2007 Award Winners | 2005 Award Winners
For the inaugural 2005 John M. Clancy award program, the jurors reviewed 56 projects submitted by architects and organizations from 20 states.
2005 Jury Comments For the inaugural 2005 John M. Clancy award program, the jurors reviewed 56 projects submitted by architects and organizations from 20 states. The entries were diverse in purpose, program, size, location and architectural language. The competition guidelines stipulated urban housing, and the jury construed this to mean housing in an urban setting, either a city or a town. Among the submissions were transition housing for abuse victims, HOPE VI projects, multi-unit housing for singles and families, and both renovated and newly constructed buildings. Most of the submittals were workforce housing, often comprised of very small units and financed using low-income housing tax credits. Many of the projects submitted were in California, undoubtedly attributable to that state’s more liberal zoning regulations; its more hospitable climate and year-round use of outdoor space; its looser urban fabric and free-style architecture typically less constrained by history and vernacular tradition; relatively lower labor costs attainable in many California regions; and the sheer size of the state’s population and workforce. Some presentations were exemplary in providing written and graphic information that was both succinct and clear. The jury greatly appreciated the initial project summaries, especially those not exceeding one page in length. But a number of submittals fell short in several ways. Explanation of the fundamental problems being solved often was insufficient, with social programs and financing strategies inadequately described. Graphic illustration and analysis of site context and surrounding conditions, along with diagrams showing site planning and architectural strategies, were very helpful and, conversely, made evaluation difficult when such diagrams weren’t provided. Occasionally even north arrows and graphic scales were missing from drawings. Overall the bulk of the 56 projects submitted were worthy of consideration. The jury finally selected eight projects for awards, judging them to be outstanding examples of socially responsible housing for various reasons, of which architectural quality was but one. The jury also considered “degree of difficulty,” programmatic complexity, resource constraints, sustainability, site challenges and opportunities, and community benefit. Jurors applauded skillful interweaving of old buildings and new construction; successful creation of functional, sunny, pleasant yet modest living environments; and artful design of large-scale, high-density urban projects. For these reasons, award recipients can be justifiably proud of their accomplishments. The 2005 Jurors Amy Anthony (Housing Investments, Boston, MA) Joan Goody FAIA (Goody Clancy, Boston, MA) Stephen Kliment FAIA (New York, NY) Roger K. Lewis FAIA (Washington, DC) Contact the Boston Society of Architects with questions: 617-951-1433x225 / ewhite@architects.org |
||||||||||||||
