Report of the jury on Designs for Amphibious Living On 14 April 2000, a jury consisting of Hans Heemrood (director of the Nationaal Dubo Centrum, chairman), Jan van Grunsven (head of OK5, art in public space, Arnhem Hogeschool voor de Kunsten), Jandirk Hoekstra (H+N+S Landschapsarchitecten), Bart Lootsma (architecture critic) and Sybrand Tjallingii (Alterra, senior research worker, planning) judged the entries to Designs for Amphibious Living, a competition for new ideas held by Kunstgebouw, a foundation for the encouragement of art and culture in the province of South Holland. The aim of the competition was to obtain innovative and stimulating proposals for 'amphibious building' in areas which are marshy or capable of playing a part in water storage or flood prevention. This is certainly a topical subject in South Holland, concerned as it is with areas of fenland and the dynamics of the water in the river deltas. Until recently it was usual to put down a thick layer of sand a few years before building commenced, to allow the ground to settle down properly. After that houses and other buildings were built on concrete piles driven through to the firm layer of sand. Obviously this approach meant wiping out all traces of the original landscape. Amphibious forms of living make such operations unnecessary, and offer the prospect of a desirable integration of new building with the countryside. The same thing applies to polders which need to remain available for the temporary storage of excess water. Entries to the competition could be submitted in one of three categories. In the first category ('landscape and urban design ') entries were required to concentrate on adjustments to the landscape and the town planning structures involved in amphibious forms of living. In the second category ('town planning and architecture') the emphasis was on the design of an amphibious residential area, to include a floating house which had also to be capable of standing on dry land, or a land-based house also capable of floating. The subject of the third category was living and working with water. While participation in the first two categories was limited to professionals, the third category was open to anyone. The jury judged the entries in the light of criteria established before the competition began. In the first category these criteria related to the innovative character of settlements in marshy country, the reinforcement of the quality of the landscape, the way in which water would be experienced and the relationship with water management. In the second category the jury considered the quality and the innovative nature of the amphibious dwelling and innovations in the field of 'light' types of plot division and access arrangements. The main concern of the third category was with original solutions to the problems created by amphibious living and working, with particular emphasis on the way water would be experienced. In all categories the jury looked for durability in the plans. 156 entries were received, 32 in the first category, 100 in the second and 24 in the third. In the first stage of their judgment the jury drew up a shortlist of the five best plans in each category. Selection In the first category the jury selected the following five entries: PSB004 (WoBiCo) WoBiCo stands for woon-biomassa-complex (living-biomass- complex), a biomass culture of willows and poplars using the over-fertilised earth of the polders and providing an alternative energy source. On this constantly changing landscape stand houses made of linked prefabricated units. Traffic is catered for by lightly constructed metalled roads (made, for example, of wood or foam) laid over the water. PSC002 (Drift Dynamic) This radical proposal is more a discussion piece than a design. It proposes new relationships between the forces of nature and human intervention. This can lead to 'unpoldering' and a new, uneven landscape produced by excavating earth from one place and dumping it in another. This process provides a role for every conceivable player. PSC011 (Landscape for Amphibious Living) A landscape that changes with the seasons lends itself to a new lifestyle. From the dykes, fringed with woods, access is provided to islands which remain dry in winter, when the polders are under water. To these islands are connected floating dwellings which can be moved at high water. PSC021 (+/- Tidal Urbanism) A rigid system of water management is replaced by a form of control in which three dynamic systems (water, land utilisation and amphibious living) interact with one another. Town planning and ecological structures evolve side by side. Bio-dynamic Met-Zet houses are inhabited during their 'ripening process' of 200 years or so, after which they are recycled as raw material or fertiliser. PAB103 (Deltaduct®) The delta is given back to nature, asphalt roads are replaced by areas of marshland and strawberry fields. Thereafter the connection between the Randstad and the rest of Europe takes place via Deltaducts¨ running over the underlying wetlands. There are three types of Deltaducts¨, each with its own specific speed and programme (including housing). The 'fastest' Deltaducts¨ only provide visual contact with the countryside beneath them. The following entries were selected from the second category: PAB071 (Footloose) A mobile allotment complex is constructed from floating 4 m square pontoons. A standard package of three pontoons contains one dwelling unit, a floating vegetable garden and a pontoon for power supply. The basic collapsible dwelling unit is made up of prefabricated layers. PAB076 (Wetland) None of the housing, whether for polders (with a constant level of groundwater), water-meadows (which flood twice a year) or creeks (which are submerged during some part of the day), requires piling. The infrastructure consists of grass tracks, stelconplaat roads and floating jetties. Some of the housing is floating: houses revolve round the mooring post to which they are anchored according to the direction of the wind and current. Houses use their roofs and elevations to purify their own water. PAB112 (Waterpeilen - Water Levels) A watery district in a 'green river', an extra watercourse which can lead water away when the rivers are full. The houses stand on piles and the streets float in the direction of the current, providing as little hindrance as possible to the flow of the water. Access to the houses is provided by steps forming a kind of landing which moves up and down with the water level. PAC038 (Flux) The Flux house is located in the border area between land and sea. Ebb and flow - and other natural influences - change the shape, size and orientation of the unstable gaps in the house. Tide, wind and temperature provide opportunities for independent energy management. PAC60 (Floating Flop) A proposal for a five hectare floating residential area for the polders in the Groene Hart (the green heart of the country), that will also act as a biological 'ecotope'. Half of the area consists of 'amphibious' public space, a quarter of ecological water gardens and the remaining quarter of 180 housing units. The fields are arranged in complex patterns, along structuralist lines. The following five entries reached the final round in the third category: AMA012 (Tuinieren in de uiterwaarden - Gardening in the water-meadows) In the winter, when the water meadows are under water, the barn (which can also serve as a house), the sheep shed and the container holding fields of kale and sprouts are piled on top of one another. The construction as a should whole is supported by a container filled with soil. AMA066 (Recycled New Babylon) Once they have been written off, the more than 400 oil and gas platforms in the North Sea can be reused, putting dwellings with a view on the outside and other functions in the middle. Possible locations include the coast, port areas and the major rivers. Linking several platforms together can create a megastructure not unlike New Babylon. AMA073 (Fields of absorption) A plea for the small scale integration of functions and identities. The plan names three possible combinations of lifestyles and productive functions 'the orchard' (for families), 'water fields' (for artists and other individualists) and 'energy fields' (for young professionals). AMA076 (Schrijven in het zand - Writing in the sand) The layout of the banks of the Maas is adjusted to suit the height of the water, according to the season. In the winter the water comes up to the stone piers on which the houses stand, in the spring and autumn there are islands for birds and meandering footpaths and in the summer sun terraces and a small marina are revealed. AMA077 (Het vijfde wiel - The fifth wheel) The 'fifth wheel' is a floating element, yet to be developed, allowing a camper or caravan to move over the water. The jury made the following comments on their selection: - Entry PAB103 was not judged in the second category, to which it was submitted, but in the first category, where the jury felt it would stand a better chance. - The proposal in entry PAB112 related to an existing location in Arnhem, which was forbidden by the rules. However, because the proposal could also be applied to other comparable locations, the jury decided to include it in their consideration. - Entry AMA012 contained more than the permitted number of pages. However, since the proposal could equally well have been presented in fewer pages, the jury felt the extra length gave the entry no advantage over other entries, and therefore included it in their consideration. In the final stage of its judgement the jury was able to award a first and second prize in the first two categories though no more than three honourable mentions could be awarded in the two categories together. In the third category no more than five winners could be nominated, one of which was awarded the Willem Bos cup as an extra mark of distinction. The final judgment The jury was very impressed by the effort and dedication displayed by the various entrants. Generally a great deal of care was taken with the presentation of the plans. The plans make a valuable contribution to the thinking about possible forms of living and working on the dynamic boundary between the water and the land. Some of the entries were very practical and immediately executable, others encouraged the creation of ideas by introducing new concepts. A few entries sketched a step-by-step transformation of existing countryside into a new 'waterland', broadly speaking by one of two strategies, either concentrating on taking advantage of existing qualities or coming up with proposals for completely new landscapes. The plans also differed in the sort of innovations proposed. In some plans the innovations were concerned mainly with systems of water management and the solution of problems in the field of water quality and quantity, while other proposals were remarkable for the way in which they applied landscape and urban design (in the first category) or for their architectural development (in the second category). The jury was unable to find any proposal which satisfied the ideal of presenting an outstanding combination of both qualities. Almost all entries took durable development into consideration. In most cases durable development was seen as a requirement and formed an integral part of the design, but in no case did it lead to concepts which were different in principle. first category In the first category the jury awarded one first prize, one second prize and one honourable mention. The first prize - 10.000 NLG (4500 euro) - was awarded to PSC011 (Landscape for Amphibious Living) by Neils Swanson, Tim Osborn and Mike Daniels of Landscape Projects (Manchester, England). This plan was outstanding for the way in which it was at the same time both striking and realistic. The clear, unambiguous structure provided scope for great individual freedom. The proposal was a convincing piece of urban design, architectonics and water management. The wings formed by newly planted trees between the dyke and the 'harbours' were a real discovery. The jury awarded the second prize - 5.000 NLG (2250 euro) - to PSC002 (Drift Dynamic) by Neil Davidson and Lisa Mackenzie of Future Lifestyle Innovators (London, England). The fact that the entry was more like an argument than a design presented no insurmountable problem in a competition that was looking for new ideas. This perverse and daring proposal takes a fresh look at the 'artificiality' of the Netherlands. The plan had to give way to the first prize winner because of its more limited reality content and the number of questions it left unanswered, such as the relationship with existing functions. One honourable mention was awarded, to PSB004, (WoBiCo) by André Houtman ('s-Hertogenbosch). By this award the jury expressed its appreciation for a likeable plan with good access arrangements, in which the most important infrastructure is provided by the water. The plan contains an interesting combined approach to water management and energy production. However the weakness in the application of town planning and landscape principles and the rigid spatial concept made it inappropriate to award the plan a prize. It was finally decided to make no award to entries PSC021 (+/- Tidal Urbanism) and PAB103 (Deltaduct). PSC021 contains intriguing philosophical ideas about the recycling of dwellings, but leaves unresolved important issues such as accessibility and the supply of power. PAB103's radical proposal to give back a substantial portion of the Netherlands to nature is original and well thought out, but programmatically questionable. Moreover, as compared with the equally radical plan proposed by PSC002, which provides ample scope to the various players, the plan is rather authoritarian. second category The first prize - 10.000 NLG (4500 euro)- in the second category was awarded to PAB076 (Wetland) by Tom Mossel, Esther Aurignac and Bert Fraza of MG Architecten (Rotterdam). The jury characterised the plan as exciting and achievable, with intriguing plot divisions and houses that were as simple as they were interesting. The plainly collective overall image still allows for great variety. The jury had doubts about the feasibility of purifying water by means of a thin covering of vegetation. As in the first category, the second prize - 5.000 NLG (2250 euro) - was awarded to a plan that was more radical and therefore less realistic than the first prize winner: PAC038 (Flux) by Eric Bos, Stefan Pieterse and Martin Helbach of Sem-Tex (Rotterdam). Although the concept is clear, it would be extremely difficult to put into practice. The design of a house which changes shape under the influence of external forces shows that the plan took its own principles seriously. The proposal embodies a pleasing inversion: instead of solving a 'problem', the water is used to make living exciting. honourable mention PAC060 ( Floating Flop) by Toshikazu Ishida of the Kyushu Institute of Design (Fukuoka, Japan) was awarded an honourable mention. It is true that the interweaving of dwellings, exterior space and infrastructure into a complex structure is not new, but this is the first time it was applied in the present context. The plan demonstrates that even on the water urban densities can be accompanied by attractive images. The water purification system raised doubts: many suggestions are made but it is not clear how they would work. No prizes or honourable mentions were awarded to PAB071 (Footloose) and PAB112 (Waterpleinen - Squares on the water). PAB071 is a nice inventive story with limited pretensions, but the contribution it makes to the task set by the competition remains obscure. The original feature of PAB112 is the inversion leading to houses on piles and a floating infrastructure. Although the underlying wish is reasonable, the plan is too stereotyped and architectonically unconvincing. third category In the third category, which was open to nonprofessionals, no more than five prizes could be awarded. The jury concluded that three entries were sufficiently original and refreshing to deserve prizes: AMA012 (Gardening in the water meadows), AMA066 (Recycled New Babylon) and AMA073 (Fields of absorption). the prize large 1.000 NLG (450 euro)and the Willem Bos Cup has been awarded to AMA012, by Martijn Schoots (Gouda) The cranes and the view of ships from above immediately ensure that this plan strikes one as an amusing plan. It does however also contain serious elements, for example the use it makes of water levels, its variety based on no-nonsense architecture and the scope it provides for the taste of individual residents. a prijs large 1.000 NLG (450 euro) has been awarded to AMA066 by Patrick Coleman (Delft) This plan offers an interesting option of using old drilling platforms for housing. On further examination the possible applications are quite surprising. a prize large 1.000 NLG (450 euro)has been awarded to AMA073 by Diana Store (Leeds, England) This plan makes a valuable discussion piece because of the way it deals with the conventional separation of functions and urbanisation on a smaller scale. The different identities resulting from this approach are particularly intriguing. Although both AMA076 (Schrijven in het zand) and AMA077 (Het vijfde wiel) succeeded in reaching the last round, in the end the jury considered that neither of them should be awarded a prize. The proposal contained in AMA076 is presented in handsome diagrams, but the programmatic development contains little originality. The charming simplicity of AMA077 is also its weakness: the fact that it is not worked out in detail makes it little more than an attractive idea. The Willem Bos cup The jury's final task was to select from the prize winners in the third category an entry that was so original and innovative as to deserve an additional prize, the Willem Bos cup. The jury's unanimous and unhesitating decision was that the cup should be awarded to AMA012, 'Tuinieren in de uiterwaarden'.

Exhibition and results All 153 contributions have been documented on this website. Click on one of the 11 summary-pages for a short introduction of all the contributions. After that click on the title or the image for the full text and images. Click on on of the titles below for one of the summarypages. Click here for a list of all the participants Category 1: Landscape / Urban Design S1: code PSB/PSC 001-012 S2: code PSB/PSC 014-024 category 2 Urban Design / Architecture A1: code PAB/PAC 001-013 A2: code PAB/PAC 014-030 A3: code PAB/PAC 030-048 A4: code PAB/PAC 049-060 A5: code PAB/PAC 061-072 A6: code PAB/PAC 072-081 A7: code PAB/PAC 090-112 + PSC014 Category 3:amateurs am1: AMA 007-059 am2: AMA 063-089 NB: a few contributions are without text and/or images due to unreadable files on the submitted disks.