2002 Stirling Prize

[Paul Clerkin]

The main presenter was a bit irritating okay - he's The Sunday Times art critic - Waldemar Sommat. And that Hugh Pearman bloke was very no-nonsense wasn't he.

Just heard from a friend of mine who tried to watch it and gave up as Wald was annoying his head too much.

[Paul Clerkin]

Wilkinson Eyre's Gateshead Millennium Bridge has won the 2002 Stirling Prize for architecture. There were rumblings of dissatisfaction over this on the night - is it architecture or is it engineering? Should the same practice win the Prize two years in a row (they won last year with their Magna Centre in Rotherham)?

Its not so much as the bridge shouldnt have won... its more that they shouldnt have won last year for the Magna centre which was exhibition design as far as I'm concerned...

[RSJ]

Right, so it's the Wilkinson Eyre bridge wot won it.

Pictures to be seen at:

http://www.hughpearman.com/articles4/thatbridge.html

It encloses space, therefore it must be a building.

[GregF]

Looks like a Calatrava job

[Peter Fitz]

to answer the question on the site, the bridge is obviously a combination of both architecture & engineering ...

[RSJ]

Agreed. Most structural engineers I know dislike it because of what they see as the profligacy of the design. Left to themselves they would never make such a meal out of such a short river crossing. So there you see the hand of the architect.

However it is seen as less structurally overblown than Calatrava's works - which is a compliment, from an engineer.

[MG]

Chipperfield A tender loser?

Chipperfield slams ‘secretive’ Stirling Prize judging



David Chipperfield has called for a review of the voting system for the Stirling Prize and an end to the use of a secret ballot.

Chipperfield criticised the judges’ decision-making process, claiming it has led to a lack of clear thinking behind the choice of this year’s winner. In the final round of judging, the panel of five voted in secret for their favourite scheme. But Chipperfield – who serves on a number of juries and was on the Stirling shortlist for his Ernstings Service Centre – told the AJ he was ‘shocked’ when he learnt the judges had not reached a consensus.

‘It should be a group decision, because what comes out of a group decision is the dynamics of debate. It’s fundamental to prize-giving,’ he said. ‘The result was that no one could describe why the winner was chosen. No one explained the extraordinary decision to award the prize to a bridge.

‘When you give a prize for a single building there should be a clear idea of what the architecture is all about,’ he said, adding that the ceremony lacked any cultural content. ‘I didn’t hear one mention of James Stirling. No one talked about architecture. We were all just props for the final scene of a television programme.’

Will Alsop, who won with his Peckham Library in 2000, criticised the inclusion of lay-persons on the jury. Alsop, who failed to pick up even one of the RIBA Awards this year, said he would be bowing out of the competition for the next few years.

Other observers also questioned the validity of giving the prize to a bridge rather than a building. Maxwell Hutchinson, ex-RIBA president and broadcaster, said the Stirling organisers should decide whether the competition was for buildings or works of engineering.

‘A valid entry should have a sewer connection,’ he said. ‘If you look at all the complex issues that go into a building, even the most humble building, few apply to a bridge.’

However, RIBA president Paul Hyett defended the decision to keep the judging anonymous, claiming it led to honesty and avoided the bitter acrimony that can follow the judging of prizes. He also defended the winning choice as an architect-designed project. Hyett added: ‘The prize is central to the RIBA’s work to get more people interested in architecture in order to improve people’s lives.