Who Wins WAF?

This is the fourth time BAAD Studio’s Benjamin ‘Benjee’ Mendoza has sat as a juror for the World Architecture Festival since he and his wife, An Bermejo, won the Future Project – Religion category and received the Super Jury’s special commendation for Future Project of the Year, 2017.

This year, 150 judges from 70 countries listened to some 550 finalists present their projects for some 40 categories and the main prizes of World Building of the Year, Future Project of the Year, Small Project of the Year, World Interior of the Year, World Landscape of the Year, and WAFX.

The unusually high number of shortlisted projects is because the finalists of WAF 2020, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are competing against 2021’s finalists. So instead of the usual 5 to 10 finalists per category, this year sees some categories with as many as 20. In the case of the Future Projects – Education category, with judges Yui Tezuka (Japan), Tracy Meller (UK), and Benjee Mendoza (Philippines), there were 18.

Who are the 150 judges? 

How do WAF judges judge? Festival director Paul Finch offers guidelines but no hard rules.

Top Tips for WAF entries

Benjee Mendoza gives us an inside look at a WAF jury’s deliberations in the Future Project, Education category.

What were the judges looking for in your category?

We were in search of new strategies in educational design. We were looking for a project that ticks all the boxes, including suitability to the local context. In our category, there were a lot of beautiful projects, half of them from China. You can imagine how big the projects in China are—about the size of a small town. Many of the shortlisted projects were forward-thinking, sustainable architecture, almost perfect projects with big budgets but maybe weren’t as strong concerning social and cultural context. It’s difficult to be both pragmatic and soulful. My co-juror would always ask about the local context—what is what does it mean for the local texture? How is it relevant to the people and the local culture?

Since you brought up social and cultural impact and relevance, is a participatory design process now part of the WAF competition criteria? I remember the level of community consultation that Locsin+Furunes did when they won Small Project of the Year in 2017 really blew the judges’ minds. And now Khadka+Furunes’ “quietly radical approach to practice” has been rewarded the Peter Davey Prize at the AR Emerging Architecture Awards 2020. When you won in 2018, you, too, were questioned about the community’s role in the redevelopment of the Cabetican shrine. And I believe Jason Buensalido was also prepared to defend his choice of colors and textile patterns if the jury asked whether the tribes that created those patterns were consulted.

No, it’s not a criterion. But I guess it is what architects are after, the jurors, especially.

Why?

I guess because of the notion that contemporary architecture has less to do with being the product of a mastermind artist-architect and more to do with being a collaborative and performing architecture that, while led by the architect, is empowered by many disciplines and the community altogether. It is not a trend but, I think, a realization of the past decade. The best projects go beyond aesthetic values; what makes a holistic, beautiful project is one that involves everyone and thus tends to be appreciated by everyone. So, it is a consideration, but it’s not a requirement.

What were some of the design ideas and solutions that excited you and why?

The highly commended project and the ultimate winner were on opposite ends of the spectrum. One big versus one small. One in Sydney, Australia, versus one among the hill tribes of East Myanmar. Both had daring ideas.

The big one in Sydney ticked all the boxes—it’s a redevelopment of one of Australia’s oldest schools. They removed ad hoc buildings to clear sightlines to the original heritage structure, then added several thousand square meters of new learning and sports spaces without adding to the school’s footprint. They did this by cantilevering sports fields and tennis courts, using these as green roofs over new classrooms below.

The one in Myanmar is a music campus boldly envisioned as a community catalyst while empowering young hill tribe students to learn about their music and disappearing culture. The architects from Hong Kong actively engaged the community during early-on planning and design and will continue doing so through implementation. Like Tagpuro (the Locsin+Furunes project that won in 2017), this will also employ villagers and provide them with construction training. When the school is complete, the villagers may construct better houses and use their new skills for work opportunities.

Wow, it really does sound like Tagpuro. That’s great.

Yeah. So, we had two extremes, one being in a first-world country with first-world issues, obviously with a budget that can afford to cantilever tennis courts, right, versus Myanmar, in the middle of nowhere, difficult to get to, for people struggling to get by.

And the Myanmar music school won because?

It wasn’t an easy decision, okay? Both were excellent projects. We talked about it for about 45 minutes. It reached a point where we even discussed the meaning of WAF and the impact of WAF…

And the possible impact of your decision.

Yes, and because of that, we went with the project that we felt was life-changing. The school in Myanmar has the powerful opportunity to go beyond that project, meaning, when you initiate a movement, for example, for community building and you train the people how to do it, the community can replicate the effort to build another one.

Oh, that sounds like RAD+ar, too. They’re based in Jakarta. They make prototypes of archetypes for tropical developing countries. They provide all the research and strategies they learned while developing the prototype for people to apply at their own pace.

Galing!

What else are you allowed to share with me about what jurors look for?

The challenges and level of difficulty of the project are also considered.

What makes a winning presentation? In the GROHE practice crits we organized for the finalists, we’d get nitpicky about the points put across, the script, the choice of words. Yet I’ve seen architects who barely speak English win.

Tezuka won again this year (Nijima Chapel, Completed Buildings – Religion category). And Yui, who did the presentation, doesn’t speak English fluently. But sometimes, the images are so strong already, and the sequence in which they appear makes the presentation self-explanatory.

Or look at Carlo Calma. Out of the 10 minutes allowed, he takes only five for his talk, and then he uses the power of image, music, and in 2019, he used Ballet Philippines dancers, right, to tell the story. It’s a free-form presentation, and after Carlo did what he did and the virtual crits this year, we might see more inventive ways of presenting projects that don’t require presenters to be very well versed in English.

There’s Alireza Taghaboni from Iran, one of the smartest architects in the world. He’s a professor, owner of a school, multi-layer Ph.D. He’s not good at English. He’s very concise; he speaks in bullet points. But the imagery and the process from sketch to a diagram to a plan to an image of a community and then the final product say everything. He doesn’t sell the project; he really doesn’t have that tone. But he is one of the most popular architects in WAF right now. People flock to his presentations and talks.

Is it pointless, then, to drill down on the script and choice of words?

No, of course not. It helps a lot. When you look at the boards, there are some projects you may not think will win until you hear the architect present.

How did you and your co-jurors score? Is there a score sheet?  

We have guidelines but no score sheet. There’s no one formal way to do it. Everyone does their note-taking. We really had to because the crits for our category were held over two days, so we needed our notes to do the deliberations the following day.

For my part, I always jot down all the positive points, the negative points, questions I have, or anything unclear. Sometimes these turn out to be critical questions that open a full new understanding of the project when the finalist answers.

How does the jury decide the winner?

In past WAFs, including WAF China, we would go through each project one by one. But this year, since there were so many presenters, we compared our top three. We all had the same top three but in different orders. So, we discussed each one of our top three choices. We each discussed the buildings’ strong points and weak points if any. And then, in the end, it boiled down to what we think is the value of WAF.

And that would be?

WAF is not after perfection. Of our three top choices, without knowing the story behind the buildings, you wouldn’t think of the school in Myanmar as the most aesthetically pleasing. But in the end, it was the most beautiful because of the process, the story behind it: how the form was derived and put together, how the community helped configure the rooms and how the bamboos were fixed on the façade. The hill tribe folks also educated the architects on using specific instruments and taught them that some sound better outside rather than inside the schoolroom, which added to the beauty of listening to music. We learned from listening to their presentation. So, in the end, we say it is beautiful, not because of a glossy facade or glittering curved glass. It is beautiful architecture from a holistic point of view.

And this is why I appreciate that WAF always makes sure they have three or four jurors per category and four to five for the super jury.

Right, and always from different countries.

Yeah, so the questions thrown at you vary in perspective and concern. For example, the questions coming from a Japanese architect might be concerned with craftsmanship, the essence of the material, or the process of making that material, the art of it. While our jury chair, Tracy Meller, a British architect for Roger Stirk Harbour, was very much into performance—ecological sustainability and building performance. She asked technical questions. I’m interested in the emotional impact of the architecture, how people will love that structure and appropriate its spaces, its relevance to the local context, and its placemaking qualities. So I really do appreciate that WAF makes an effort to choose architects from different worlds to sit in each panel.

Yes, I understand they are very conscious about diversity, including gender balance, although they admit they’re not yet there. Benjee, we encourage people to join the WAF for exposure and learning from different voices worldwide. Do you get any unique learning advantages as a juror?  

I wouldn’t say so. Because WAF creates this open platform for anyone who attends. Whether you’re a juror, speaker, finalist, or attendee, you can attend any presentation and talk to anyone.

Equal opportunity for all.

Well, one little perk is you can chat with co-jurors in the jurors’ lounge, so you don’t look like a fanboy approaching them in the hallways. But if you really wanted to, you could, that’s fine. I’ll never forget how Peter Cook came up and joined An and me at our table and chatted with us about the talk he had just given.

What is the value of critiquing to the design community and to the built environment?

Criticism is important. It pushes our learning beyond what we know. Participating in and watching crits gives you fresh feedback on different angles that you might not know existed. Does it help the community? Yes, it does. Because it opens up questions, it opens up ideas that the architect himself may not have realized, and it prevents the commission of the same mistakes. Not just for the designer, but for people listening in or reading the critique. And if the community were aware, they’d know things should not be built this way. At the same time, they also learn what works, and this spurs new ideas.

Being invited as a juror or just an attendee of WAF is already a privilege. It’s an open platform for you to learn as much as you can in three days. Where else can you learn from some of the most respected names in architecture in the world, face to face? This year, it’s online, so you can watch every single of the 500 plus crits in so many categories in so many different disciplines. Nothing better than that. And how can you not stay interested? I can just listen and listen and listen and listen. And what’s nice about it is I can rewind, right?

Absolutely. Thanks, Benj, for your time. •

Thanks to GROHE Philippines for sponsoring the practice crits that Kanto organized for Filipino WAF finalists. Your support is building a community of architects and designers who believe in life-long learning and critical thinking. Excerpts of the practice crits will soon be available for viewing in GROHE Pacific’s Facebook page.