FuturArc Prize 2024 Jury Meeting Special

Deciding on the winners and runners-up of a competition that has brought in hundreds of submissions from around the globe is no small task. We recognise that each entry has been thoughtfully crafted by entrants to express their ideas in various site contexts. Hence, this year’s jurors, Dzung Do Nguyen, Farizan d’Avezac de Moran and Dr Tony Ip have been selected to represent different ‘spheres’ of practice within the built environment, from architecture/engineering, city planning and conceptual design to strategic partnerships, policy advocacy and bio-engineering.

Throughout the years of organising FuturArc Prize, we have received questions from hopeful entrants such as: what sort of entries are preferred—the practical or the conceptual? What presentation technique is best? Which criterion or issue matters more during the judging? There is no truly singular answer to these questions, as jurors for each cycle will evaluate the entries against the year’s specific theme and their own judgement.

Here, we offer a peek behind the doors of the jury meeting, where the jurors reached a consensus on the awards. This meeting concluded months of preparation and consideration of the entries, which served to discern and award the best proposals. We hope they can inspire students and practitioners to envision and create a more sustainable world.

WHAT ARE THE JURORS’ GUIDING PHILOSOPHIES IN JUDGING THE ENTRIES?

DDN: First, I really like the topic. It’s broad enough to cover many different areas of design, but also it has a good meaning behind it. When I’m looking for a high-quality entry, I’m looking for both the meaningfulness and the practicality of that solution. Some of the works have ideas that seem like they are impactful, but the proposal itself does not give us the confidence that they understand how to get it done.

Of course, no one knows all the solutions, but at least some are closer to reality.

“Some of the works have ideas that seem like they are impactful, but the proposal itself does not give us the confidence that they understand how to get it done. Of course, no one knows all the solutions, but at least some are closer to reality.“

TI: The judging process is very challenging because there are quite a lot of good proposals here, and actually my judging criteria are similar to what Dzung mentioned.

Practicality is one of the key things because when we look at climate resilience, to really tackle what we want to propose, the entries have to have a certain practicality, so that they can be applicable and adoptable, where people can learn the concepts, and put into effect in real-world cases.

I also look for innovativeness, because we are looking for future solutions, so it should have some innovative ideas. One thing I would like to point out is that I see a lot of sites covering quite a large district in terms of district planning or city planning. Because of the competition’s requirements of filling up a certain number of presentation boards, they have to present all the things together. So, they may not be able to go in depth into certain ideas or cannot single out what are the key innovations, and they seem like just a planning exercise for certain areas. For those, I may not rank them very highly.

One other thing is for the visualisation to be really convincing. Because when we talk about climate resilience, about the ending of ecosystems, how do we perceive the candidates’ impressions to understand what are the changing situations? So, visualisation is important. I also gave good marks if they present the different scenarios in their proposal.

“When we talk about climate resilience, about the ending of ecosystems, how do we perceive the candidates’ impressions to understand what are the changing situations? So, visualisation is important.“

FAM: I hope I am not the odd one out, being an engineer.

I do like the topic that FuturArc proposed, which is Endings. Because it is not common and it’s not something that we think about, apart from when doing crematoriums, etc. (read more in sidebar for an example of an alternative burial typology).

For the entries, I look at cultural integration a lot more, especially when it comes to residential projects, and the external impacts an entry has, apart from the development of the context that they are submitting—and what are the outside ripple effects that are coming in. What are the impacts not just on humans, but also on everything?

A few of the entries have a lot to do with industrial sites, which I’m super keen on. So, my approach is a little bit different from what Dzung and Tony have just mentioned. I also have to say and qualify that some of them I’ve seen and judged before.

“I look at cultural integration a lot more, especially when it comes to residential projects, and the external impacts an entry has, apart from the development of the context that they are submitting—and what are the outside ripple effects that are coming in.“

CL: Very good perspectives that each of you has given. Obviously, when we select jurors, we wanted to bring in a broad range of expertise, applications, knowledge and skill set from the three of you, so that we don’t always look at one side of the story. This brings a good bearing on where the three of you could contribute to the results in a way.

WHAT ARE YOUR OVERALL THOUGHTS ABOUT THE COMPETITION ENTRIES, RESPONDING TO THE THEME OF ARCHITECTURE FOR LIFE AFTER?

DDN: The Architecture for Life After theme is a powerful reminder that endings can be beginnings. While we strive to prevent ending, it’s crucial to plan for rebuilding and reusing. The competition entries truly showcased this spirit. I was struck by the immense variety of “afters” envisioned, from post-disaster scenarios to entirely new realities. The focus on life after climate destruction is understandable given the vulnerability of many Asian countries, the competitor pool’s likely origin. This challenge highlights the need for innovative and adaptable architectural solutions for a future we can all hope to avoid, but must also be prepared for.

FAM: The entries are of high quality and most are comprehensive. A lot of thought and effort are being put into them with a sound research process. The theme is challenging and resonates very well with current and potential future situations.

DTI: I was deeply intrigued by the competition entries for Architecture for Life After. They offered a captivating and diverse array of ideas and presentations. Some designs explored the realm of imagination and surrealism, pushing the boundaries of conventional architecture. Others took a pragmatic approach, pinpointing and addressing specific local issues. This wide spectrum of concepts showcased the richness of creativity and innovation within the architectural community. It highlighted our capacity to envision bold and groundbreaking future possibilities, as well as the importance of addressing real-world challenges.

[This is an excerpt. Subscribe to the digital edition or hardcopy to read the complete article.]

Related: FuturArc Prize 2024 Winners & Merits

FuturArc Prize 2024: Architecture for Life After

The following Main Feature presents FuturArc Prize (FAP) 2024 winning and merit entries, as well as the awardees. The 2024 cycle’s theme Architecture for Life After required entrants to propose architectural solutions within Asia for the continuation of life after either one or both of the following scenarios: Climate Destruction and/or Endings. Climate Destruction scenarios entail any significant climate-related disasters triggered by hydrometeorological or climatological causes, including floods, storms, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, etc. Endings scenarios refer to the end of lifespans—be it of humans, non-human species or ecosystems, such as forests, coral reefs, drylands, etc. Click here for highlights […]

Read more stories from FuturArc 3Q 2024 Green Awards: Architecture for Life After!