to do it's function, like a wacky Dr. Suess machine. Nice big scale, too.
Bottom line: GSD gives rise to over-rationalized boring architecture. After swinging with the digital Columbia crowd, PS1 might have decided to be more "serious"