I'm volunteered to be part of AIA Award committee this year for local chapter. It was a great experience. We got to review all the submittals with the juries and visited a few selected buildings. I was a bit shocked how quick the decision got to make, less than a day to review all the submittals and visit a few ones that close by, and when the owner is cooperative. I become to doubt how accurate these selections can be. Also it is almost impossible to compare a huge scale institutional building with a small custom house. Another thing is it mostly the few firms who always got the award that got selected. I wonder if there should be an award to the "New comer" like for the movie you have the most promising actress award, something like that. Another thing is I'm surprised by the lack of interests towards the award among the architect community. The ticket sell is not really good so far. And I asked around the office and friends, seems no one is really interested to go.
I really think we can make the event more interesting and relevant to the architects. It should follow the model of Oscar award, the nominee got preview and the winner got to do a short speech. And add more categories, so everyone has the chance to get something, not just the few big names. What is your thought on this?
Reason, are you referring to tonight's AIA Seattle Awards? If so, here are my thoughts:
The invited out-of-town jury sucks this year. No big, recognizable names and all three come from commercial/institutional focused practices. On the surface, it doesn't seem like the jury is properly suited for the pool of submissions that is heavily dominated by residential projects. Maybe the local AIA is trying to steer the focus away from custom residential projects (read: expensive homes for rich people) to more socially conscious, and responsible public projects.
Rather than selecting the best architecture that happens to be in Seattle, the out-of-town jury seems to always subconsciously think that they have to award the best "northwest" architecture. They in turn, subscribe to their preconcieved notions of what a good "northwest" building is. Therefore, the Cutlers, BCJs, Miller+Hulls, etc. always hold the advantage because they work in that "northwest" vernacular. Makes me want to throw up.
DML, yes it's Seattle. I agreed I never heard about the juries before. I have to looked up on internet to find out who they are. I remember two years ago, at least I saw some of their work before. I guess if Ando or Zumthor is here, it will be a different story.
Are you going to the AIA award meeting
I'm volunteered to be part of AIA Award committee this year for local chapter. It was a great experience. We got to review all the submittals with the juries and visited a few selected buildings. I was a bit shocked how quick the decision got to make, less than a day to review all the submittals and visit a few ones that close by, and when the owner is cooperative. I become to doubt how accurate these selections can be. Also it is almost impossible to compare a huge scale institutional building with a small custom house. Another thing is it mostly the few firms who always got the award that got selected. I wonder if there should be an award to the "New comer" like for the movie you have the most promising actress award, something like that. Another thing is I'm surprised by the lack of interests towards the award among the architect community. The ticket sell is not really good so far. And I asked around the office and friends, seems no one is really interested to go.
I really think we can make the event more interesting and relevant to the architects. It should follow the model of Oscar award, the nominee got preview and the winner got to do a short speech. And add more categories, so everyone has the chance to get something, not just the few big names. What is your thought on this?
Reason, are you referring to tonight's AIA Seattle Awards? If so, here are my thoughts:
The invited out-of-town jury sucks this year. No big, recognizable names and all three come from commercial/institutional focused practices. On the surface, it doesn't seem like the jury is properly suited for the pool of submissions that is heavily dominated by residential projects. Maybe the local AIA is trying to steer the focus away from custom residential projects (read: expensive homes for rich people) to more socially conscious, and responsible public projects.
Rather than selecting the best architecture that happens to be in Seattle, the out-of-town jury seems to always subconsciously think that they have to award the best "northwest" architecture. They in turn, subscribe to their preconcieved notions of what a good "northwest" building is. Therefore, the Cutlers, BCJs, Miller+Hulls, etc. always hold the advantage because they work in that "northwest" vernacular. Makes me want to throw up.
DML, yes it's Seattle. I agreed I never heard about the juries before. I have to looked up on internet to find out who they are. I remember two years ago, at least I saw some of their work before. I guess if Ando or Zumthor is here, it will be a different story.
C. Ives
not only am i going, im gonna run the freakin table!!!
only problem will be finding the space for them...
vado retro - your post make me pee my pants
"awards are merely badges of mediocrity"
C. Ives
...especially true when it comes to AIA awards. A reflection of the state of our noble profession.
be sure to wear your lapel pin
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.