Via zerochampion, the Guardian’s architecture commentator suggests that buildings
…should only really be offered prizes 20 years after their completion. While we can comment on the merit of the design, look and feel of a particular building when new, and celebrate the intentions of its designers, there is no guarantee that it might not prove to be a failure.
I know we ought to be happy that architecture is being discussed on TV at all. Having said that, if I were in charge of the Stirling Prize I’d consider actual measured energy use and give occupants a vote on whether they think the building is a success.
Advertisements
Is the LEED rating of a building as important as it sounds? We seem to put a lot of stock in the LEED here.
I haven’t done a LEED assessment but I understand it’s very similar to the one we use in the UK (same guy originally behind it, same sort of ethos). I think it’s a positive thing – there are always loopholes and justifiable complaints, particularly as regards the weighting of different categories, but for the most part it’s good to get developers and occupants thinking about how buildings satisfy their needs and all the resources required to do it.
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, although 20 years is a bit long.
Measured energy use can be analysed within a year of teething problems being fixed and most modern glass and steel (as an example) structures fade and start to look ropey within a couple of years. Maybe there should be a Stirling Re-visited prize