Juryreport 2010
  download juryreport 2010

1 General approaches
The jury found the pedagogical variety of the 35 projects and the good quality of the majority of them quite stimulating. The variety of entries was very interesting but, for that reason, also difficult to compare. One can absolutely see the enthusiasm of the students reflected in their works. Viewing all the projects together can be an inspiring experience for students and teachers.

2 Issues
First of all there are projects where the teachers set the tasks. These projects are well comparable, due to the identical program and location. Secondly, there are projects where students can choose a location and program of their own. These projects can still be judged as “normal” architectural projects, but have to be evaluated specifically, at the same time. This year two new categories appear – a nearly contextless research on prototypes and a self imposed approach of architecture at the edge of architecture and art.

3 Quality
The quality of the students’ work is directly related to the way in which the teachers address relevant topics on urbanism, sustainability and architecture. Sometimes there seems to be a need for more guidance, sometimes for more freedom. Sometimes it seems as if there has been an intense discussion between teachers and students on relevant issues, sometimes it seems as if this has not taken place. The jury cannot generalize and say whether total guidance or total freedom leads to better results. But it’s not only about the teachers; also the students should take their own responsibility and be open to architectural and urbanism debates.

4 Practice
Architectonical development of the project is a way to test, improve and amplify the basic qualities of the first sketches and ideas. It involves learning fundamental skills and paying attention to the quality and pleasure of drawing, modelling, explaining and exposing original concepts. The jury was pleased by the high level of the presentations, especially the models.

Maybe it’s a suggestion that - in consequence of this 20th EAP students’ competition- students themselves try to get in touch with each other, with other regions, other students through other ways of communication. The different institutes show specific qualities from which the students can benefit. Especially the Euregion Meuse-Rhine invites for exchange. Such tendency is visible now already, but it surely can be intensified.

The jury selected three projects as honourable mentions. They are presented here in alphabetical order.


Honourable mentions

The project succeeds in finding a vocabulary design for a technical subject. It reveals the architectural potential of usually technically dominated harbour structures. The jury appreciates the beauty of the enormous gesture of the construction. Besides the architectural iconography of the shell, the project also succeeds in making good propositions for the technical aspects of the dock.
The first honourable mention goes to HMS Unicorn by Michael Scheuvens (RWTH Aachen).

This project has a strong concept which connects the themes of flooding and agriculture, probably comparable to a modern ark of Noah. The answer is quite a poetical architectural proposition, taking account of the issues it plays with – landscape, space, techniques and imagination. It gives a very positive vision on the problems of the future, such as the rising of the sea level.
The second honourable mention goes to „Floating Farm“ by Nele Mortelmans (PHL Diepenbeek).

The project can be read as a political statement by organising the whole program of the residence of the European president underground. Whereas each form of representation to the outside is avoided, the project is elaborating on the inside an almost classicist organisation of representative and private spaces. The paradoxical and provocative situation of the project right beside the EU Parliament proposes a variety of spaces in an elegant sequence. The jury appreciates the accurate elaboration of the project, playing with light, patios and height variations.
The third honourable mention goes to „Wohnpolitik - Residence for the EU, Brussels“ by Johannes Jung (RWTH Aachen).

We now come to the most important part of the evening, the three prizes.



This project is probably the most discussed work of all. It polarizes in a positive way.
The project is triggering a fantasy of space. The Jury is intrigued by the sensitivity in which the different aspects of the proposal have been elaborated. The project proposes an attitude on the border between architecture and art, involving the entire life and practice of its author. It takes its origin from a particular landscape and environmental situation and develops very authentic artefacts, that evoke not only the idea of that place but also a sense of space. This concentration on physical aspects and phenomenology is greatly appreciated by the jury members.
The third prize goes to „Hotel de Boot Gemist“ by Wytske van der Veen (HS Zuyd, Academie van Bouwkunst, Maastricht).

The jury is enthusiastic about the way in which usually abandoned themes of building are turned into a convincing architectural design. The design is set up as a prototype that reminds the jury of the utopian studies of Étienne-Louis Boullée. The project sketches, in a charming way, an evocative scenario of the process of waste-incineration.
Different aspects of composition, function, technical aspects and presentation are dealt with in a beautiful - almost dramatic – way, resulting in a strong iconographic work.
The second prize goes to the project „Müllkraft / EBS Langelsheim“ by Maike Basista, (RWTH Aachen).

By means of one powerful and elegant intervention, the project manages to completely reorganise the existing situation. The negative item of the artificial canal has been developed and turned into a benefit for the location. The water-plane becomes a public square and generates interesting possibilities for the historic site and new developments. The project answers perfectly to this different scenery, while revealing the richness of an existing, formerly hidden, patrimonium.
The in- and outside routing has been redefined by creating surprising spatial relationships, between old and new. The water and large glass surfaces form a quiet and evident décor for the new building.
The jury is very enthusiastic about the refinement and cleverness of the concept and its elaboration. The project not only manages to upgrade the village itself, but also forms a new subtle landmark.
The first prize goes to the project „Design depot Oud-Rekem“ by Kevin Winters (PHL Diepenbeek).


Jury: André Kempe (Chairman), Juliette Bekkering , Olivier Bastin and Gerard Extra
Jury secretary: Jeanette Kunsmann


Heerlen, 6th November 2010