BAT HOUSE COMPETITION JURY REPORT 18.10.07
INTRODUCTION The Jury for the Bat House Competition convened at the RSA on Wednesday September 26th to select the prize-winning entries. The competition was very well subscribed with entries received from all over the UK and from 23 other countries. The number of entries received in each category was as follows: - Category A (professional) - 119 - Category B (student/general public) - 69 - Category C (schoolchild) – 26
JURORS Jeremy Deller Amanda Levete Rowan Moore Kevin Peberdy Mike Waite Carol Williams Pascale Scheurer
Artist & initiator of the Bat House Project Future Systems (Director) The Architecture Foundation (Director) Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (Director of Centre Developments) GLA (Senior Policy Adviser (Biodiversity) & Trustee of the London Bat Group) Bat Conservation Trust (Bats & Built Environment Officer) Surface to Air Architects (Director - Jury Chair & RIBA Advisor)
SELECTION CRITERIA As per the Competiton Brief, the Jury were looking to choose: “a building of aesthetic and environmental excellence, built with sustainable materials, that both offers homes to bats and is a building that the public can engage with.” There were four selection criteria: - Suitability for bat roosting requirements. - Aesthetic quality & innovation. - Engagement with relevant sustainability issues. - Replicability in other locations. The Jury were not necessarily looking for a ‘finished product’ per se, but an approach which showed potential. There was some discussion regarding how much a design that was very strong in some aspects but weaker in others could be considered ‘adaptable’. The Jury concluded that any required modifications would need to be minor developments such as one would expect in developing a concept forward with the client, i.e. not changing something fundamental to the proposal.
THE OVERALL WINNER The winner in the Student/General Public Category was selected as the overall winner, to be built at the WWT London Wetlands Centre. Congratulations to Mr Jorgen Tandberg and Ms Yo Murata, who are 4th year undergraduate students at the Architectural Association.
CATEGORY A PRIZE-WINNERS
First Prize:
Andrew Brown, Gareth Jones & James Falconer
A strong abstract design with varied potential for use. Good division between cold and warm areas. Modules of different conditions could be used for experimentation, although the Jury had a preference for one structure rather than multiple structures. The practicality and cost of the air-lift raised a few eyebrows.
Joint Runner-Up:
Jochen Rabe (Arup) with Stefan White (Manchester School of Architecture) and Mike Wells (Biodiversity by Design)
Clearly based on extensive research on bats, catering for different species and based on sound knowledge. Highly successful for this reason. One of few entries to show how different species of bats might fly in and around the structures. However, the Jury were not so keen on the scheme’s visual appearance, which lacks elegance.
Joint Runner-Up:
Mitchell Taylor Workshop and Buro Happold
One of the strongest entries from an architectural point of view, this entry truly embraced the challenge of designing for a new typology. It attempted to combine suitability for bats with an experimental, modular approach to design and construction, using a limited palette of materials. The Jury praised its artfulness. However, practically it would need substantial modification to make it suitable for bats – for example, reducing the size of the openings between the elements and restricting the amount of airflow through the structure.
CATEGORY B PRIZE-WINNERS
First Prize:
Mr Jorgen Tandberg & Ms. Yo Murata
Category Winner and Overall Competition Winner The unanimous favourite through every round of voting, this design raised palpable excitement in the room. Beautiful, poetic and unexpected, combining state-of-the-art technology with a rural and romantic aesthetic. . Resembles a picture in a frame and can work on all four sides. Can be used year round – good for Pipistrelles. Rock pile at base would retain humidity. Good range of internal sizes. The location is ideal – it successfully negotiates the relationship between the tree-covered bank, where bats can fly out into cover, and the lake where certain species will feed, and where the water will keep the lower space cool and humid. Relationship to the viewing points and the wider site is strong. The materials are simple and can be sourced locally, cheaply and from recycled supplies or even on site. The scale and design look reasonable for the budget available. The orientation and the different materials can be used to create the range of temperatures required – a certain amount of experimental development will no doubt be needed, but it is a highly adaptable design and could be adapted in situ over time. Could imagine it being replicated elsewhere, perhaps altering the materials and/or scale to suit each location and budget.
Second Prize:
Tilman Ruben Winter
Red bricked cube reminiscent of Mario Botta / Jean Nouvel. Good design, would sit well on the site and attract visitors. Strong relationship between visitor zone and bat zone, although possibly the visitors would disturb the bats. The need for several types of roosting spaces was addressed but the bat experts felt it would need significant adaptation to become practical for bats, particularly as it is made of a single material – eg. slow to heat in summer.
Third Prize:
Alexander Bartscher & Elisabeth Deutschmann
Visually great, gothic/fairytale imagery, beautifully presented. Not necessarily maximised for bats yet but could be adapted, eg. using the roof shingles as crawl space. Based on a very clever concept – taking the traditional house and separating the human’s space from the bats’ spaces. The design style divided the architects among the jury.
CATEGORY C PRIZE-WINNERS
First Prize:
Miss Inderjit Mehroke
What looks at first like a purely fantasy illustration turns out on closer inspection to provide very well for the requirements of several species of bats. Lots of hard work, imagination and attention to detail have gone into this design. It shows how a fantastic building, which the designer herself might wish to live in, can be adapted in many different and creative ways to accommodate bats. A protected courtyard of trees and ivy on the walls are provided for the bats should they prefer not to live in the building itself.
Second Prize:
Alexander Craig-Thompson
Serious thinking about architecture, considers viewing and what would go on inside in order to accommodate bats.
Third Prize:
Matthew Burns
Conceptually interesting, strong and clear idea. The Jury liked the idea of a ‘Big Brother’ observatory – ‘but no bats get evicted’. Sustainable materials, the use of new technologies and the relationship between humans and bats have been well considered.
INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM THE JURORS The following responses were made by the Jurors following their initial overview of all the entries, before they were reviewed individually. •
Interested in entries that aren’t scaled down versions of buildings – should be more imaginative than this. The Bat House is not for humans – the challenge is to conceive a different type of structure.
•
Interested in simplicity – bats do not require anything fussy.
•
Shouldn’t reference something that exists somewhere else in the world.
•
Maintenance issues should be considered.
•
Interested in designs that have a suitable provision for people to be able to interact – in keeping with the ethos of the Wetland Centre.
•
Concerned about designs that would need significant redesigning to be practical for bats, though designs shouldn’t be discounted if they can be made workable.
•
No objections from London Wetland Centre on designs for alternative locations on site.
•
The bats must be the priority, not the humans or the structure itself.
•
Some designs seem not to have considered the £120k budget. Category A entries should definitely show an understanding of what is achievable for that price.
•
Wary of designs resembling standard bat boxes - they are not particularly successful.
•
Good designs will consider temperature in order for the Bat House to be used all year round – certain materials are more successful at this than others.
•
Need to have crevices and open areas to accommodate different species.
•
As one of the area’s most popular species Pipestrelles must be well catered for – summer roosting is important.
•
Some materials will be inappropriate for bats, though some with the most usability may be lacking in design quality. Mustn’t lose sight of this being an art project.
•
Important that there will be a research element to the Bat House – will also be seen as a research project, so looking for elements of trial.
JURORS’ COMMENTS
“So many people have applied themselves to thinking about bats and their needs, in relation to humans, perhaps for the first time. That will be one of the legacies of the project, as well as this amazing building. I was looking for a design that was distinctive, original and showed ambition - I’m very pleased with the result.” Jeremy Deller, Artist & initiator of the Bat House Project “The winner was poetic and unexpected. Combining state-of-the-art CNC technology with a rural and romantic aesthetic was really clever. Many of the entries were ‘mini buildings’ - yet this was an opportunity to get away from that - it is not for humans, and it is also an art project. Overall the Category B entries were more inventive than the Category A entries, and many of the Category A entries didn’t really seem to get into the full range of issues of the brief.” Amanda Levete, Director, Future Systems “The winner brilliantly interpreted the nature of a project which is for animal inhabitation and human contemplation. This was not a competition for a conventional building. The challenge - and the opportunity - was to come up with a new way of designing for a new typology, for a nonhuman client. Too many of the architects failed to understand that. Bats are very demanding clients and they will vote with their wings if it is not right for them.” Rowan Moore, Director, The Architecture Foundation
“The number and quality of entries was a fantastic surprise, in particular Category B was excellent. The schoolchildren’s category was the most difficult to judge, with a worthy winner a cross between good bat design and fantasy. The overall winner found the best balance between what’s good for bats and aesthetics, and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust very much look forward to welcoming it on site at the London Wetland Centre.” Kevin Peberdy, Director of Centre Developments, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust “There was always going to be a tension between bat requirements and the aesthetics and I was concerned that a compromise would be difficult to find. But this is an important part of the project, and it shows in the final selection of prize-winners. The Category B entries were on the whole much easier to understand - I was expecting it to be easier in Category A, but many entries were not mindful enough of the clarity of what’s being shown, with the key to the scheme often tucked away in one corner. It was good to see such a variety of sustainable materials being used. But overall there was a wide range in how well the sustainability and locality issues were addressed - which reflects the fact that sustainability is still a confused subject.” Mike Waite, GLA Senior Policy Adviser (Biodiversity) & Trustee, London Bat Group “I’m very excited about the potential and adaptability of the winning design, and that it’s pushing the boundaries and is a totally new concept in bat house design. There will be lots of other spin-offs and added value from the competition, since there were so many good ideas and lessons to be learnt, even from designs that weren’t shortlisted. We knew we might all have to compromise so I’m really relieved and happy that we actually got the full package for everyone with the winning design - great architecture and great for bats. It proves that there’s always a way of working together and getting something that’s positive for everybody. In the discussions we all met in the middle apart from a few exceptions, and we ended up commenting on other people’s areas of expertise, as we started to appreciate things from a different perspective.” Carol Williams, Bats & Built Environment Officer, Bat Conservation Trust
“I was surprised how unanimous the Jury was in selecting the overall winner, and also by the cross-overs between fields. It was clearly important to all the Jurors that the key to the competition was the synthesis of design and ecology, not favouring one over the other. There are a number of lessons to be learnt for entrants of future competitions - a strong, simple concept and clarity of presentation are all-important for getting through to the second round, but also, the design has to hit every single aspect of the brief or it won’t be a prize-winner. Many entrants had clearly undertaken extensive research into bats and their habitats, and the existing typologies for bat houses. Perhaps less well addressed overall was the relationship to the London Wetlands Centre, the wildfowl that inhabit the site, the Thames and the wider city. It’s an amazing location, urban yet rural.” Pascale Scheurer, Director, Surface to Air Architects (Jury Chair & RIBA Advisor)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Bat House Partnership would like to thank all the Jurors and Observers for assisting with the Jury day and also thank the RIBA Competitions Office for doing a wonderful job in handling the registrations and entries, and advising throughout the competition process. Thank you also to all the entrants who took part, to the Architects’ Journal and Evening Standard Homes and Property for promoting the competition, and to the Alan Jones Memorial Trust for their financial support.
For more information on the competition and the wider Bat House Project, and to follow the progress of the winning design towards completion, go to:
www.BatHouseProject.org