project of the year & the emilio ambasz award for green architecture

Introduction

The world of architecture has naturally adopted the Darwinian theory of evolution. Just as changes occur in living organisms, changes in seemingly inanimate architecture are driven by two factors - random mutation and natural selection. In both cases there are two distinguished subtitles: 'microevolution' - minor adaptations occurring within a species, and 'macroevolution' - major changes resulting in the generation of a new species. Adaptations in architecture could, for example, result in a cornice widened for appropriate shading, while major changes could give rise to the creation of a new code of design. In both cases, creative thinking generates "random mutations" - a crucial factor in any evolutionary process.

A new architectural "species" appears only once in a few decades, usually in response to drastic social or technological changes. Thus for instance, In the early 20th century when the classic decorative façade was considered a dispensable luxury for the mass-market affordable building, it was replaced by the linear modernist-compact code, which from then on became associated with clean and economic functionality under the title Form Follows Function. Three decades later, when modernism was conceived as dull and boring, the multifaceted post-modernists' design liberated the building from its obligation to the function, granting the form (especially the mantle) total independence, for better or, in most cases, for worse.

Evidenced in both the function and form levels, the last decade can be seen as an evolutionary leap generating a new architectural species. At its core are two separate yet parallel trends - digitalization and sustainability.  The first is a direct outcome of tremendous technological advancements; the second, a 'penalty' for its unrestrained abuse. Exploiting the computer's advantages to generate sophisticated architectural solutions, digitalization is mostly expressed under the heading Digital Architecture. Sustainability, on the other hand, is most commonly branded as Green Architecture.

Digitalization, however, having brought about enormous changes in the world of communications, poses a serious problem when it comes to architecture. Its greatest advantage is its capacity to process and analyze vast quantities of information at a tremendous speed. This is in direct contrast to the so-far static and massive structure, which contains a relatively small amount of data, unless one endeavors to complicate it.

Contemporary attempts to utilize the digital advantage for functional improvement have emerged as 'performalism' - a sort of hybridization of performance and form. As performalism is still in its infancy, efforts in this field aim at maximizing the correlation between the structure and its performance under certain conditions. However, due to the static nature of buildings, such attempts are mostly focused on the mantle, mainly to improve the interface between a building and its surroundings.

Such experimental efforts have yielded two serious side effects.  The first - a gradual abandonment of the rectangular form in favor of amorphic ones - only complicates the relationship between the mantle and its interior.  The second, and less problematic: the invention of composite building materials necessary to free the structure of conventional dependence on the classic ratio of beams and columns. This has resulted in a new species of one-off structures, usually appearing as UFOs in any context, with or (mostly) without a real justification.

At any rate, complicating the mantle, and, consequently, the entire building, has created too vast a gap between the high-tech product displayed on the computer screen and the actual ability to construct it.

In a situation where the building is perceived as an industrial product manufactured with computer- oriented robotics and GPS technologies, the conventional construction techniques and the unskilled available workforce are compelled to remain out of the game.

Replacing current low-tech systems with high-tech ones is no small challenge, since it conflicts with traditional division of labor, in which building laborers do not wear white collars. Furthermore, replacing conventional building techniques with rather experimental ones involves high costs. And this - with no proof yet that such expenses are justified for any reason other than boosting, usually superfluously, the architect's ego.
Still, there is no doubt that the advantages of digital architecture are to be exploited, provided that the necessary process of enthusiasm is balanced with restraint. When this happens, such advantages may be applicable mainly on the urban level, in which there is much need for real-time information handling, for instance, in traffic management. However, the digital advantage may also be exploited at the single building level by, for example, increasing maintenance efficiency; adjusting capacity according to constantly-changing occupancy; and improving real-time adaptation to climatic changes.

Within this problematic context, performance- oriented digital planning focuses mainly on climate, thus also expressing sustainability.

Unfortunately, the green field, which has taken ownership of sustainability, is strongly motivated by advertising campaigns whose slogans have little if nothing to do with architecture. Important to mention is that even though "green" is supposed to metaphorically symbolize a yearning for the protection of the environment, climate-aware architecture is not necessarily green.

This common error makes architects search for new ways to depict their buildings as green. In reality this often results in unnecessarily burdening a building with more complications in construction and maintenance. Thus, what should be sustainable ends up with green gimmicks, unfortunately contributing nothing to the building's compatibility with its surroundings.

Hence, when digital over-burdening meets green encumbrance, the future does not bode well for the new green-digital species. For in the process of evolution, what makes the difference is natural selection, namely - withstanding the tests of time.

This confusing state of affairs bears most impact on the following two categories - “Student Works” and “Unbuilt Projects”. As for the first, students are expected to study and analyze the context in which their project is planted, but their creative freedom, supported by their tutors' yearning for a creative breakthrough, allows them to cut corners, often producing unfeasible creations.

As for the unbuilt projects presented here - since most projects were indeed intended for building, their feasibility is less questionable, though their compatibility remains unknown.


AI issue 87 is devoted mainly to the projects that reached final stage in the Project of the Year Award - an international competition conjointly held with the European Union for the fourth year - open to architects,  students and researchers from all over the world,

And these are the three winning places in each category

(no project in the Interior Design Category reached finals):

Built structures Category
First place: Beit Halohem, Beer Sheba, planned by Kimmel-Eshkolot Architects;
Second place: InBetween House, Nagano, Japan, planned by Koji Tsutsui;
Shared Third place: The Carmel Academic Center, planned by Knafo-Klimor Architects;
Artists’ Residence, Songzhuan, China, planned by DnA Architects.

Unbuilt Category
First place: Equalizer Housing, Colombia, planned by Alejandro Restrepo Lalinde;
Second place: Florentin Quartet, planned by Ilan Pivko Architects;
Third place: Hula Visitor Center, planned by Golani Architects.

Landscape Category
First place: Hatikva Avenue, planned by Joyce Oron;
Second place: Museum Park, Nord pas de Calais, France, planned by Catherine Mosbach; Sanaa Architects, Imeri Culbert, Adrian Gardere
Third place: On the Way to the Sea, Bat Yam, planned by Elie Derman, Els Verbakel Derman Verbakel.

Student Category (no rating):
Tel Aviv -Dolly City: Amir Tomashov, Sagi Rechter;
Dam in the Desert: Dinai Orenstein;
Digital Ecology: Noa Matetyahou
Hot Hot Hot: Soo Bum You

Research Category:
First place: Automated Recognition of Urban 3D Morphology, by Dr. Aviva Peeters;
Second place: Design Manual for Bio-Climatic Construction in Israel: D. Pearlmutter, E. Erell, I. Meir, Y. Etzion, Y. Rofe (2010).

Judges:
Prof. Siamak G. Shahneshin, (Chair), Architect & Co-founder of Shagal iodaa, Switzerland;
Lui Levi Galati, Architect & Co-founder of Shagal iodaa, Switzerland;
Esa Laaksonen, Architect & Director of the Alvar Aalto Academy, Finland;
Adachiara Zevi, Architect and President of the Bruno Zevi Foundation, Italy;
Architect Osvaldo Stav, Chairman of the Competitions Committee, UIA;
Architect Nir Ben Natan;
Architect Naama Baram;
Architect Arad Sharon, representative of the Aryeh and Eldar Sharon Foundation;
architect Dr. Ami Ran, Editor-in -Chief AI

Details and registration for the next competition:  
www.aiq.co.il