2010 Competition Judging Panel

Jury Members:

Denese Bottrell Marketing Content Strategist, Thoughtful Content, Inc.
Gregory Green Documentary filmmaker, and director of End of Suburbia
Michael Haggerty Urban planner, and Co-winner of the 2009 ResilientCity.org Design Ideas Competition
Peter Howard Biologist, and Sustainability Policy Consultant Manager with the PricewaterhouseCoopers Climate Change and Sustainability practice
Douglas Pollard Senior Analyst in International Relations with CMHC International, and a member of the City of Ottawa Urban Design Review Panel
Pamela Robinson Assistant professor, Ryerson University School of Urban and Regional Planning
Jonathan Yazer Public policy writer, and co-author of “Resilient Edmonton: Why and How?”

 

Moderator:

Craig Applegath Founder of ResilientCity.org and principal at DIALOG

Concluding Insights

The Jury felt that all of the finalist submissions were very thoughtful and impressive, and that, as a whole, contributed a great deal to the emerging discourse on urban resilience. Some of the key insights that emerged in the Jury’s discussion of these submissions included the following points:

  • Integration: While the Jury sought entries that took an integrated approach to resilience as much as possible, it also determined that expecting complete and fully integrated solutions places a high burden on the entrants, due to the inherently iterative and emergent properties of resilience.
  • Context: The Jury found that it was important for entrants to establish the context in which their proposals were made. The Jury was most impressed by those proposals that had an appreciation of the complexity of context as well as the uncertainty of future contexts in a world beset by climate change, peak oil, and other, as yet unknown challenges. Craig Applegath commented that, “this competition is akin to a test of our understanding of the world. The real complexities of the world in which we have to create form in many ways still lie beyond our ability to grapple with them.” These proposals help us get a little closer to understanding and working with that underlying complexity and uncertainty.
  • Emblematic: The point of the competition was not so much about finding a winner that illustrates exactly how to ‘do’ resilience. Instead it was hoped that this competition, as a thought-provoking exercise, might accelerate or catalyze our understanding of complexity and uncertainty, with a view to finding some strategies that are resonant and are emblematic of how the process of building the capacity for urban resilience might unfold in a variety of different contexts (places, scales, forms, etc.). Therefore the Jury was attracted to proposals that were emblematic of a good strategy or set of strategies.
  • Form: Whereas during the last century building design was often a process driven by function – an approach summed up by the phrase “form follows function” – resilience might require a different approach in which a series of possibilities are projected forward in time, to which space and form must be ready to adapt in order to meet the unique challenges of each possibility. One Jury member offered up the paraphrase “form follows many functions” to describe the generic, adaptable qualities that could help to define the future of resilient design.
  • Scalable + Replicable: Other criteria the Jury used to assess entries were whether the proposals were replicable in other places, and whether they were scalable to fit other contexts.

Best Video Prize

The Jury did not feel that there was a wide enough range of videos submitted to fairly determine a winner in this category. However, it was decided to award each submission an appreciation prize for their efforts. Entrants will each receive a flip video camera.