Editor Elsa Lam was part of the OAA Design Excellence jury, which convened for in-person deliberations at the OAA Headquarters this spring. Photo OAA
This month?s issue of Canadian Architect is a celebration of award winners: it features the laureates of the RAIC Gold Medal, the RAIC International Prize, the RAIC Annual Awards, and the National Urban Design Awards.
As co-chair of the RAIC Awards Advisory Committee, and a jury member for numerous architectural awards over the past decade, I?ve had many opportunities to reflect on what makes for the most successful award programs?as well as the best award submissions.
Every awards jurying process involves deliberation, negotiation, and evolution of viewpoints among the jurors. In most programs with a substantial number of entries, jurors are given the opportunity to preview entries, and are often asked to scorecard them ahead of a jury meeting. But the best results are rarely the aggregate sum of those scorecards. Rather, the preliminary assessment is generally just a starting point for understanding how best to focus the jury?s time together. Many juries are now convened online, and this has the advantage of being able to easily bring together jurors from different locations. However, I?ve found that with few exceptions, the quality of jury conversations is improved when juries meet in person. Like in any meeting, interpersonal dynamics interweave with the official business of selecting winning projects?and it?s easier to as...