You beat me to it, I think and hope Adjaye gets it this year

Last minute defending-my-crown guess: Marina Tabassum

He'll never get it at this point. The committee has moved on.

I thought Safdie got it?! I’m out of it.

Safdie's moustache is still winless...

Right, he recently won the AIA Gold Star or something.

... really? i thought their hype-train came to slow end over the last decade, and their portfolio of work is way too small.. if any CND office was going to win it would be Patkau / BML ?

Bench, I trust you're referring to the phone number and not Safdie's moustache. Yes, def not as big as Patkau but I still think there is more interesting social work done by phone number firm that could get them the nod... unlikely, but if I'm right, I'll look like a fucking genius! A genius with coffee too!

Ha, i've never heard them called phone number before. we always said Barcode.

I genuinely think Patkau's should be in the conversation, but they are overshadowed by Safdie for CND architects ....

I'd honestly like to see more international attention to Omar Gandhi but 90% of his work is high-end residential.

That would be a bold pick, considering he's very much from the mold/office of BML - (full disclosure, I studied under both back in the day). Hes starting to get more smaller commercial commissions, which bodes well for the trajectory.

really nice work by Gandhi, and you said "but his work is mostly high end residential", why is that a disqualification for this prize? I think I know the answer and want to see what others think.

JLC, his work is mostly residential and mostly limited to Canadian maritime locations. That's my reasoning but I realize that may not matter.

OG is one of few contemporary architects who inspire me. I don't give a shit about prizes but I think he deserves one for being good at what he does.

If 546 gets it, I'll quit architecture.

^was waiting for someone in their backyard to chime in.

Herzog & de Meuron got theirs in 2001

Ah, they got it back when their work was still good. Makes sense.

i’m curious to know why you think theis

*their current works are not good?

The Elbphilharmonie is terrible. I know people like it but it gives me the creeps aesthetically AND failed acoustically. They are much better at small scale.

Aesthetic quality is subjective. And I’m sure if this building fails to perform, acoustically there would be a lawsuit against HdM already? I visited the place before and after the build and the transformation is excellent… the facade detail is nice. Not the best HdM works / not the worst either imho.

This would be pretty funny given recent events.

I'd personally hate Ma getting it.......... Could go for Adjaye if you are asking me...but it'll be TOO easy a guess....hmmm

It's not like they would have won it anyways :/

Mass Design maybe ... they've done tremendous work in Rwanda and now in the US.

Maybe in the next few years, I'm sure a lot of high-profile architects will be taking on projects in that region in the aftermath of the earthquakes.

Love Mori, I feel like she's one great project away from being in the conversation

Oops!

right?

I find their work a bit fussy at times. There are great moments in most of their buildings, but there's always a surfeit of detailing or unresolved complexity here and there. Like you said, the sum of the parts don't really add up.

Their Canadian alter ego, Shim-Sutcliffe, is similar.

smiljan

John + Patricia Patkau* you mean

Patkau's are a studio.

Chipperfield lol. A master of his craft.

Didn't even know this guy, his firm, or his buildings existed until seeing the headline on this site.

not going to claim I "picked" chipperfield. Obviously it was not a surprise choice anyway. 

He's very well known in the UK, in the same vein as Foster / Piano

I didn't say Chipperfield wasn't well known, just that I didn't know of him. Same as Foster / Piano - never heard of 'em.

I don't keep up with many architects / firms.  

You havent heard of norman foster ... ? not entirely i believe that ...

Nope. I know who Norman Foster is.  I may have seen some of his / his firms work but it's not like I'd see said work and know who did it.  

Really? Piano too? You never came across Pompidou in history class? Surprised that Chipperfield won, but he is in the news enough - even in the USA - that I am surprised he is not known broadly. Nice work. Minimal-ish master. Good looking details. Former employer of David Adjaye (hence the similarity in their work if looked at from the right angle). etc

him, holl, safdie - there's a list you could argue fall into this category.

The equivalents of Phillip Roth and Don Delillo when it comes to the Nobel Prize for Literature

Well I not only did I not pick any architect I wasn't aware any of them prior to this post (not proud of that). By your logic I'd think I'd be the winner. ;)

Cool, we split a pot?

Sure! Actually you can have can have all of mine. I don't drink coffee. ::hides under desk::

Philistine.

I am an abomination.  Never learned to like it and I don't give into peer pressure.

Under a Tiny D administration, all non-coffee drinkers will be coffee boarded.

Meh, been water-boarded - as long as the coffee isn't hot I think I'd be fine.

I say they split up the beans evenly between all of those who have commented thus far. Everyone's a winner?!?

Ohhhhh. When should I expect a suspicious white envelop with my handful of beans?

@archinect is located in LA, they can just brew a pot and I'll come get a cup for my part :)

There's a tension between pushing for long term progress and rewarding design excellence that I find disquieting at times. Case in point is awarding a major prize to a well-intentioned architect/firm whose portfolio may not be up to par with his or her predecessors in terms of technical excellence, design quality, and even depth of the oeuvre. Amateur and Elemental were 2 examples. On the one hand, they

Kate Wagner is a snobby elitist. I find it quite revealing how she equates Kere with “activism” and Chipperfield with design excellence. Kere is easily as talented in terms of pure material architecture regardless of the economics of its recipients. Her analysis perpetrates an unnecessary dichotomy between the architectural stature in the developed (major league) vs developing (minor league) countries. Architecture is not about activism. If it’s made to be about activism it will lose its depth. Architecture is also not about high-end materials and expensive locations. By separating architecture into these 2 schools, each will be shallower than if we simply judge architecture by what architecture is, and award prizes for design excellence whenever excellence arises.

I also despise this gross and racist idea that creator is greater in importance than creation. The emphasis on the features of the maker rather than the features of the thing that they make. The prize should be completely and only about architecture, not trying to collect the whole set of identities and put them on display like a collection of pinned butterflies.

The fact that the Pritzker is awarded to a person instead of a building is, by definition, making the statement that the creator is greater in importance than the creation. So, once you've conceded that why not acknowledge additional elements about the creator that make them worthy of the honor?

Because that’s what we used to call racism, but now it’s ok I guess to judge people based on trivial immutable characteristics. The prize is given to the creator, based upon the quality of their creations. If you were Francis Kere, would you feel empowered by her opinion piece, or would you feel that it minimizes your accomplishment?

Acknowledging a legacy of racism and the ripples it created in its wake is, in fact, not racism.

Meh, I just despise racism and zelophobia. I really don't care about the Pritzker but I do enjoy the architecture.

You are right on the diagnosis and wrong on the prognosis

I dunno x-jla - I'd agree with tduds.  I mean you acknowledge socialism, communism, fascism,  natizim and the ripples it created in their wakes you don't think yourself any of those things when you talk about it.  

In the piece, she says, of Kere: he is "renowned for his focus on sustainability, vernacular construction techniques, and locally sourced materials, all of which examines the project of architecture in places and times of scarcity." and that he typifies "an architecture that elevated everyday life and challenged elitist ideals." and yeah, I don't think I'd be upset by that if I were him.

The power of Jesse Owens was that he ran on the same track with the same rules. If he ran on a different track, or was given a handicap, he wouldn’t have had the same impact.

Except he was given a racial handicap. Also why bring up Owens when discussing the Pritzker ?

It’s called an analogy

Who was given a handicap?

Tduds, my point is that the article try’s to divide architecture into two camps. Architecture of the developed world, and architecture of the developing world. What is the benefit of dividing architecture into 2 categories, and why 2? If we can judge modernism and post modernism and brutalism, and etc etc…all within the same prize, why is she compelled to segregate the work of Mr Kere? He is litterally doing what you can call critical regionalism. Is there a budget cutoff? Any judge worth anything should be able to see design excellence whether the material is rammed earth or gold. The problem was that only wealthy nations who produced large expensive structures were appreciated. The solution should be to expand the scope of appreciation within that category, not create splinter categories

*within that category of “great architecture” By creating sub categories, the work becomes subjugated under the same elitist force that kept it out in the first place.

Does that make sense. Not an easy point to articulate

Sounds like x-jla and Eamez are the same person.

I don’t know who that is.

You sound just like him. Or maybe he sound like you. See the link in my post below.

Most people sound like me. I’d say probably 80-90% of the population if you go outside of your echo chamber.

I wouldn't say 80%, but there does seem to be a troubling number of people who agree with the conservative and...shall I say, problematic slant of conservative media surrounding architecture (not even to mention broader culture).

Why is that troubling?

“Chipperfield’s selection marks an end to that decade-long run.” Let’s examine that decade. Ito, Ban, Otto, Arevana,

Pigem, Aranda, Vilalta, Doshi, Isozaki, McNamara, Farrell, Lacaton/Vassal, Kere.

I don’t see anything about Chipperfields work that marks some sort of end to some sort of decade long run. Run of what? They are all very good architects who do a range of different things, but essentially fairly restrained architecture. McNamara /Farrell is probably closest imo to Chipperfield in terms of style.

Except maybe isozaki…he seems to be the outlier.

x-jla wrote 

“Most people sound like me. I’d say probably 80-90% of the population if you go outside of your echo chamber.” 

I would have to disagree and would like to know how you came up with your figures. 

 I live in CO, a ‘purple’ state. The part of the state I live in is overwhelmingly conservative (70% per voting registration). Out of all those conservatives very few sound like you x-jla. Those that do are the ones with blue lives matter and confederate flags on their trucks. 

My friends have a wide range of socio / political / religious views ranging from liberal to conservative and devout to atheist all things in between. We all have differing views on things, and we rarely sound the same. This wasn't a choice.  I simply wanted friends that had a love of the outdoors and treated others with respect and dignity.  The mix of views just happened naturally. 

One final comment; I’d say that if 80-90% of your friends sound like you then you’re the one in an echo chamber.

Kate Wagners piece attempts to critique the prize for not continuing what she saw as some DEI initiative. Her evidence for that seems to be that Kere is a black guy, and a few others were women. She is one of many promoting an evil belief in racial (and gender) essential is

*essentialism

It's hard to know where to start but all I can say is I took a wildly different message away from her article.

If that article was written 20 years ago it would be considered just that by most liberals. There is a huge difference between expanding the competition field by looking to developing countries, and splintering the field into different categories. I’m for the former, ans against the latter. Good thing this is all a figment of wagners imagination, because it’s not obvious that the committee is/was doing that. They seem to be pretty good at picking out exceptional design. What is it about the article that you agree with Chad?

So, what you and her are essentially saying much more closely aligns with the spirit of segregation and right wing thinking than what I’m saying. Open the doors of the country club to all, but don’t create a separate entrance, because that’s quite racist. Is it that the progressive types are tone deaf, stubborn,…?

I never said I agree with the article. I never commented on the article. Where are you getting this idea?

So then what are talking about? You made a comment in the thread assuming that I sound a certain way, but didn’t bother reading the article I’m responding to, so how could you know the context of what I’m saying or “how I sound”.

Anyways, not wasting my time with another - he said she said argument. I’d be happy to discuss the substance of the topic, but I’m not arguing over nonsense. Simply said-I don’t agree with her argument, and it has unnecessary racial undertones. That’s all. If you think differently we can discuss that.

xjla

Your comments here sound a lot like the what the user Eamez wrote in the comments to the Archinect post about the Prisker. No need to have read the article Jovan linked to make that comparison or connection.  No assumptions were made.  Everything was based on what you said in this thread.  

It's not hard to understand this.  

"There is a huge difference between expanding the competition field by looking to developing countries, and splintering the field into different categories." I very much understood her thesis as the former, not the latter. So it's hard to figure out how far back to go to form a response to your reading of it.

I wrote this elsewhere and I think it pretty much sums up my understanding of her point:

I think Kate Wagner brings up an interesting point in that, if nothing else, it's worth having the discussion of what the Pritzker prize means to the world. Whether it's awarded purely on architectural merit, or whether social / political / environmental concerns are taken into account is, I think, a matter of healthy debate and I hope it's a debate that continues to be healthy. I also think she highlights that, whatever one's personal stance on the matter, the Pritzker jury seemed to have taken a stance in the past decade, and Chipperfield's win - however deserved it is - is a definite turn from that previous stance. And it's worthwhile for the architectural community to be talking about that. Hopefully not in a way that overshadows the win, but still it should be part of the conversation.

I don’t disagree that “social / political / environmental concerns” ought to be considered. All constraints, and how they are addressed ought to be considered. What I am saying is that all constraints ARE part of architecture, and social/environmental/economic constraints shouldn’t be treated as some other thing requiring a separate category or special treatment. That kind of defies the whole purpose. we should be able to look at Kere and Chipperfield side by side and compare and contrast the essence of the work without some preconceived agenda that has nothing to do with the essence of the work.

It’s about the spirit of having a blind unbiased jury at the end of the day.

Otherwise is becomes culturally insignificant like the Oscar’s, Grammies, etc. people don’t watch that crap anymore for a reason.

"All constraints, and how they are addressed ought to be considered." and what I'm saying (and what I think Kate's saying) is that architecture is necessarily a game of priorities and compromises. It's not possible to address all constraints equally so one must make choices about what to prioritize and what to... well, "ignore" is not the right word but... you know. I disagree that there's a "segregation" between two things happening here as much as an acknowledgement that there are many dials and only a handful can be turned up at a time. I think it's worth discussion which dials, as it were, the architecture world of the time is looking at most closely. And I think, personally, that Chipperfield has a set of priorities that are not the same as, say, Kere or Lacaton et Vassal. All three make beautiful architecture, but they do it in order to say different things. I don't think it's fair to say one has an agenda and one doesn't, just that their agendas are different.

and irrespective of all that one bit of this that I think is most important and hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread is this: "It also matters for architecture that the prize, which for decades felt like a trivial coronation — the icing on the cake of an architect’s career in the limelight — had reoriented toward boundary-breaking and less traditional practices." 

Ignoring any of the other bits about social or environmental agendas, it's a plain truth (to me at least) that the Pritzker was once seen as more of a lifetime achievement award but lately had pivoted to being something more like a Macarthur Grant, to elevate a groundbreaking but maybe under-recognized practice still in the middle of their architectural life. 

If you look at the winners of the 80s and 90s compared with the winners of the 21st century, there's a clear shift away from architects whose most significant work was done before their win, towards architects whose most significant work was done *after*. That's an interesting thing to note. And, again I think it's a plain truth, that Chipperfield's award is much more in the 'lifetime achievement' camp than the 'mid-career boost' one.

Just to say it once more for emphasis: none of this means that Chipperfield doesn't deserve the award. I think he's incredible. Just that I think it's worth discussing what all of this means in context, because, like you said, the whole context ought to be considered.

^this right here. Kate does a beautiful job of placing this awarding in our current zeitgeist. I'll add this, Jay Pritzker is the current governor of Illinois, and a presumed 2028 candidate for President, if not 2024. Perhaps a stretch, but my cynicism sees some political play toward white, mealy mouthed neo-lib assholes.

It also matters for architecture that the prize, which for decades felt like a trivial coronation — the icing on the cake of an architect’s career in the limelight — had reoriented toward boundary-breaking and less traditional practices. The Pritzker Prize jury had a chance (and perhaps an imperative) to be brave once again.

sure is.

Wow that went sideways real fast

Yup the guy is a racist punter.

Honestly, I don’t understand his gripe

But I will have to read it more later. Just took a brief look.

There's x-jla. How many days, hours, and minutes was that vacation?

Hi Rick.

Wow, what a strange hill to ignorantly construct and then loudly die on…

I know. This Eamez user is factually wrong on 90% of what they posted. It's embarrassing to see them use these lies to try and support their erroneous and false opinions.

I don’t understand it. Mayne is American, Venturi and Brown are Americans. Plenty of American winners. America is also one of many countries, and many of the winners did projects in America and were probably judged by those projects…so I would have to disagree with their analysis

Also that FLW was the creator of the modern movement and because of that American architects the the only ones who can do modersim well.

Did they forget about the Bauhaus?

I guess so?

Chad, FLW was certainly an early influencer but maybe Louis Sullivan being the father of "American" modernism but FLW certainly was a key to the modern movement but even then, not the only one. Granted, Louis's style and even FLW had finer details (later modernists may call decoration) than the later more stark modernism that were influenced by the "European" modernists and their influence in the U.S. (Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, etc.) I kind of like nice clean juxtaposition of the stark finishes with the fine textural character of FLW's work and that of Sullivan's work.

I personally do like the architectural character of "De Stijl"-inspired modern architecture and to an extent, that also was in one of my favorite works of Mies.... the Barcelona Pavillion. Now, with materials like CLTs and SIPs, and other building materials, it can be quite interesting what we can do today with modernism.