NEPA Awards Jury

by Scott Simons, AIA

This was my first opportunity to sit on an AIA Awards jury. I was honored to be in the company of Robert Knight, AIA, Jim Sterling, AIA, Carol Wilson, FAIA, and Rob Whitten, AIA, our coordinator. We met at the Bowdoin College Coastal Studies Center on Orr’s Island in late October. It was a beautiful fall day. Jim and I toyed with the idea of triumphantly arriving by water, but decided instead to navigate the back roads in the VW. We arrived to the cheers of the others and parked our wagon in front of the modest white clapboard farmhouse that is the home of the Coastal Studies Center. Surrounded by acres of golden fields, the Center is a short walk from the rocky coastline of Harpswell Sound. It made an inspiring setting for the day’s work.

After a few fish stories from downeast and bagels from downtown, we tore into the submittal books. To our disappointment, there were only 12 entries from the Northeastern Pennsylvania Chapter (NEPA). The format for NEPA is different than ours. Instead of two 20" x 20" boards, the NEPA architects submit 8 1/2" x 11" binders with a written description of the project followed by photographs and drawings. Most of the books were 10-12 pages long.

With a focus that would have amazed our professors of old, we made it through the first round in less than an hour, narrowing the field to seven. After a very brief discussion, we were down to five. The discussion was lively and to a singular point. The awards are for excellence, we reminded each other, not for “very good” or “nicely done.” If you have been thinking that architecture is intuitive or subjective, you would have enjoyed the debate that followed. We spoke in a common language of visual and perceptual understanding, moving quickly and objectively a second time through the remaining five submittals. The discussion was detailed, precise and consistent. Very little explanation was required. We understood each other’s observations, and we were in agreement. All members of the jury understood the subtleties and complexity of the programs. We all understood the difficulties and conflicts of the site, budgets and construction. I was struck with how quickly the jurors assessed the merits of each project, and how easily they came to agreement on the best. Our most difficult decision was which project should be awarded the award for excellence, the top prize.

After another hour of discussion, we agreed to grant the award for design excellence to The Raptor House in Woodstock, Vermont, by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. An honorable mention was awarded for a wilderness education center, also by BCJ. We gave a special commendation award for a temple renovation project, acknowledging the commitment and effort put forth by the congregation, the architects, engineers and builders over a long period of time, through several phases of work, to complete such a complex project for the benefit of the entire community.

With the upcoming AIA Maine 2006 Design Awards program in mind, there are clear lessons to be learned. First, very good is not excellent. The jurors are instructed to award only for excellence. Second, excellence is difficult to achieve, which is why there are so few of these awards given. Third, excellence is not subjective. The jurors were very clear about which projects had achieved the level of excellence. Each of us could see it, describe it, and explain why the projects were excellent. We all saw most of the same qualities of excellence in the winning projects, and we had a common understanding and language for selecting the best work.

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: virtual() in /home/aiamai/public_html/news/Feb2006/nepa_awards_jury.php on line 55