Thinking back, I can still feel the relentless heat of the midday site visits, the fast-paced design schedule, and of course the massive earth walls and soaring timber roofs that we had designed to resist earthquakes, monsoons, and termites. How would these structures fare against the other projects entered this year? Was our engineering good enough? And most importantly, what did this mean for my role as a judge?
Thankfully, the Awards team has a tried-and-tested process to deal with conflicts of interest – after all, I’m far from the first judge to end up in such a position. And so whilst they couldn’t tell me how RICA might fare, they could ensure that we would maintain impartiality while judging.
For the initial review and shortlisting, the process was simple. The project was assigned to judges without any conflicts, and I was asked to excuse myself from any conversations related to the entry. And when we then moved to the final judging meeting, when the discussion turned to which projects would win awards this year, the rules tightened further. At this stage in the process, conflicted judges would leave the room entirely during relevant discussions, to enable those remaining to speak as freely as they like. Thankfully there was plenty of coffee in the waiting area, and my inbox had been filling up all morning anyway. By the time I re-entered the room, the decision had been made for RICA, and nothing I could do would change this.
I was of course thrilled to see the rest of the judges decide to shortlist the project, noting the benefits that the engineering had brought to People and Planet. Obviously I’m biased, but to me, the project was the most regenerative piece of design the structural engineering community has ever seen at this scale, and I hope that its shortlisting will inspire others.