Feature Alternative Stirling Prize
Our judging panel goes behind the glitz and glamour of this year’s Stirling Prize shortlist to find out what the six high-profile buildings really represent
1
1 3
4
BEST OF THE BEST
BES PUT TO THE TEST
THE
DID YOU WATCH THE RIBA Stirling Prize awards on BBC 2 the other week? Millions tuned in to watch Zaha Hadid Architects’ MAXXI museum in Rome pick up the award for the building judged to be the “most significant for the evolution of British architecture in the past year”. The MAXXI was showcased on national television, received widespread press coverage, and set the chattering classes chattering. Of all the many awards in the built environment, only the Stirling is a fixture in the national cultural calendar. But what does the Stirling Prize really
celebrate? Everyone knows construction is a team sport rather than an individual event, but the coverage of the shortlisted buildings invariably overlooks the contribution of the main contractor, specialists and the professional team. And what does the phrase “evolution
of architecture” actually mean? In today’s cost and carbon-conscious world, it’s reasonable to assume that it encompasses issues of sustainability, energy efficiency and carbon footprinting. That the buildings have been delivered within responsible cost controls. And that
14 | OCTOBER 2010 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
the projects represent good practice — or even best practice — across the full range of architectural endeavour. Not surprisingly, the winner was chosen
according to more limited and design-led criteria. The Stirling Jury, led by RIBA president Ruth Reed, was mainly concerned with design quality, functionality for users and the projects’ contribution to their immediate environment. Sustainability is a concern, but evidently not an over-riding one — none of the projects had BREEAM certification, or an overseas equivalent. Of course, the RIBA is entitled to run its
awards scheme under the criteria it thinks best. But nevertheless, the mismatch between the Stirling’s actual values and how the industry and the general public might perceive architectural excellence prompted us to look at the projects to find out what the public is never told. So we assembled a panel of experts to
judge the CM/CIOB “Alternative Stirling Prize”. We wanted to find out if the shortlisted projects really represented best practice across a broad range of targets, or whether the stunning visuals
Our judging panel
1. Stefan Eriksson MCIOB The Davis Langdon senior project manager represented the CIOB’s younger generation as vice chair of Novus in London.
2. Gemma Sapiano MCIOB A design and build co- ordinator for Willmott Dixon, Sapiano was a gold medalist in the 2009 Construction Manager of the Year Awards for delivering a new theatre for the City of London school.
3. Peter Caplehorn The technical director of architect Scott Brownrigg and member of the RIBA council is also a contributor to several industry magazines and a popular conference speaker.
4. Bob Heathfield PPCIOB Heathfield has a wealth of experience in a 40-year career, including roles at Trafalgar House and Ballast Wiltshire. He is currently chair of the South East Centre for Construction and the Built Environment.
concealed issues that undermined their claims to be the best of the best. We wanted to celebrate the achievements of the project teams where credit was due, but also draw attention to areas where the buildings the architectural profession is most proud are falling short. The panel judged the projects on the
basis of reports drawn up by CM, which were in turn based on interviews with the various design and construction teams (please see our website for pdf versions). We asked about budget and programme, the form of contract that created the formal relationships, and the unofficial relationships that defined the site. We explored the technical challenges, and whether they pulled the construction team together, or pushed it apart. Our panel didn’t try to assess design
quality: we left that to the expertise of the real Stirling Prize jury. Nor was it looking for the project that demonstrated current best practice on procurement or form of contract. Its task was to discuss the projects from a holistic perspective, and then decide: which one really represents the best we can achieve today? EK
2
>
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60