General comments from the jury

Development of climate-friendly buildings and city environments is arguably the biggest challenge designers face in the present. Greenhouse gas emissions can be traced in almost every manufacturing process, either indirectly through the use of electricity from non-renewable energy sources, or directly in the form of CO2 emissions from transport. Despite the fact that environmental awareness is high among people, both the source and the effect of greenhouse gas emissions appears as very abstract entities. The competition’s main focus has been to find effective, simple and innovative ways to materialize greenhouse gas emissions abstract nature into something more tangible in line with FutureBuilts work for a climate-neutral society.

It is easy to feel powerless in the face of a global and complex problem such as climate change. Forecasts indicate that there is little reason for optimism, but a change must be based on a positive incentive. The jury has therefore chosen to focus on proposals with a positive undertone, which breaks down the complexity of the task to simple measures and focus on solutions rather than problems. The jury notes that the submitted projects are divided into two main categories in relation to interaction with the audience. The largest share of proposals is based on passive dissemination of information where the public already have an interest in learning more about FutureBuilts pilot projects. These proposals rely largely on placing the physical icons to titillate the audience’s curiosity to dig deeper. The other main category of projects proposes that in addition to communicate information about the pilot projects, they offer an added value to the context, either in terms of integration of practical functions, or by providing a unique experience related to climate change. The jury recognizes that this category has a greater potential. The added value gives a greater intensification of implementation while also creating unique experiences that will increase attention to FutureBuilts visions and goals.

Each of the two main categories can be divided into several subcategories with different formal and digital strategies. There are basically three categories that recur: Balloons, info pillars and projections. The jury sees this as a direct result of the participants trying to address the variety of contexts and restrictions relating to deploy a physical structure in a regulated urban space. It is obvious that developing a physical object alongside the pilot projects is not a particularly good solution. The jury has chosen to highlight suggestions which present a flexible concept, adaptable to the different situations around the pilot projects. The physical durability has also been a determining factor.

Most proposals are not able to establish an intuitive and simple link between the digital content and the physical structure. The digital projects are often missing a clear strategy beyond mentioning Futurebuilts existing databases. The jury notes that the engagement of the public to actively use a digital information channel is a complex challenge very few proposals manages convincingly. This suggests that the teams do not have the multidisciplinary expertise to create such systems.
The jury has placed great emphasis on identifying proposals that have a strong and clear concept and that can be easily integrated into FutureBuilts work with the pilot projects. It is important for the jury to highlight projects that not only reflects the pilot projects form or expression, but with simple means go under the skin of the projects. The winning proposals represent three different strategies that the jury sees as appropriate for FutureBuilt to further develop for their installations.