ENG EST

Sneak peek into the work of the competition Jury

Jury members Stefan Straif, Franck Mauxion, Sille Pihlak, Raul Kalvo and Karli Luik

The conclusions of the Jury - the contest was successful and there are several great solutions 


Alltogether 49 entries from 24 countries were submitted to the contest. Five entries were received within short time after the deadline and the Jury decided to take them into consideration as well.

All the submitted entries were presented to the jury members well before the meeting so that they could take their time to properly study the design proposals - as a result 26 entries out of the 49 got the initial approval from at least one of the jury members and thus were included in the final discussion at the meeting of the Jury. However, the Jury took time to go through all the projects in order to have fresh opinion and not to lose any potential blockbuster designs.


The meeting of the international Jury took place on February 23rd 2017 in the headquarters of Lasita Maja AS, Estonia. At the end of the long and intense meeting the Jury concluded that the architectural design contest of Lasita Maja AS was successful and the winning projects have potential to conquer the market.

 

All the members of the Jury were presented at the meeting: Mr Stefan Straif (Austria) and Mr Franck Mauxion (France) as representatives of Lasita Maja AS, and Estonian architects Ms Sille Pihlak, Mr Raul Kalvo and Mr Karli Luik.

 

The decision of the Jury was based on the presumption that the winning designs would be readily producible, that they introduce new qualities to the existing market of prefabricated garden cabins and that they would have potential to become best sellers.

The discussions were fierce because the opinions of the Jury members in most of the cases tended to be quite the opposite - from the perspective of sales and producibility to the perspective of innovation and architectural design.


Working scene of the Jury 


Mr Stefan Straif (Gartenpro GmbH, Managing Director in Austria and Hungary)

To be honest I did not expect such a good outcome because actually we had no idea how many entries would be submitted. There were some very good design ideas and also some really well elaborated conceptual ideas.

I absolutely like the winning project because it is a very flexible system - we are hoping to have a ready-made prototype within the next half a year and to enter the market with it next year.

For me the overall outcome is perfect and very nice.

 

Mr Franck Mauxion (OLG France, Managing Director)

Our aim with the contest was to find new best seller(s) for the next five years. The most difficult task for the Jury was to eliminate the design proposals that would not sell on the market and those which at the moment are not producible at Lasita Maja AS.

There were at least dozen very good ideas and many design teams understood our needs. We found some very good ideas that we could implement soon.

Personally I was surprised by the project that was nominated for the second place - we can not produce it right now but I do hope it will make to the market in the next 2 or 3 years.

I am completely satisfied with the contest and its results.

 

Ms Sille Pihlak, architect (Estonia)

I would like to compliment the organizers of the contest for creating such a good opportunity to bring innovation into local lumber industry scene with the intention to actually put the outcome into production here as well. Estonia should develop its own signature via such small-scale structures instead of copying the well-known type of Alpine cottage. This contest is first step towards the situation where raw material is valued locally via design before it gets exported from the country.

 

Mr Raul Kalvo, architect (Estonia)

The contest was complicated in the terms that several projects did not actually consider the specific production possibilities of the factory and the Jury had to decide whether to include these entries in the final evaluation or to dismiss them. In the end the same aspect was regarded rather as positive, because also some of the winners did not follow the producibility requirements. All the winning design proposals each had its own qualities that proved equally interesting for the architects as well as for the representatives of the producer.

 

Mr Karli Luik, architect (Estonia)

The contest was complicated, because on one hand the participants had to come up with something that would be easy to produce and which at the same time would be innovative in terms of spatial qualities as well as technologically. There were very different projects - some of them were concentrating more on esthetical appearance when others aimed to create well producible systems.  

For sure the contest should be regarded as successful, because there were many interesting projects. Within such a format it is actually difficult to come up with something unprecedented. It is hard to combine good looks with spatial variety and with the wish of the customer to have something simple, inexpensive and feasible.

The typology of the prefabricated houses is actually important when to think of how much actually is produced in the factories and at the same time how much the design aspect is left unnoticed. However, it is design that has a direct influence on the space wehere we live and this is where the attention should be turned to. This contest is a great initiative and I do hope that something will really be implemented.


The winners are listed here

Please download final protocol of the Jury from here.


Interview by Liina Pulges from Unistusteagentuur