Overall Evaluation

Judging for the “Urban Public Space Design Competition 2017” was held on November 7 (Tue). From the 189 submissions (407 registrations), one First Place, three Second Places, and six Honorable Mentions were selected. An appraisals and awards ceremony followed on December 16 (Sat) at TRAVEL HUB MIX in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, at which time Chief Judge Takayuki Kishii presented award certificates and prize money. After the awards ceremony, the four top award winners gave presentations and each judge offered his views on “The Possibilities of Public Space.” This was followed by an open discussion between judges and award winners on the awarded schemes.

Takayuki Kishii

This year, we again received many highly competent schemes from throughout the world. I wish to thank everyone who took part compelled by an interest in “Urban Public Space.”
Despite the ambiguity of our theme—which asked respondents to define the city’s in-between spaces, find meaning in sharing them, and even uncover diverse value in this endeavor—we received ideas of all kinds that boldly met its challenge. They included proposals for applying new spatial processing, for utilizing ICT in sharing and utilizing spaces, and for inducing activity and producing value. Only flexible thinking, transcending conventional architectural concepts, can impart vibrancy to the “land” we are minimally aware of; to inorganic “space” in intervals among objects having strong identity; and to “elements” normally hidden within functions. I hope our respondents will persevere in opening the door to “new architecture” by reading the spatial composition and social systems of the city.

Ryue Nishizawa

Once again, we received submissions from many nations and felt struck by their international diversity. Our subject this time made the competition difficult and the judging hard, but it was also very interesting.
The First Place scheme, “URBAN PLUGIN” (Siqi Li / Xiaoting Chen) proposes easy access to varied furniture products within an entire historical district. The scheme’s contemporary sensibilities and soft-ware character made it the submission most favored by the judges. The Second Place “Noise Garden” (Li Guan / Zhouyan Wu) proposes creating sculpture-like, architectural sound spaces utilizing the space enclosed inside traffic roundabouts. It features both an interesting program and attractive landmark-like form. The other Second Place, “Pedestrian Highway” (Kevin Sutjijadi / Rama Dwiwahyu Putra) is a proposal for public space utilizing crevice-like spaces among crowded residential buildings in Shibuya. It not only effectively uses the in-between spaces of buildings and the topography of Shibuya but also combines architectural beauty with idea content, and was far better than other proposals of similar approach. “Natural's intention in urban streets” (Chengrui Li / Jia Hao / Weihao Long) sets forth a new argument for landscape in the contemporary city, based on historical Chinese garden design. It stood out among the submissions owing to its discourse and interesting concept. “Pilgrimage of Space and Time” (Ayane Ichikawa / Syo Kitamura / Taiki Fujieda) proposes to reawaken historical community spaces that have become shut off and disconnected. It was one of the straightest answers to the competition’s theme.

Seiichi Saito

A shift is underway in how we perceive “public.” No longer is it simply freely useable space or things; public is now seen as an engine for connecting people and connecting things, and activating urban space. In judging the many, varied submissions received from Japan and abroad this time, we felt strongly how the concept of public is being extended. This is being achieved not only with physical buildings but, as expected, with SNS and Web services and other communication technology. Clearly, I felt, an age has come when we need less emphasis on hardware-type architectural thinking and more on software-type programs in public architecture and spaces. I often sense this in the situations I encounter in my own work, and in the future, I think it will be increasing important for architects to make proposals not only for construction but also for effectively utilizing places and adapting to the times. Our competition, this time, revealed many such new possibilities for architects.

Junji Tanigawa

In our judging, we hoped to see creative, futuristic thinking that invigorated in-between spaces by “writing between the lines” in the context of the city. We judged the submissions on their long-term “developmental potential” and their “empathetic resonance” or power to induce change in how urban living is perceived.
We took three approaches to judging:
1) Environment: How the city was defined as an environment and envisioned as a premise.
2) Situation: The kind of situation imagined in defining the proposal’s aims.
3) Program: The approach taken to maintaining sustainability and operability.
With the above as a basis, we sought to make both quantitative and emotional evaluations.
The submissions were truly varied. Not stopping at proposals for architectural spatial territory, they included feasible solutions and operational programs. The end effect was a competition that truly illuminated the “in-betweens” in the city’s functions. The city—an organism that steadily absorbs culture and civilization and extends its functions. In this context, the “in-betweens” serve to impart life and vitality to people’s endeavors and foster density in their relationships. The in-betweens are a frontier for new sensibilities, performing in an extremely positive way in urban space. The competition left me with the impression that our respondents all sense and talk about this.