It's that time of year again - the early blooms are popping, your school didn't make the NCAA tournament (again- or maybe they did. again.)
And the Pritzker Prize will be announced next Monday (the 15th). So, let's all pull up a chair to the bar, pour a pint (or shot, or glass. whatever you fancy) and let's pick this year's winner(s)!.
I'll make the case that Steven Holl is still the BANP (best architect to never win the pritzker). I can't see him winning this year though. Sadly, he seems to be forever a bridesmaid for this award.
The contenders (IMHO - got to start somewhere):
Adjaye
Chipperfield
Holl
Kuma
Williams Tsien
Gang
Diller+Scofidio (sans Renfro or Gilmartin)
Radic
Jain
Neri+Hu
Safdie
John and Patricia Patkau
The 'your time will come. just not today' pack:
Bilbao
Fujimoto
Escobedo
Shim Sutcliffe
Bjarke
Kere
Ma Yansong
My final vote, based on this year's jury, is going to go to Williams Tsien. It's been 17 years since an American won (and there's only been 2 in the last 30!). The American's are due. From that bunch, the only ones who could challenge are DS+R. Gang will be seen as having another shot; Holl seems to have pissed someone off.
Josh - I also wonder how some of these interpersonal relationships go, between members of the jury and nominees. I could argue he should have won 10 years ago, long before the library. The jury certainly seems to have shied away from the 'traditional starchitect' profile for more than a decade. Which, if you're going contrarian, says this is a year to pick a Holl, Chipperfield, Adjaye, Kuma type.
I'll make my pick for John and Patricia Patkau. Loved looking at photos of their work, the physical models in particular, in school and trying to glean what I could from them. Would love to see them recognized with the award.
Nice to see the Canadian shout-outs here; I think both are good options and it would be nice to see the homeland get its first prize.
I feel like Adjaye's trajectory and recent work (within 5 years) make him a great choice this year. Oddly enough, i've had my first passes by the Sugar Hill building in Harlem recently, and..... I guess I'm a bit surprised it has been so hyped up in the media over the years. The material is not aging well.
It would be much more interesting to guess what the criteria are now. Used to be the lone genius toiling within his/her broiling mind was the way to win. Before that it was about lifetime achievement and contribution (I guess...) The last few winners have mostly been singled out for being so very much in sync with our times, architects who work out ways to be brilliant for the under-represented, and who make architecture for the collective in innovative ways that have been absent since early modernists roamed the Earth.
What is it now? Isozaki won in 2019 and he is definitely one of the most idiosyncratic architects out there, a lone genius and a poet, not unlike Stephen Holl.
So maybe Holl could win.
My bet/guess is that they are looking for social good this year, but also for innovation. Adjaye (for the content of the buildings) and Kuma (for the way he is trying to make buildings human scaled) or Jeanne Gang could win in that case.
I don't give a s***. Imo it is not the Nobel Prize of Architecture. If it was:
1. _ _ or _ _ or _ _ would have been awarded it.
2. _ _ or _ _ would not have been awarded it.
3. _ _ or _ _ would never be considered for it.
If the committee wants to change the direction of the profession:
1. awarded it to an invisible architect.(someone who works behind the scenes raising the quality of the built environment doing seemingly mundane things like neighborhood guidelines)
2. refusing to consider anyone who builds for repressive social political systems.
3. refusing to consider anyone or project built with slave labor or unpaid internships.
4. not award it every year unless someone deserves it.
Congrats! Assuming it was a fair guess (not from a leaked embargo), send us an email with your mailing info. Our next roasting is on Monday, so we'll ship out your beans then!
He fits the criteria I imagined at least, except I thought he was still too small yet to be on the list.
Very happy news. It signifies a clear doubling down on the direction for what kind of innovation in architecture is imagined as worthy of reward. Hopefully this continues for awhile.
Doesnt bode well for Stephen Holl. Much as I admire Holl's work this shift towards meaning and purpose and addressing subjects outside of the normal scope of architecture is brilliant. It also chimes with the mood of our time for a change.
Having visited a few Holl buildings recently, I think the firm's work isn't good enough for a Pritzker at this point. The art school he did in Houston is especially problematic.
Mar 15, 22 5:41 pm ·
·
RJ87
I'm surprised how little built work Kere has though, considering that's all the Pritzker is supposed to take into account. I tend to glaze over anything that is conceptual.
Aravena and Wang Shu's oeuvres were pretty thin too when they won - Aravena's main claim to fame was his government-subsidized half houses (plus him serving on the Pritzker jury) while Wang Shu's philosophy was more successful than his actual built work. Both won more for what they stood for rather than the quality of their work.
Holl's time has gone - his firm is producing work of uneven quality these days, relying on tried and tested tropes now emblematic of the firm's visual style, with Holl's principals handling most of the design.
I agree on that point. Of the Big 4, the Pritzker seems to assigned less emphasis on the breadth of work in what it considers "consistent and significant contributions to humanity".
The AIA and RIBA Gold Medals and Praemium Imperiale are more lifetime achievement awards.
I think Wang and Kere were more deserving winners than Aravena, whose award seemed a result of good PR and connections.
All in all though, it's still weird to give one man or woman a prize for the work their practices produce.
There is some disconnect when we consider that architecture is a team project for sure, yet it is impossible to deny that without the leadership of the person who built the firm - who also built the firm culture, and who gets the jobs, sets the tone, decides what to go with and what to let fall on the cutting room floor - is so easily trivialized. To the point that we might even question if they deserve to win a prize like this. It doesn't make sense to me. A few years ago I saw a project by a starchitect done in collaboration with a colleague and it was really brilliant. A bit after that I got to see the work of that colleague working on their own and the outcome was frankly not good. It mattered that the starchitect was there on the other project and I think that is generally true with great work. Not to say the staff of an office doesn't matter, but the staff is often impermanent, always changing. It is the person(s) with their name on the door that is keeping the course over years and decades. So why not recognize them for setting that course? If they are assholes and dont give credit to the people who helped them get their is a different conversation...
2022 Pritzker Prize betting pool
It's that time of year again - the early blooms are popping, your school didn't make the NCAA tournament (again- or maybe they did. again.)
And the Pritzker Prize will be announced next Monday (the 15th). So, let's all pull up a chair to the bar, pour a pint (or shot, or glass. whatever you fancy) and let's pick this year's winner(s)!.
I'll make the case that Steven Holl is still the BANP (best architect to never win the pritzker). I can't see him winning this year though. Sadly, he seems to be forever a bridesmaid for this award.
The contenders (IMHO - got to start somewhere):
Adjaye
Chipperfield
Holl
Kuma
Williams Tsien
Gang
Diller+Scofidio (sans Renfro or Gilmartin)
Radic
Jain
Neri+Hu
Safdie
John and Patricia Patkau
The 'your time will come. just not today' pack:
Bilbao
Fujimoto
Escobedo
Shim Sutcliffe
Bjarke
Kere
Ma Yansong
My final vote, based on this year's jury, is going to go to Williams Tsien. It's been 17 years since an American won (and there's only been 2 in the last 30!). The American's are due. From that bunch, the only ones who could challenge are DS+R. Gang will be seen as having another shot; Holl seems to have pissed someone off.
Thoughts???
Upping the ante here... 5lbs of Brutal coffee beans for anyone who picks the 2022 Pritzker selection
* Multiple winners split 5lbs
I say give it to the architect, everyone is ripping off, Ken Yeang.
Safdie's moustache.
it's going to be someone w/ social responsibility credentials again
How does that make you feel?
i'll be fine no matter who they select, but, thanks for asking, it's good to know there are folks out there who care :)
Adjaye
It isn't Holl's year. I'm a fanboy but they really screwed up with the non-accessible library.
Josh - I also wonder how some of these interpersonal relationships go, between members of the jury and nominees. I could argue he should have won 10 years ago, long before the library. The jury certainly seems to have shied away from the 'traditional starchitect' profile for more than a decade. Which, if you're going contrarian, says this is a year to pick a Holl, Chipperfield, Adjaye, Kuma type.
It’s not a question of if Holl deserves it - he does. I think the library is too fresh in peoples’ minds to be this year.
I'll make my pick for John and Patricia Patkau. Loved looking at photos of their work, the physical models in particular, in school and trying to glean what I could from them. Would love to see them recognized with the award.
Safdie
Hey, that coffee is mine!
If the mustache is mentioned, you get the lot. If not, I take my fair share.
It’s nice to see you Gregory!
As for the prize? I have no idea. Not Holl, tho. I think he deserves it but it won’t be this year.
Donna!
Olgiati?
I think a lot of the previous names mentioned have too much commercial success at this point. 100+ person offices don't win the Pritzker...
But also Olgiati does not have the social lilt they are usually looking for...
Maybe a woman? Tatiana?
I'm going to place a bet for Bjarke before someone else does!
Nice to see the Canadian shout-outs here; I think both are good options and it would be nice to see the homeland get its first prize.
I feel like Adjaye's trajectory and recent work (within 5 years) make him a great choice this year. Oddly enough, i've had my first passes by the Sugar Hill building in Harlem recently, and..... I guess I'm a bit surprised it has been so hyped up in the media over the years. The material is not aging well.
Kuma or Safdie would be my backup/hedge picks...
I win. It's about time.
Over rated.
Throwing in a last minute hail mary for Thomas Phifer. Why not.
it is impossible to guess.
It would be much more interesting to guess what the criteria are now. Used to be the lone genius toiling within his/her broiling mind was the way to win. Before that it was about lifetime achievement and contribution (I guess...) The last few winners have mostly been singled out for being so very much in sync with our times, architects who work out ways to be brilliant for the under-represented, and who make architecture for the collective in innovative ways that have been absent since early modernists roamed the Earth.
What is it now? Isozaki won in 2019 and he is definitely one of the most idiosyncratic architects out there, a lone genius and a poet, not unlike Stephen Holl.
So maybe Holl could win.
My bet/guess is that they are looking for social good this year, but also for innovation. Adjaye (for the content of the buildings) and Kuma (for the way he is trying to make buildings human scaled) or Jeanne Gang could win in that case.
bump - get your predictions in by 10am tomorrow...
I don't give a s***. Imo it is not the Nobel Prize of Architecture. If it was:
1. _ _ or _ _ or _ _ would have been awarded it.
2. _ _ or _ _ would not have been awarded it.
3. _ _ or _ _ would never be considered for it.
If the committee wants to change the direction of the profession:
1. awarded it to an invisible architect.(someone who works behind the scenes raising the quality of the built environment doing seemingly mundane things like neighborhood guidelines)
2. refusing to consider anyone who builds for repressive social political systems.
3. refusing to consider anyone or project built with slave labor or unpaid internships.
4. not award it every year unless someone deserves it.
5. make posthumous awards.
My 2¢
I've never picked correctly any year, but I'm getting my guess in at the last minute because I really, really like coffee: Francis Kéré.
oooh I like that. You might walk away with the beans after all.
Oh yeah! Looking forward to those beans @archinect
Congrats! Assuming it was a fair guess (not from a leaked embargo), send us an email with your mailing info. Our next roasting is on Monday, so we'll ship out your beans then!
No, I wasn't on the VIP press list this year. It was a legit fair guess. Email coming up later today. Thx!
Kéré for the win!
He fits the criteria I imagined at least, except I thought he was still too small yet to be on the list.
Very happy news. It signifies a clear doubling down on the direction for what kind of innovation in architecture is imagined as worthy of reward. Hopefully this continues for awhile.
Agree - can't see too many conventional 'superstars' winning anytime soon.
I have to admit I was not aware of him before today. I will read beyond the Pritzker articles to learn more.
Doesnt bode well for Stephen Holl. Much as I admire Holl's work this shift towards meaning and purpose and addressing subjects outside of the normal scope of architecture is brilliant. It also chimes with the mood of our time for a change.
Having visited a few Holl buildings recently, I think the firm's work isn't good enough for a Pritzker at this point. The art school he did in Houston is especially problematic.
I'm surprised how little built work Kere has though, considering that's all the Pritzker is supposed to take into account. I tend to glaze over anything that is conceptual.
Aravena and Wang Shu's oeuvres were pretty thin too when they won - Aravena's main claim to fame was his government-subsidized half houses (plus him serving on the Pritzker jury) while Wang Shu's philosophy was more successful than his actual built work. Both won more for what they stood for rather than the quality of their work.
Holl's time has gone - his firm is producing work of uneven quality these days, relying on tried and tested tropes now emblematic of the firm's visual style, with Holl's principals handling most of the design.
I guess that's where the committee & I differ I suppose. In my mind what you stand for matters less than what you've actually done.
I agree on that point. Of the Big 4, the Pritzker seems to assigned less emphasis on the breadth of work in what it considers "consistent and significant contributions to humanity". The AIA and RIBA Gold Medals and Praemium Imperiale are more lifetime achievement awards.
I think Wang and Kere were more deserving winners than Aravena, whose award seemed a result of good PR and connections.
All in all though, it's still weird to give one man or woman a prize for the work their practices produce.
There is some disconnect when we consider that architecture is a team project for sure, yet it is impossible to deny that without the leadership of the person who built the firm - who also built the firm culture, and who gets the jobs, sets the tone, decides what to go with and what to let fall on the cutting room floor - is so easily trivialized. To the point that we might even question if they deserve to win a prize like this. It doesn't make sense to me. A few years ago I saw a project by a starchitect done in collaboration with a colleague and it was really brilliant. A bit after that I got to see the work of that colleague working on their own and the outcome was frankly not good. It mattered that the starchitect was there on the other project and I think that is generally true with great work. Not to say the staff of an office doesn't matter, but the staff is often impermanent, always changing. It is the person(s) with their name on the door that is keeping the course over years and decades. So why not recognize them for setting that course? If they are assholes and dont give credit to the people who helped them get their is a different conversation...
Agreed, leadership really is a thing…
people really still care about the pritzker?
The $100k prize money is barely enough to buy a decent new luxury car nowadays!
Love the non-starchitect direction the Pritzker is going in now...
True to their word, Archinect delivered some Brutal beans to my doorstep. Thanks guys!
Enjoy!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.