1st Prize – Alexandra Antal

The winning project presents an original and captivating solution to the house both in its relation to the street and to the garden. Thus the public face is reserved and sober, presenting a calmness to the confusion of its context while the private face opens completely to the southeast, to the sunlight and to the garden areas.

The plans are clear and precise and are complemented by a good use of the section to create a variety of views and functional uses. The functions are distributed in a traditional way: a simple entrance, with a choice of entry from the street or the garage, also opens onto a separate study area. A direct staircase leads one to the first floor which is dedicated to living areas stretching the whole length of the unit, providing welcome depth to the perspective. One façade opens to the garden. The master bedroom unit is particularly well planned and the two other bedrooms are on the top floor. The simplicity of the layout gives great potential for flexibility. Moreover, the project makes good use of the site in all its levels, by providing a series of courtyards and terraces progressing from ground to top floor.

Although recognising the value of its gesture as a counterpoint, the jury felt that the study tower could have been better incorporated into the life of the house. Although the project lacked details of materials and colour, nevertheless the sensitivity of the scheme remained convincing.

2nd Prize – Cosmin Ovidiu Serghe

The project consists of a 3 storey house making use of a split-level typology. This typology proves to be an adequate tool to react to the sloped site given.

The layout of functions is well conceived, giving a maximum of privacy for the functions on ground floor level. The spatial quality especially of the double-volume living room is very high. The organization of bedrooms and studio is quite convincing. The jury especially appreciates the roof-top terrace which at the same time articulates the specific volume although using a split-level typology.

The project is clearly articulated, shows a high standard of project organization and is a convincing intervention on this site. It is rigid in its conceptual interpretation, but modest in its articulation. The author uses two materials only, natural stone and wood. This underlines the volumetric articulation on the one hand, but on the other hand this gives the project a slightly rural touch. The jury felt that the over detailing in graphic presentation detracts from the quality and richness of the project.

3rd Prize ex-aequo – Victor Moldoveanu

The jury particularly appreciated the project’s reinterpretation of the Romanian traditional courtyard’s spaces and volumes. The living area is also very well organized and the generous main volume functionally flexible. The jury also appreciated the link with the back of the site. The rear wall uses a series of setbacks to give space to the rear elevation, but the living room lacks a wide perspective and faces onto rather narrow, cramped spaces on its boundaries.

The jury felt that the fenestration of the main volume is not sufficiently convincing and that the design could have used different materials to differentiate between the two bodies, perhaps by interpreting the kitchen volume as an oven, by using thermal masonry.

3rd Prize ex-aequo – Alexandru Vasiliu

The author picks up the typology of neighbouring multy-storeyed pitched roofed houses and presents a contemporary interpretation on several layers.

The court yard on ground floor level is separated from the street by an opaque wall. Entrance, dining and kitchen area as well as something like a semi-public lobby are situated on ground floor. A spatially articulated staircase leads to the bedrooms on 1st and 2nd level as well as to the spectacular living room on the 3rd level.

The project is a convincing interpretation of a house in house typology. Different functions inside the house are clearly separated by making use of this typology. The “public” functions are situated in the shell part of the house, the “private” functions are situated in the inner core.

The inner box is opaque on three sides, one side is open. The shell part of the house is flooded with daylight from the two large scale openings at the front and at the back of the house.

The project has very high spatial qualities and is a strong intervention in the local neighbourhood. The jury however sees a problem in the rigidity of transforming the chosen typology into domestic space.

Honnourable Mention – Cosmin Gălăteanu

The project proposes a rigorous and clear spatial organization and uses an original model for a dwelling that uses the whole site and proposes a novel way of relating public and private spaces.

A new shifted rectangular grid is positioned on the site, marked with a vertical volume. The ground floor areas are integrating outdoor spaces in the building through a series of walls and courtyards adapting to the topography of the site. The space is well articulated with a domestic character, with a particularly successful sequence of entrance areas to the house. Vertical structuring of the program has resulted in an equally interesting section of the building. Even though the project had a clear structure, the jury found it was not sufficiently elaborated and caused some uncertainties, particularly in the articulation of the facades and the distribution of natural lighting.

Honnourable Mention – Heracleea Lateș

The proposal develops the generic volume of the house, which the author recognises as a characteristic element of the neighbourhood. The pitched-roof volume is sliced in three parts with the middle one shifted to the side. This simple gesture has created outdoor spaces and courtyard with a different character and at the same time it has opened an otherwise introverted building to the outside.

However, the jury felt that the formal application of the initial concept has caused at the same time a few shortcomings in the organization of the floor plan, particularly in the positioning of the inner staircase and openings in the bedrooms.

Honnourable Mention – Oana Matei

The house is organized around the central courtyard, that with its zenital light, represents the focal element of the building. Different areas are connected with the staircase through the courtyard, with the living areas opening to the surrounding landscape and the terraces on the first floor.

The jury appreciated the courtyard concept, but at the same time felt that it was not sufficiently developed and successfully solved, particularly in the way the vertical communication was organized and also in the articulation of the ground floor.

Nominee – Alexandru Cristian Beșliu

The progression of movement through the house’s creates a continuous experience of discovering new spaces. The positive exploitation of the site through the creation of this spatial serpentine, is specific to the pedestrian paths in the area. The jury appreciated the concept scheme but found the orientation of the bedrooms on the main elevation, the position of the bedroom and the internal path from it to the living area to be inappropriate. Furthermore, as a detail, the garage is too narrow for use by a normal car.

Nominee – Ligia Bura

A strong basement element is cut by the diagonal approach to the living / entrance level on the 1st floor, giving the user a foretaste of the experience of the view over the valley offered by the first floor plan. The orthogonally aligned bedroom block of the house with its two further levels corresponds well to the typology of its surroundings, but not as successfully by the modern expression of the façade.

Nominee – Dana Cucoreanu

The project contains a suggestion of artificial landscaping using progressive levels that then open to the green roof. The quality of this intervention is somewhat marred by the setting of the living room behind the fence to the street. A question mark remains over the response to the morphology of the ground by the massive intervention required on the site.

Nominee – Adrian Ianculescu

The project’s cubic form is cut in two by the entrance and vertical communication elements. The house is set on the street edge of the site and establishes the private garden spaces behind it at the rear of the site. This creates a rather unfortunate permanently shaded area which is problematic. The jury found the clean design and balanced floor organization, which relates well to the tranquil, Japanese-like garden, to be an interesting solution.

Nominee – Adriana Ilovan

The jury appreciated the concept of a house which forms a natural landscape on top of its built form, rising over the natural arrangement of established open spaces, mainly on the terrace/roof levels. A highlight is the green roof hothouse garden pavilion on the top. Generally however, the project needs further development in its circulation communications between floors and in its architectural expression.

Nominee – Adrian Matioc

The plans are clear and the different functions of the house are correctly oriented. The volume is well integrated in the site. The jury appreciated how the author took advantage of the site’s topography by creating a sequence of courtyards and terraces but felt the access to the house through very narrow, tense spaces and the division of the living area by the staircase to be unsuccessful.

Nominee – Sergiu Pop

The idea of establishing the open space on different levels guided this project. The living room / public sector on the first level allows the views over the village and the house. The project successfully reinterprets traditional elements like the porticoed terrace in a modern way but stops short of a really successful interior planning.

Nominee – Ruxandra Simona

This project made it to the final group by virtue of the clarity of its concept and its modern interpretation of the traditional house form. The scheme was less successful in its planning of the spaces in relation to the garden and to the exterior in general.

Nominee – Radu Andrei Stănescu

The jury liked both the massing of the volumetric composition and the clarity of the project, but felt that the solution of the southeast elevation and relation to the outdoors was not ideal. The rigidity of some of the formal and functional aspects were also slightly problematic.


4 responses to “2012

  1. Pingback: Câștigătorii c|a|s|a 2012 | paintings&drawings

  2. Pingback: Concursul Anual al Studentilor Arhitecti « Atelier ArcenCiel

  3. Pingback: Finaliștii și câștigătorii c|a|s|a 2012 | Concurs Anual al Studentilor Arhitecti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s