Public v Experts
We've had quite a few emails and comments that two of the final three shortlisted entries are not actual buildings so thought we should give a general responce.
While the main set out of the competition was to design two types of housing - the brief did allow for people to submit their own unique solutions to the problem if they so wished and the judges were given the discretion to choose one of these if they preferred.
Obviously that wasn't the original intent of the project and these types of entry were intended to allow the debate to become more wide ranging but we were very happy to see other kinds of soloution.
Indeed there was a lot of discussion amongst the judges about this and they all agreed initially that they wanted an actual building to be the winner - the results however are what they finally agreed upon.
It is interesting to note that the public vote (to the right) completely disagrees with the "experts" decision and I am intrigued to see who the eventual winner is in public's eyes so we will count the vote at midnight on Monday and see who is the people's champion.
Labels: News
posted by Alburt at 2:32 AM
14 Comments:
public vote = blatantly fixed. to annouce a winner would be to congratulate the biggest cheater!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? really? is this really going to happen?
Don't worry, as we said when we set up the voting, its just for fun. The expert vote is the only one that counts.
There is no real prize for the public vote and we're looking at it purely out of curiousity.
For interest sakes only we will tally the votes on Monday night and see who the "public" vote for.
I can say though, that so far, the votes have reasonably reflected the comments and emails we've recieved.
I really think that you have actually pulled off a scam, had there been fair judging based on the criteria of what should have been a building. These winners you have picked do not match the criteria from the brief saying to design a building for a specific MP. These do not revile a complete solution, for Mass-Housing solution. I could understand had you picked a solution that is visible by a completed building design.
I agrre!
I think the recepts or prices that were presented had an overall effect on the winners.
"The Winners Collective Architecture thankfully asked for a small prize - the cost of presenting their entries to Parliament. Thankfully for our purse strings the people who asked for flights to OZ didn't win."
I think there should be another judging panel of different judges. This judging panels would judge strictly on the guidelines in the brief. This second round of judging will exclude any prices rewarded to the entry Meaning no prices for the winners. The solution winning solution should be a solution that the MP's can see in a complete form, not just an incomplete idea or solution.
I can see where there could be alittle confusion in the brief, but it states to design a building, then a solution, which if you read sugested a building.
Type 1: The Constituency Home
This is a home located in each constituency that works like a Church Manse. When an MP is
elected they are given this home to live in rent free. It remains the property of the tax payer
and once an MP is unelected, they simply move out. MP's can choose to live elsewhere if
they so wish but that is at their own expense.
Exactly how this home looks, what its function is and how it is designed is where you come in.
Maybe it could be some kind of modernist multi-functional office/ surgery and family home or
maybe it could be a palatial mansion house with duck islands, moats and servants wings or
maybe its just a shop doorway and a cardboard box. Any and all ideas are welcome.
You can choose to design a building for a specific MP or a specific Constituency or you can
choose to design a standard building which could be used in every region of the country.
Type 2: The Westminster Home
This will be a solution to mass housing all the ministers when they are actually on duty at
Westminster. MP's can choose to stay elsewhere if they wish but that is at their own expense.
Again this is where we need the creative minds to step in and propose how this could function
and how it will look. Maybe, it could be a giant hotel, pod accommodation, an army barracks
deep under Westminster or a cruise ship moored on the Thames. Again any and all ideas, no
matter how unorthodox, are welcome.
We encourage designs for either or both, for full submission.
All valid entries from eligible participants will be submitted to the jury for selection. A valid
entry is one that matches all the technical and content requirements and has been submitted
via the Hinfo@commonofhouses.co.ukH email. Designs not matching these criteria might be
excluded from the competition, at the discretion of the jury.
I do agree that the MP's would more likly to see a building then a solution that is not complete. I think a solution that doesn't have a complete visual product, such as a building is not a complete solution or design for the MP's of England. A written idea or solution is fine, but what is the outcome of the design visually?
I have reviewed the entries as a person who didn't enter. I was looking at the AJ Magizine online and wanted to review all the entries, and make my own conclusion. I see by reading the comments on the compitetion site that there was alittle confusion. Hope thing work out for all the persons who enter.
I knew when the judges selected a non-building winner there was going to be trouble.
As I've said elsewhere, it was my original intent to have a building solution at the end but the aim of the comp was really just to get people thinking about the problem in new ways. I didn't want to block any better ideas than my two home types solution so I allowed the brief to be loose enough to accept any and all ideas, at the judges discretion. To be honest I really thought the judges would have gone for one of the building proposals anyways but as it turned out the judges really liked two of the none building entries.
The Judging process worked by each Judge reading through all the entries and then choosing their favourite few and then they compared to see where the overlaps were. They then had a big chat about it all and then decided on their winners.
In reply to Professor Savannah - thats a bit of a harsh acusation. Believe me it was totally anonymous which made tons more work for me. I was the only person who knew who all the entries were by and what prizes each had selected and as I didn't take an active part in the judging and I had no vote there was no way to influence the outcome.
Anyways it makes no difference which prize won as the budget for the prizes was set from the start. No matter who won or what prize they had chosen to win the total cost for the "representation" of their prize would have been exactly the same, no matter if they had chosen to win a bag of marbles or a trip to the moon, it going to cost me the same amount.
I should probably also have said above that I'd have been happy with nearly any of the entries being chosen as the winner. They were all of a very high quality and all should have been commended. The judges found it very hard to just narrow it down to three and there were almost nine finalists at one point.
Sorry, If it seemed to be a harsh acusation, this is not my intention. I just thought that the Brief could have been alittle more clear, maybe this would have made the judges job alittle easier. Also, I was just replying to the comment posted that said, "Thankfully for our purse strings the people who asked for flights to OZ didn't win." I quess this would rub a few people the wrong way, I wouldn't put this own the site.
@SCAD I think everyone that entered the competition knew that the expense claim prize was a bit of fun. Judging by the claims shown on the site for things like humble pie, a job and a pair of brown boots anyways.
I think the comp folk might have been joking when they wrote about "purse strings". Maybe just uk humour not translating over the pond.
a building isnt always the best answer to an architectural question. just as a peach can not be called a fruit of disrepute.
Reply to Anonymous (Sept 2 6.46am) - The late great Cedric Price would agree. The solution to an architectural problem is not always a building.
For example the famous anecdote in which he supposedly went to a clients house for dinner to discuss proposals for a new extension. At the end of the night he advised the couple that an extension was not the solution to their lack of personal space and unhappiness - what they really needed was a divorce.
Mr Price would have come up with a great entry for this comp - have a google for his "pop-up parliment" and check out his ideas for a supermarket of democracy.
I don't know about anyone else but I entered the competition as a chance to explore ideas and start a conversation about the issues relating to second home allowances - not to win a prize.
I thought it was very clear, there is a brief but, it's a competition aimed at having fun. The idea is what should win, and the idea should go beyond the brief and challenge the preconceptions of the subject matter.
What it mentions in the submission forms, is that some ideas may need development or help to become a complete and presentable idea. It was clear that some people may enter with a fantastic idea, but may not come from an architectural or design background - which would help them to present their ideas. I have not seen an entry of this kind, the standard has been so high - but it seemed obvious that they were open to ideas at all levels of ability.
I am pleased that this competition has started such a discourse, but perhaps there could be a little less resentment from some of the entrants.
We all will be part of an exhibition - so we all won acknowledgement for our ideas and efforts. Not many competitions are so inclusive or open minded.
Jeez, just reading back through the site and found all these comments. I entered the comp and didn't find it confusing at all. We were told what the prob was and asked to solve it creatively. The result could have been anything - mine was a building but I'm not upset to have lost. I thought it was a fun experience and I'm glad to have been part of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home