This proposal is convincing due to its strong, seductive (architectural) image which the jury see as an intelligent statement for ‘marking’ the area with a building which points on the opportunities for further developments. On the other hand, this proposal does not provide a convincing image on the urban scale and is missing a thoughtful development strategy for the site which makes a wider development possible. It is not clearly explained how this scheme could be realised. It’s an intriguing development for the first site to start having an interesting concept system of closed courtyards to be developed in phases. This creates public space which is very introvert, and linked to the quality of the building itself. But this space does not link to the surrounding spaces, which is important for the overall functioning of the area as a whole.
Choosing for this strategy would also mean that the imposed structure is very strict and has almost no flexibility for other developments in the future. The jury finds this a contradicting project which invites participation, while leaving details and all possibilities open. The lack of urban strategy and the flexibility/neutrality/openness of the design approach could be both a strength and a weakness