This afternoon the shortlisting for the entry for the World Architecture Forum was done. To determine who gets to represent USC for the competition, the last year's winners organized a qualifying competition during the summer break.The competition calls for the design of a satellite city which should be on a brownfield area, particularly an old airport site. During the preliminary presentations, the jury decided to make all the participant present again but using the Mactan airport as site instead of a hypothetical one.
There were ten entries but I only got to listen to the last half of the presentors. I am not very familiar with the details of the competition problem but after listening to the groups who presented I thought that all of them should have followed the process below:
First, they should have considered the "existing conditions" when the airport has moved out. Archt Sia pointed out that the MEPZ might also go as a result of this. What else would go? The tourism sector? the golf course? Most of the presenters did not even include land uses and road networks immediately surrounding their sites. It is as if they are designing a purely independent development.
Second, they should have established the relationship of the project with its neighbors: the nearest neighbor around the site, then the more remote neighbor (mainland Cebu). This relationship should then translate to land use and transportation linkages. There were very few who considered this. They did not even bother to indicate how existing roads connect to their development. And land use? No one presented how they arrived at the area allocation of each land use. There was a proposal where majority of the site is open space... will the remaining economic activity sustain the satellite city?
Third, they should have designed for self sustainability. It is true that they have to link up with other places but this is a satellite city after all, so it should be able to stand on its own.
They should have introduced the urban design strategies on land use and transportation as the last step. These are the details. To many presentors, they concentrated on enumerating these at the start not mindful of how they tie up with the grand scheme of things.
Aside from the above observations, I also noticed that most groups do not know how to make good use of the time alloted to them for presenting their proposal. They were only given 10 minutes. This is half of the allocated time to present a thesis. Instead of going directly to their analysis and solution, most of them spend half of their time on the introduction. There really was no need to inform everyone the history of the Philippines or Cebu, or what are the existing conditions (since the hypothetical future is more important). To make it worse, they deliver this with so much theatrics. It gives you the impression that they are more concerned with entertaining the audience than presenting a solution.
Anyway, my friends told me that two groups were selected with the idea of combining them, and a couple of other individuals were also added to the mix. The first is the group of Micmic Kindica, the other is the group of Steffi Go. I didn't get the names of the two other persons.
I didn't get to listen to the group of Micmic, but while they were preparing outside the lecture theater they showed me their boards. I didn't really grasp their solution by looking at the boards alone so I simply pointed out my observation on the relationships particularly the existing road network. Apparently this is something that Archt. Maxwell Espina kept looking for in the proposals I witnessed.
I listened through the presentation of Steffi's group. My impression was that they were designing the city in the manner of modernists. It reminded me of Le Corbusier's City of Three Million but in a very small scale. Archt. Maxwell summed up my observation when he called it "dehumanizing." There was a bright side in their design, but it was all thanks to Archt. Yumi Espina who pointed out that the other half of the site which they left for green space could be treated similar to New York's central garden. The concept was good, although it was not intentional and they need to rework the interpretation.
Overall it was a very good exercise. I hope all the students learned from it. The group of students chosen to represent USC are very good students and I am sure that the jury, composing of no less than architects Buck Sia, Alexius Medalla, Maxwell Espina, Yumi Espina and Bro. Lanyi will help them refine their solutions and come up with the best scheme.
I was very happy that many students took part in this competition despite the half-hearted support they've been getting. I hope that those who were not chosen would not consider all of these as a waste of time. For all they know, they have learned more here that they would in normal circumstances.
