Europan 9 results

Drugi i konačni krug žiriranja ciklusa Europan 9 održan je 12. siječnja 2008. u Zagrebu. Žiri u punom sastavu (Bogdan Budimirov, Luis Falcon, Tamara Visković, Jonathan Sergison, Saša Randić, Nives Kozulić, Antonino Saggio, Ivana Ergić i predsjednik žirija Braco Dimitrijević) pregledao je ranije izabrane radove i nakon iscrpne diskusije odabrao pobjednički i drugonagrađeni rad za lokacije u Zagrebu i Opatiji.
Izložba svih pristiglih radova i predstavljanje nagrađenih radova održat će se 1. travnja ove godine u prostorijama DAZ-a, Trg bana Jelačića 3/I, u Zagrebu.

The second and final round of jury for Europan 9 was held on January 12th 2008. in Zagreb. The jury (Bogdan Budimirov, Luis Falcon, Tamara Visković, Jonathan Sergison, Saša Randić, Nives Kozulić, Antonino Saggio, Ivana Ergić and jury president Braco Dimitrijević) has reviewed the pre-selected entries and after a detailed discussion chose the first and second prize for both Zagreb and Opatija sites.
The exhibition of all recieved entries and promotion of prize-winning projects will take place on April 1st in the Zagreb Architects' Society.

prva nagrada/first prize SL451
Aleksander Bednarski, Poland
Marius Komraus, Poland
Tomasz Pokropowicz, Poland

druga nagrada/second prize FH275
Luis Aguirre Manso, Spain
Eoin McMahon, Ireland
Lynn McMahon, Ireland

prva nagrada/ first prize SL095
Isabel Concheiro, Spain
Raphael de Moutard, France
Julia Capomaggi, Argentina

druga nagrada/second prize SG555
Sergio Rodriguez Estevez, Spain
Mendoza Muro Salas, Spain
Sabrina Colombo, Italy
Stephan Jung, Germany
Gian Mario Tonossi, Italy

Jury started its work at 9:45 a.m. After a short introductory note about the first session of judging, jury decided to start its work with the site of Opatija.
The jury considered the pre selected entries until 10 30, and then the discussion began.
Mr Saggio suggested that the projects should be discussed before the final decision, and Mr Dimitrijević said that the new jury members should be introduced to the discussion from the first meeting, and give their opinion on these entries.
Mr Randić said that the brief wasn't easy, that there is no center in Opatija but several focal points. SL 451 attempts to create a readable square with the longitudinal building. He doesn't think any of the projects respond to the brief that asked for connection between the square and the beach.
Mrs Visković says that all the entries have values but are problematic. FH 275 is graphically interesting but can't function in real life and TM 028 is aggressive.

The project TM 028 was discussed first. Mr Dimitrijević made a point of Opatija not having urban structure, and the surface "magic carpet" is making some sense and creating new public space as a new counterpoint to the rest of the city. Mr Saggio thinks that this is a strong conceptual idea and worth discussing but without understanding of the space, so it doesnt deserve a prize.
Mr Sergison thinks it is sketchy, that the it is a bad public sculpture, it is unclear where it ends and why, the idea of greenery is also unclear. The possibility of folding surfaces is underused.
Mr Randić said that the street doesn't have to be removed since it is not a fast moving street, and he proposed that BZ 726 be put into selection. Mr Saggio proposed that he have half more hour to choose a project to put back into dsicussion. He wanted to put two more, IA555 and BB001 . The panels were brought back for voting, and the jury accepted for further discussion.
BZ726 9 votes
IA555 no votes
BB001 no votes

Mr Dimitrijević said that everybody select their favorite project and talk about it. Mr Sergison wanted to talk about all the entries, The project has to be possible to implement and that it has to give new value to the city. FH275 is interesting but the technology can fail in use, and the project is very graphic but not usable. The project SM089 is urbanistically ambitious but division of space in three strips is a problem. SL 451 is interesting yet it proposes too much programme and it would be a disaster if it was empty, but it creates space. He thinks that the question is whether the first prize should be awarded.
Mr Falcon thinks that none of projects fulfill his expectations, but the least bad might be prized.

He also thinks that SL451 is the best but offers too much built space, overloaded with programme, and dislikes the palm trees, and that the beach is different from what he had imagined, more urban and flat, so the visit to the site changed his opinion. The FH 275 doesn't do much and it is its quality. The technology seems problematic. SM089 divides space in parts and diminishes its quality, yet it connects to the park on the north which is good, but the scale is wrong. BZ 726 also has a problem regarding scale, and it is not linked to other parts of the city which is not good, doesn't regard local geometry. The image is attractive.
The jury voted for SL451 to get the first prize, and FH275 second prize.

After lunch the Zagreb site was considered. The jury members took 40 minutes to check out the 6 preselected entries, SL 095, SL 385, SG 555, CD 207, GM 619 and ZL 186, and to choose whether they want to reinclude one of the entries in the competition. At 3PM the jury started the discussion with Mr Dimitrijević asking from the jury members to give their opinions on the Zagreb entries. Mr Saggio said taht this is a very interesting site with the elements of nature and agriculture, quite near the city centre. Mr Falcon asked someone from Zagreb to explain the site, so Mr Loher told the jury about the site surroundings with Radnička business street, the new bridge and the backwater of Sava as important elements.

Mr Sergison said that the project giving the best framework of possible future construction should be selected. The future development of the site must be considered.
Mr Falcon says that two approaches are present: one with architecture in detail and another dealing with urban space, and he proposed SG 555 as best example for the first and SL095 for the other.
Mr Saggio thinks that BO352 has all the elements of mixed use that is required in the E9 theme, and SG555 integrates nature and sustainability in the architecture. He is very much against SL095 because it is monofunctional and the density is too high, and the green stripe in between is too passive and underarticulated. He also disagrees with the architecture in terms of functionality.

Mr Budimirov said that Europan in Croatia fails for two reasons: property issues and earthquake danger, and each lot has to be accessible through a public road and not through someone else's property; the new law will take care of this in part but not completely. Also each building has to have its own plot and several buildings on one plon isn't possible. The site is free of construction and well connected to the centre, so it is very interesting to the investors. Therefore it is a possibility this project be implemented, it is quite large, so building in several phases should be given priority. The green strip between the 9-floor isn't possible because the density is too low. He likes the project SL095 but it can't be easily implemented; the project CD207 offers the same but is easier to execute.

Mr Randić said that this a more typical Europan site. The market in Croatia has changed; however horizontally structured mixed use is unfavorable for the investors because it is difficult to manage, and architects tend to disregard that. The high rise projects allow larger areas of unbuilt land ZL 186 is a good project, and SG555 is a nice image to publish but not realistic. SL095 he considers nice and attractive.

Mr Sergison said that the previous comments were very useful, and he commented on the entries. SG555 is very conservative in terms of grid, and its spatial consequences are radical yet scary, and full of flaws. GM619 is interesting but the spaces in the "mats" seem low quality. ZL186 has an interesting concept, however this cutout idea is rarely successful. SL095 makes him think what the space between the high rise buildings will be like, and the tower projects are naive. BO352 is a good framework concept, with agricultural organization and strip-like quality that make sense, but the circulation concept looks gestural. CD207 is similar to SL095, it has a good start.

Mr Saggio argues that BO352 is a very good project, and as a traditional project he prefers ZL186. Mr Falcon thinks that BO352 is very naive, with no scale and no typology, and he pointed out that agriculture destroys biodiversity, so keeping elements of agriculture is simply nostalgic, so he is against the project.
The jury decided that SL095 wins the first prize, and SG555 second prize.

Mr Saggio stated that he completely disagrees with the jury decision that SL095 wins the first prize. Mr Dimitrijević also doesn't like the project.

The jury members decided that the first and second prizes be given to both sites, and no honorable mentions

U natječajnom ciklusu Europan 9 za hrvatske se lokacije prijavilo ukupno 79 natjecatelja, 48 za Opatiju i 31 za Zagreb. U predviđenom roku (28.lipnja do 23. srpnja) stigla su 22 rada za Zagreb i 21 rad za Opatiju.

22. rujna održan je prvi sastanak žirija, kojemu su prisustvovali Nives Kozulić, Bogdan Budimirov, Braco Dimitrijević, Ivana Ergić, Luis Falcon, Antonino Saggio i Jonathan Sergison. U ime Europana Hrvatska na sastanku je bila tajnica Udruge Iva Bedenko, a u ime tehničke komisije Anja Dulčić. Žiri je za drugo zasjedanje, koje će se održati 12. siječnja 2008., odabrao 10 radova, 4 za Opatiju i 6 za Zagreb. Radovi će biti razmotreni na Forumu gradova i žirija 30.11. ove godine.

EUROPAN 9 - FIRST JURY MEETING

In course of 9th session of Europan competition, 79 teams registered for the Croatian sites, of which 48 registered for Opatija and 31 for Zagreb. 22 entries for Zagreb site and 21 entries for Opatija site were recieved.

The first jury meeting was held on September 22nd. The attending jury members are: Nives Kozulić, Bogdan Budimirov, Braco Dimitrijević, Ivana Ergić, Luis Falcon, Antonino Saggio and Jonathan Sergison. Iva Bedenko, secretary of Europan Croatia, took part in the meeting on behalf of Europan Croatia, and Anja Dulčić on behalf of the Technical committee. 10 entries were pre-selected, 6 for Zagreb site and 4 for Opatija. The preselected entries will be discussed at the Cities and juries forum in Catania, and the winning projects will be chosen at the second jury meeting, on January 12th, 2008.