What an interesting choice the Sainsbury Laboratory in Cambridge, designed by Stanton Williams, was as winner of the Stirling Prize. It was a kind of stealth winner. While the Olympic Stadium was heralded as the popular choice (the choice of the Populous?), architectural pundits mostly argued that the winner would be Chipperfield (again) for the Hepworth in Wakefield, or O'Donnell and Tuomey for the Lyric Theatre in Belfast.Rory Olcayto wrote in the AJ about Mark Jones' hints about front runners, 'Jones can’t mean Stanton Williams’ Sainsbury Lab, even if it sends a message that architecture can affirm the strength of British scientific research. This argument is wrong-headed. Scientific talent is not so much drawn to smooth render and York stone paving as it is to the best equipment and the best scientific minds. CERN, home of the Large Hadron Collider and where staff accommodation is bog standard, is proof. And at five grand a square metre, the architectural achievement at Cambridge looks less convincing.'
The argument about scientists putting up with rubbish accommodation is exactly the one that Lord Sainsbury was trying to lay to rest - and there is an argument that the great surroundings will also attract the best brains. Journalists after all also love their jobs and are prepared to put up with bad environments - but does that mean they should?
Another reason that this seems like a 'stealth choice' is that this is not the Stanton Williams building that has received great popular attention - that distinction has gone to its new home for Central Saint Martins in King's Cross.
One factor that has received little notice is that this is the second building in a particular quarter of Cambridge to win the Stirling Prize. The first was the very different Accordia housing development which took the award in 2008. Both these are away from the magnet of the historic colleges, but both house the brainpower that defines the best work of the university - one as living accommodation and the other as a working environment. One can't imagine that Lord Sainsbury would have made this donation to an institution that was struggling in the research assessment stakes.
Brains obviously draw money and with it the ability for good design to flourish. This government doesn't seem to set much store by learning and positively wants to keep foreign brain power out. The Stirling judges evidently did not choose a building that was on message for a political agenda, since other choices would have made a stronger point. But there may still be a lesson here.
3 comments:
Ruth, I don't think scientists should put up with rubbish environments. I just don't think they should work in over specified palaces.
appropriateness is an important quality in architectural design. not everything needs to bling!
the main reason it's not a significant achievement, as say, the Lyric - is that it has a stellar budget and a greenfield site to play with.
I'd dispute your final point as well. this was the most political decision the jury could make - its about promoting british science - and not so different from last year's choice of Hadid's school, although this one was pro-government, in that awarding sainsbury's seems to be saying "yup - exhorbitant fees are OK. look what you get! go on feel the yorkstone....yawn"
Well, Rory, I agree that it is unusual to have such a generous donor and that this is not likely to be reproduced often in its entirety. But isn't it good to set a bar for what can be achieved? The best scientists are privileged and rightly so, since they need to be able to work in the circumstances where they can maximise their achievements. I thought it was interesting to see on the RIBA's video the quote 'scientists don't do stairs'.
I suppose that, as important as I feel that cultural buildings are, it is interesting to see winners that deal with the major activities of people's lives - working, living.
The building is also in a very sensitive place, albeit an appropriate one, and so I feel that it was an important issue to tackle.
I would be sorry if this was seen as sending a message about fees. I do think that research has to be the best that it can be in the best of possible environments, but I don't think it follows that in education terms there should be a grade A that gets all the goodies and everyone else can go hang. So I hope the jury wasn't trying to send that message.
I was just mostly tickled that the building that nobody had tipped actually took the prize.
Paul Finch got it right! (he knows how to read a jury, having been on so many I'm sure)
Truth is about my 'prediction' - it was meant more as an influencing piece rather than an outright prediction. Not that I expected the jury to read it. Though maybe if enough other people did and favoured the logic, the message might get through to the jury on decision day.
the key point remains: what is appropriate? It's something few architects seem to have a grip on!
Post a Comment