審査委員講評
小泉雅生／Masao Koizumi
人や生物と共存する「ポーラスな建築」
まず、公開審査でプレゼンテーションをされた5組の建築家の皆さんに、心から敬意を表したい。敷地変更を伴う5回にも及ぶ設計変更の末、無事竣工へとこぎ着けた遠藤克彦氏、事業者と長きに渡って併走し、その間の社会状況の変化や数々の障壁を乗り越えながら地域の人々に愛される建築を実現した金野千恵氏、山﨑健太郎氏、また長きにわたるホール建築の実績や歴史研究の成果を踏まえ緻密な計画を実現された日建設計の江副敏史氏、後藤武・千恵氏。いずれも、これらの作品ができあがるまでに、並々ならぬ労苦があったことと拝察される。これほどまでに重い思いが込められた作品をおこまがしくも審査をすることとなり、誠に荷が重かった。いずれも建築家の職能がいかんなく発揮されたプロジェクトであり、建築家協会の主宰する賞にふさわしい建築作品であった。
公開審査では、私は「後藤邸」を推した。自らが居住する自邸であり、そこで行われている建築的操作も極めて私的である。今はやりの住み開きといったこととも無縁で社会性は乏しい。しかし、様々なレベルで「仕掛け」が施され、知的ゲームとしての建築の魅力を再認識させるものであった。敷地へのアプローチを含め、迂回を繰り返す動線は、いつまで経ってもたどり着けないカフカの「城」を思い起こさせる。積み重ねられた「梁」も、構造表現を前面に出したものでありながら、合理性からは遠く離れたものである。設計手法という意味でも、容易に全容をつかませず、迂回を強いる極めてユニークなアプローチだった。実地に空間を体験してみると、時間軸、空間軸での広がり、豊かさが感じられ、POST－やDE－といった奇をてらったゲームにとどまらない、極めて精緻な空間モデルであることがうかがえた。
もう一つ気になったのは「春日台センターセンター」で、経済成長期に開発された何の変哲もない郊外型の住宅地において、シビックプライドを生み出さんとする、小規模ではあるが壮大なプロジェクトであった。各地でそのような住宅地の持続可能性が取り沙汰されているが、老と幼、官と民、健常者と障がい者、食と衣、様々なレベルで横断的に物事を捉えることで、その突破がはかられている。過度に専門分化が進む現代社会への痛切な批評であり、そのスケールの大きさに感銘を受けた。
最終的に大賞として選ばれたのは「52間の縁側」であった。「縁側」という空間形式が人々と触れあう機会を生み出すという語り口自体に新味はないが、それを拡大したスケールに置き換えることで、種々の可能性が切り開かれている。極端に引き延ばされた平面によって、シンボリックなフォルムが導き出され、さらにそこに離散的に居場所が設けられ、異なる立場の人々が無理なく共存する風景が描き出されていた。また、鳥かご状の架構に小屋状のボリュームが挿入され、多くの隙間を内包したポーラスな建築となっていることも印象的だった。ポーラスな建築は、外部との接触面積が多く、周囲との親和性が高い。ゆえに地域にも溶け込み、多くの人々を呼び寄せることにつながっている。一方、外部との接点の多さは、他の動植物や自然による浸食をも受け容れざるを得ない。だから朽ちやすくもあるはずだ。一般的に朽ちやすい建築はネガティブに捉えられる。しかし、逆の方向から見れば、朽ちない建築というのは周辺環境の中での異物であり続けるわけで、環境に優しくないオブジェクトともいえる。ポーラスなこの建築が、どのように人を惹きつけ、多くの生き物を宿し、環境と共存していくのか、これもまた、壮大なスケールの社会実験なのだろう。その行く末を見届けたい。大賞にふさわしい作品といえよう。
■小泉雅生
建築家／東京都立大学大学院教授／小泉アトリエ 主宰 東京大学大学院在学中にシーラカンスを共同設立。2005年小泉アトリエ設立。学校建築、ホール、環境配慮建築を主軸に、住宅から公共建築、広場、まちづくりまで幅広く手がける。主要作品に、「アシタノイエ」（日本建築学会作品選奨）、「象の鼻パーク／テラス」（環境・設備デザイン賞最優秀賞）、「港南区総合庁舎」（JIA環境建築賞優秀賞）、「横浜市寿町健康福祉交流センター／市営住宅」など。著書に『LCCM住宅の設計手法』、『パブリック空間の本』、『環境建築私論』など。
“Porous Architecture” Living in Harmony with People and Nature
First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt respect to the five groups of architects who presented at the public review. Katsuhiko Endo, who successfully steered and completed the building project through five design changes including a site change; Chie Konno and Kentaro Yamazaki, who worked side-by-side with the business owners for a long time to surmount numerous obstacles and changes in social conditions and to create an architectural work loved by the local people; and Satoshi Ezoe of Nikken Sekkei, Takeshi Goto, and Chie Goto, who developed meticulous plans that are the culmination of their extensive experience working on hall construction or historical research. The extraordinary amount of hard work that went into bringing these works to completion is evident in all of them. It was with heavy feelings that I presumed to judge such works that have been so carefully wrought. All these architectural projects amply demonstrated the architects’ professional skills and were worthy of the Japan Institute of Architects Award.
In the public review, I endorsed the Goto Residence. The building was the architects’ private residence, and the architectural interventions undertaken here were extremely personal. The current fad for open living cannot be seen here, and the work is lacking the social dimension. However, schemes were provided at various levels, which served to remind us of the appeal of architecture as an intellectual game. The flow of movement with repeating detours, including at the approach to the site, is reminiscent of Franz Kafka’s “The Castle,” which could never be reached. The beams stacked on top of each other bring out structural expression to the forefront, while also being far removed from rationality. In terms of the design method, the overall work does not lend itself to easy comprehension, with an extremely unique approach that forces one to take detours. Upon experiencing the space on-site, one can feel its richness and breadth in both the time and space axes. It is clear that the building is an exceedingly sophisticated spatial model that goes beyond playing outlandish “post-” and “de-” games.
Another work that stayed with me was the Kasugadai Center Center, a small yet grand project with the aim of creating a sense of civic pride in a nondescript suburban residential area that had been developed during Japan’s period of economic growth. While talk about such residential areas’ sustainability has been going around in various parts of Japan, breakthroughs have been achieved by looking at things from different perspectives across various levels: old and young, the public and private sector, people with and without disabilities, food and clothing, and so on. It was a poignant critique of modern society and its march toward excessive specialization, and the scale of the project left a deep impression on me.
In the end, the JIA Grand Prix was given to the Long House with an Engawa. Although the narrative itself—that the spatial form of the engawa (veranda) creates opportunities for people to interact—is not new, the project opened up a host of possibilities by magnifying the idea to a greater scale. The floor plan, which had been elongated to the extreme, provided a symbolic form. Together with spaces that had been set up at discrete locations, this created a setting in which people from different walks of life could comfortably inhabit together. I was also impressed by the cottage-type volume of spaces inserted within a birdcage-shaped frame, which turned the building into a porous architecture containing numerous gaps. With large amounts of contact surface with the outdoors, this porous architecture has a high affinity with its surroundings. This allows the building to blend into the local community and attract many people. On the other hand, the large number of contact points with the outside world means that it has no choice but to accept erosion from nature and outer flora and fauna. It is thus bound to be highly prone to decay. In general, buildings prone to decay are perceived negatively. However, looking at it from the opposite perspective, a building that does not decay is a persistent foreign object for the surrounding environment, and may therefore be considered as environmentally unfriendly. How will this porous architecture continue to draw people in, accommodate various wildlife, and live in harmony with the environment? This will surely be another social experiment on a grand scale. I look forward to seeing the fate of this building in the future. I believe this work is worthy of the JIA Grand Prix.
■Masao Koizumi
Architect, professor at the graduate school of Tokyo Metropolitan University, and chair of Koizumi Atelier. Jointly founded Coelacanth architects while studying at the graduate school of the University of Tokyo. Founded Koizumi Atelier in 2005. Has worked on a wide range of projects from residential housing to public buildings, public squares, and urban design, with a core focus on school buildings, halls, and environmentally friendly buildings. Major works include the Open Ended House (AIJ Architectural Design Commendation), ZOU-NO-HANA Park/Terrace (Best Design Award in the Environmental and Equipment Design Award), Konan Ward Office and Fire Station (Second Prize in the JIA Sustainable Architecture Award), and the Yokohama City Kotobukicho Health and Welfare Exchange Center/Yokohama Municipal Housing. Authored works include “The design method of the LCCM demonstration house,” “Text of Public Space,” and “Essays on Environmental Architecture.”
原田真宏／Masahiro Harada
施設・建物・建築
建築大賞の審査委員は今回で２度目になるが、それぞれ異なった規模、用途、そしてそもそも優れた多数の作品の中から、ただ１点の「大賞」を選ぶという無茶な話で、毎回なかなか苦労する。ただ、この時ほど「建築とは何か？」について、真面目に考える機会もそうはなく、その点だけは怠けがちな私にとって大切な時間になっている。
「建築」には当然いろいろな要素があるが、その中でも審査を進めていく内に、審査の尺度として、一つの主要な切断面が顕わになってくることがある。それは今回、私には「施設（シセツ）」と「建物（タテモノ）」、そして「建築（ケンチク）」。それらの意味と相互の関係性、として意識された。
まず、建築は「施設」として社会から要望される。これが建築の生まれる動機である。ある必要な機能を果たすこと。要望機能として使える部分は何もない虚ろな部分、つまり「空間」なので、その配置パターンや接続の仕方など、いわゆる「空間構成」が優れていることが重要になる。これは建築学というアカデミックな分野で蓄積され磨かれてきた計画学上の尺度によって評価され得る。空間構成としての適切性や新規性、そして世間一般で適用できるだろう普遍性。これらは建築を評価する尺度として重要なものになるわけだ。今回も多くの作品は、クライアントからの要望や社会の潜在的な要求に対して適切に答え、尚且つ普遍的な処方箋となりうるような「施設」としての価値を有していた。しかし、それだけでは何か「建築」には物足りないようだった。
次に先述の「空間」をどのようにして具体化するか。モノの「構築」という側面での建築の現れ、つまり「建物（タテモノ）」という評価軸だ。適切に構築された物質の統合体は、その周囲に好ましい「場所」を生み出すものだが、それは空間とはまた異なった重要な建築的環境の成分になる。そういった構造的、構法的、あるいは素材的なトライアルは、ホモ・ファベル（工作人）としての人間の本性に強く共鳴し、空間とはまた違った普遍的絡路によって一般の人々をも魅了していくような、強く深い共感作用を生み出す。人文・社会学的「空間構成」に対して、自然科学的「物質構築」。この「建物」として優れた作品も数多くあり、実はファイナルに残らない作品にも強く惹かれたものもあったが、それでもそれだけでは「建築」には何か足りない。
では、優れた「施設」であり、同時に優れた「建物」であれば、「建築」として優れているのか、というとそうでもない。施設空間の中で行われる「コト」あるいは「プログラム」と、構築物としての「建物」が、すれ違っている＝無関係である場合には「建築」として立ち現れてこない。つまり、ある「施設／空間構成」を物質的に実現する「建物／物質構築」が、他と入れ替え可能であるような場合、それは空間構成と物質構築が緊密に結びついていないことになり、「建築」に至らないのだろう。評価項目的に言えば、施設＝満点、建物＝満点、であっても建築＝満点、にはならないのはそんな訳だ。
そんなことをつらつらと審査が進む中で考えていたが、改めて大賞となった「52間の縁側」を振り返ると、この作品は「施設」の目的と、「建物」のあり様が、最も強く結びついていたように思われたのである。認知症も抱えるような老人を、従来型の老人福祉施設のように保護対象としてただ無事故安全にケアするだけでなく、一人の社会を構成する重要な人間として認めることがこの「施設」の目的としてあり、それを「建物」が誰もが理解でき手出しもできる分かり易い木造構築体として実現され、さらに言えば構造が若干華奢であるなど手を貸したくなるような「良い加減の良くできて無さ」が仕込まれていることで、通常は保護対象の老人たちが、むしろ建築や運営を保護する主体へと転換されたのである。実際、彼らの手によって、指定外の色で塗り重ねられた木材保護塗料や、勝手につけられたブランコ、誰かが作ったウサギ（？）小屋など、老人達の参画を建物が呼び込んでいる様子は、先の意味での「建築」としての説得力を放っていて、それが私には大賞に推す決め手となった。
良き施設、良き建物、そしてそれらを前提的に超えた、良き建築。
私も探究を続けたいと思う。
■原田真宏
MOUNT FUJI ARCHITECTS STUDIO共同主宰／1973年 静岡県生まれ。1997年 芝浦工業大学大学院建設工学専攻修了。1997-2000 隈建築都市設計事務所。2001-2002年 文化庁芸術家海外派遣研修制度（J.A.M.LAPENA & ELIAS TORRES Architects）。2003年 磯崎新アトリエ。2004年原田麻魚と共にMOUNT FUJI ARCHITECTS STUDIO設立。2008年 芝浦工業大学 准教授。2016年 芝浦工業大学 教授。作品に「XXXX」、「M3／KG」、「Tree house」、「Shore House」、「Seto」、「立山の家」、「知立の寺子屋」、「半島の家」、「LIAMFUJI」、「ROOFLAG」、「Entô」、「Stroog」ほか。受賞歴にSD Review鹿島賞（2003）、JIA新人賞（2015）、JIA日本建築大賞（2018）、日本建築学会賞（2020）、BCS賞（2018,2021,2023）ほか。
Facilities, Buildings, and Architecture
This is my second time serving as a reviewer for the JIA Award, and it has been quite a struggle both times to have to choose just one “grand prize” from a large number of outstanding architectural works, all of which have different scales and purposes. However, I do not often have as much opportunity to seriously think about “what architecture is” as during those times, and for someone like me who tends to slack off, these have become very precious times for me.
“Architecture” obviously has various elements, but as the screening progresses, a major dimension sometimes emerges as a judging criterion. This time for me, it was “facilities,” “buildings,” and “architecture.” I was made aware of their meanings and the inter-relationship between them.
First of all, society demands architecture as a “facility.” This serves as the motivation behind the creation of architecture—to perform a certain function that is needed. Since the parts that have utility for the desired function are empty vacant areas, in other words “space,” their layout patterns and methods of connection—what is called “spatial composition”—become crucial. This can be evaluated using the standards of planning, which have been accumulated and refined in the academic field of architecture. Suitability and innovation in spatial composition, as well as universality in applicability to the world in general—these are important criteria for evaluating architecture. As in the previous year, many of the works suitably addressed the clients’ requirements and the tacit demands of wider society, as well as possessed value as “facilities” that could serve as universal formulas. However, it seemed that this alone is not enough for “architecture.”
Next, how can the above-mentioned “space” be more concretely defined? It is the expression of the architecture in terms of “constructing” an object, in other words the evaluation criterion of “building.” A well-constructed, materially integrated body creates an appealing “place” for its surroundings. It is an important component of the architectural environment that is different from “space.” Such structural, compositional, or material trials strongly resonate with human nature as a homo faber (maker) and continue to captivate the general public with a universal connection that is different from “space,” creating a deeply and strongly shared empathy. In contrast to “spatial
composition” that is associated with the humanities and sociology, “material construction” is under the natural sciences. As “buildings,” there were many works that were excellent as well. In fact, some of the works that did not make it to the final screening were also very appealing to me, but that alone seemed to lack an element for them to be considered “architecture.”
Well then, if a work is an excellent “facility” and an excellent “building” at the same time, does that mean that it is excellent as an “architecture”? Not so. If the “events” or “programs” performed in the facility space and the “building” as a structure are not related or are mutually exclusive, then it will not turn out and emerge as an “architecture.” In other words, if the “building/material construction” that materially reproduces a certain “facility/spatial composition” is replaceable with another, then it means that the spatial composition and material construction are not tightly linked, and will not likely lead to “architecture.” In terms of evaluation items, this is why even if the work can be given a perfect score as a “facility” and a perfect score as a “building,” this does not necessarily lead to it receiving a perfect score as an “architecture.”
I was turning these things over in my mind during the screening. Looking back again on the JIA Award winner, the Long House with an Engawa, I realized that this work seemed to have the strongest connection between the purpose of the “facility” and the state of the “building.” The purpose of this “facility” was not only to protectively care for elderly people suffering from dementia in a safe and accident-free manner as in conventional senior welfare facilities, but also to recognize them as important members of society. Because the “building” was created as a simple wooden structure that anyone can understand and help care for, and on top of which the structure was somewhat delicate and imbued with a “moderate lack of polish” that makes people want to help out, the elderly, who are normally those being protected, have instead been turned into those who protect the architecture and its operations. Indeed, the way the building seemed to invite the participation of the seniors—things like wood protection painted in unspecified colors, arbitrarily installed swings, and rabbit hutches (?) that someone built—was quite convincing in the above sense of “architecture,” and that was the deciding factor for me to endorse it for the JIA Grand Prix.
A good facility and good building, and good architecture that requisitely surpasses these two.
I too hope to continue my explorations.
■Masahiro Harada
Born in Shizuoka Prefecture, 1973, and currently jointly chairs MOUNT FUJI ARCHITECTS STUDIO. Completed a master’s degree at the Division of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering and Science, Shibaura Institute of Technology in 1997. Worked at Kengo Kuma and Associates from 1997 to 2000. Took part in the Agency for Cultural Affairs’ Program of Overseas Study for Upcoming Artists (J.A.M. LAPENA & ELIAS TORRES Architects) from 2001 to 2002. Worked at Arata Isozaki & Associates in 2003. Established MOUNT FUJI ARCHITECTS STUDIO together with Mao Harada in 2004. Served as an associate professor at Shibaura Institute of Technology in 2008. Served as a professor at Shibaura Institute of Technology in 2016. Works include XXXX, M3/KG, Tree House, Shore House, Seto, House toward Tateyama, teracoya THANK, Peninsula House, LIAM FUJI, ROOFLAG, Entô, STROOG, and others. Awards include the SD Review Kajima Prize (2003), JIA Young Architect Award (2015), JIA Award (2018), AIJ Prize (2020), and BCS Prize (2018, 2021, 2023), among others.
大野博史／Hirofumi Ono
福祉をめぐる二つの建築のあり様
本年度より審査員を担当させていただいた。紙面により優秀建築選100作品を選び、その中から日本建築大賞を現地審査、公開審査を踏まえ決定するという大役を一構造設計者にお声がけいただき大変光栄なことである。審査に際しては、専門的な視点を活かし、構造設計の合理性や新規性、提案性を元にしたいくつかの評価基準を設定することを模索したが、この賞が建築家協会主催による建築作品に与える賞であり、構造設計の優劣にのみ拠るべきではないとの認識に至った。構造が合理的であっても建築的魅力を欠く場合もあれば、構造が不合理であっても建築空間や社会的意義を有する建築物も多々存在する。その構造設計にいたった諸条件の整理の仕方や問いの立て方とその解決方法に一定の論理性があること。構造が見えるか見えないかにかかわらず建築表現として一貫性があることを評価において重視すべきと、考えるように至った。構造設計はえてして経済原理に基づいた正しさを求めるが、多様な価値観のもとに設計される建築は、その正しさのみでは決定しない場面が多く存在する。その多様性の一端を担う構造がどのような姿勢をとるべきか、審査に当たり深く考慮することとした。
今年の大賞に輝いた「52間の縁側」は、写真で見る以上に素朴でありながらも身体的な感覚を強く刺激する空間であった。その長い建築は、敷地の高低差を顕在化させ、周辺環境の多様性と内部空間が見事に調和していた。長い建物形状は、敷地をアプローチ側の外部環境と、施設利用者のための守られた庭とに、柔軟に区分けすることに一役買っていた。また、道路側の既存建物と一体運用することで中心を生み出すことにも成功していた。在来軸組み工法による仕口に頼らない接合形式を採用することで、木造架構の簡素さが強調されていた。柱梁筋違いが分節されるこの形式は、架構の成り立ちを理解しやすいデザインであり、利用者自らが建築をカスタマイズする際の動機づけにもなっていると感じた。「福祉施設」という言葉がもつ計画的で管理された閉鎖空間とは異なる建築がここにはあった。耐久性に関する懸念も見受けられたが、この運営者と建築家の連携であれば、問題を前向きに解決していくだろうと強く感じさせる作品である。
優秀建築賞として選ばれた「春日台センターセンター」も福祉施設である。通りに面した大きな屋根をもち、7つの機能を備えている。ロッジア空間の研究実績をもつ建築家の独自の視点から生み出された内外空間を見事に体現しており、常に活気にあふれた印象を与えていた。地域の核が人口減少、高齢化、社会構造の変化により失われ、疲弊していく地方地域は、今後ますます増加するだろう。そうした状況において、この作品は、福祉施設を通じて地域の絆を再構築する試みを見事に実現しており、極めて稀な状況を成功裏に導いたプロジェクトとして賞賛に値する。規約の関係で、私が構造設計に関わったため、審査中は一切のコメント、助言、投票への参加は控えたことをここに明記しておく。
「後藤邸」は建築家による自邸の作品である。大きなワンルーム空間が、積層する浮いた壁（梁）によって緩やかに分節されており、一つの場所にいながら、他の空間の気配を感じさせる建築作品だった。明快な空間構成はときとして凡庸で窮屈な印象を与えるが、ここでは多様で広がりのある居場所が用意され、魅力的な建築作品として評価できる。
「高槻城公園芸術文化劇場」は法体系や劇場計画に精通したチームにより実現した高い完成度を誇る作品である。高い密度の設計と高度な技術力により、高性能の公共建築が生み出され、建築の信頼を高め、建築文化の発展に貢献する素晴らしい作品である。
現地審査に残った「茨城県大子町新庁舎」も、災害を乗り越えたプロセスを含め素晴らしい公共建築であり、それらの中から一つの大賞を決定するのはとても難しいことであった。どの作品も大賞にふさわしい作品であったこと、さらに今年は二つの福祉施設が残ったことを記憶に留めたいと思う。
■大野博史
構造家。1974年大分県生まれ。1997年日本大学理工学部卒業。1998年一般社団法人日本国際学生技術研修協会による海外研修（ユーゴスラビアENERGOPROJEKT）。2000年日本大学大学院理工学研究科建築学専攻修士課程修了。2000年〜04年 池田昌弘建築研究所。2005年 オーノJAPAN一級建築士事務所設立。日本構造デザイン賞、国土交通大臣賞耐震改修優秀建築賞、BCS賞などを受賞。著作に『ヴィヴィッドテクノロジー』（学芸出版社）共著、『構造設計プロセス図集』（オーム社）単著など。
Two Forms of Architecture for Welfare
I started serving as a reviewer this year. It is a great honor for a structural designer to be asked to carry out the important task of selecting 100 candidate works for the JIA Award based on paper submissions, and then to decide on the recipient of the JIA Award from among these based on on-site and public reviews. For the screening, I tried to make use of my professional perspective and set several evaluation criteria based on the logic, innovation, and proposal of the structural design. However, this award is given to architectural works by the Japan Institute of Architects, and I have come to realize that it should not rely solely on the relative merits of the structural design. There are works lacking in architectural appeal even if their structure is logical, but there are also many works with architectural space and social significance even if their structure is illogical. There must be a certain level of logic in how the terms and conditions that led to the structural design were identified, how issues were posed, and how they were addressed. I have come to believe that, regardless of whether the structure is visible or not, consistency of architectural expression should be given priority in the evaluation. Structural design tends to demand correctness based on economic principles, but for an architectural work that is being designed based on diverse value systems, there are many situations in which correctness alone is not enough to determine the design. During the screening, I decided to give careful consideration to the approach that should be taken by the structure in order to fulfill its role in this diversity.
This year’s JIA Grand Prix, the Long House with an Engawa, is more rustic than it looks in the photographs, and yet its space intensely stimulates the physical senses. The long building made the site’s difference in elevation more visible and perfectly harmonized the diversity of the surrounding environment with the interior space. The long building configuration helped to flexibly demarcate the site into an outdoor environment on the approach side and a protected garden for facility users. It also succeeded in creating a central area by integrating operations with existing buildings on the road side. The simplicity of the wooden frame was emphasized by the adoption of a joint form that did not rely on joints from traditional framework construction methods. I felt that the design form with segmented beam and column diagonal bracing made the frame structure accessible and served to motivate users when customizing the architecture themselves. Here was an architectural work that was different from the planned, managed, and closed space implied by the term “welfare facility.” Although there were some concerns about durability, this work provided reassurance that any problem will be positively resolved through collaboration between the facility operator and the architect.
The Kasugadai Center Center, which was selected for the JIA Award, is also a welfare facility. With a large roof facing the street, the building served seven functions. It gives off a constantly vibrant ambience with perfectly embodied indoor and outdoor spaces conceived by the architect’s unique perspective and research experience in loggia spaces. In the future, more and more rural areas will weaken and regional cores will disappear due to population decline, aging, and changes in social structure. Under these circumstances, this work brilliantly achieved its aim to rebuild community ties through welfare facilities and deserves recognition as a project for successfully creating an extremely rare atmosphere. I would like to clarify here that, as I was involved in the structural design, I refrained from making any comments, giving advice, or participating in the voting during the screening process in accordance with the rules.
The Goto Residence is a project on the architects’ own residence. The large one-room space was gradually segmented by layered floating walls (beams), creating an architectural work that allowed one to sense the presence of other spaces while staying in one place. While clear-cut spatial compositions may sometimes seem commonplace and cramped, the project provides a variety of spacious living spaces and is commendable as a wonderful piece of architecture.
The Takatsuki Arts Theater boasts of high-quality workmanship realized by a team with extensive knowledge of the legal code and theater planning. The highly dense design and advanced engineering skills enabled the creation of this high-performance public building. It is an exceptional work that enhances the credibility of architecture and contributes to the development of architectural culture.
The Daigo Town Hall in Ibaraki Prefecture, which was also selected for on-site review, is a splendid work of public architecture, also having gone through the process of overcoming a natural disaster. It was very difficult to choose just one of these works to be the winner of the JIA Grand Prix. I would like to note that every work was worthy of the award, and the fact that two welfare facilities made it to the final screening this year.
■Hirofumi Ono
Structural engineer. Born in Oita Prefecture, 1974. Graduated from the College of Science and Technology, Nihon University in 1997. Took part in overseas training by the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience Japan (ENERGOPROJEKT, Yugoslavia) in 1998. Completed a master’s degree at the Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nihon University in 2000. Worked at Masahiro Ikeda Architecture Studio from 2000 to 2004. Founded Ohno Japan First Class Architect’s Office in 2005. Awards include the Japan Structural Design Award, MLIT Minister’s Award for Excellent Seismic Retrofitting in Architecture, and BCS Prize, among others. Authored works include “Vivid Technology” (co-authored, Gakugei Shuppansha) and “Structural Design Process Drawing Collection” (Ohmsha).
宮沢 洋／Hiroshi Miyazawa
「公開」と「メディア枠」の狙いは何？
「建築」や「建築家」の可能性を広げるものを選びたい――。今回で3回目となる審査も、そんな姿勢で臨んだ。
実は毎回同じ書き出しでこの講評を書いてきた。それは、建築を社会一般に開くことに少しでも貢献したいと考えてきたからだ。今回が最後の審査なので、まず、そのことについて少し書きたい。
JIA日本建築大賞が他の建築賞と異なる点は2つあって、1つは最終審査が「公開」で行われること。もう1つは「メディア枠」の審査員が含まれていることだ。筆者はそのメディア枠審査員である。
この2点について、どういう理由でそうなったのか、審査員を引き受けるときに調べてみた。だが、明確な理由を記したものは見当たらなかった。見つからないので自分なりに考えた。思い至ったのは、建築の賞を“閉じたムラ社会の議論”から開きたい、と考えたのではないかということだ。
建築専門誌の編集者を長くやってきたので、雑誌に取り上げたくなる建築は大体分かる。大きくいうと2つの方向性があって、1つは「高度に洗練された建築」。もう1つは「建築や建築家の可能性を広げる建築」だ。
何を取り上げるかを判断するときの心持ちを白状すると、前者の「高度に洗練された建築」の方が取り上げやすい。リスクが少なく、安心だからだ。一方、後者は挑戦している分、リスクをはらむ。強く推すのには勇気がいる。でも、この賞では一般の人に伝わりやすい後者を推そうと決めていた。
今回、現地審査対象となった5件の印象を、「どんな可能性を開いているか」という視点で見出しにしてみた。（応募番号順）
- 「茨城県大子町新庁舎」（遠藤克彦：株式会社 遠藤克彦建築研究所）
→「地域の木材を使った樹状架構による視覚的変化に富んだ庁舎空間の可能性を開く」。 - 「52間の縁側」（山﨑健太郎：山﨑健太郎デザインワークショップ）
→「一直線の配置による行動と情動がもたらす偶発的な交流促進の可能性を開く」。 - 「後藤邸」（後藤武、後藤千恵：株式会社後藤武建築設計事務所）
→「ワンルームでの上下空間のズレや内外の錯覚など小住宅での新たな空間体験の可能性を開く」。 - 「春日台センターセンター」（金野千恵：teco）
→「地域性を踏まえながら事業面も緻密に練り込んだ計画的多交流の可能性を開く」 - 「高槻城公園芸術文化劇場」（江副敏史、多喜茂、高畑貴良志、差尾孝裕：株式会社日建設計）
→「分節型の構成と木ルーバーによる共用空間重視の劇場の可能性を開く」。
ワンフレーズでまとめるとそんなところか。どれも新たな可能性に挑んでいるが、「茨城県大子町新庁舎」と「高槻城公園芸術文化劇場」はどちらかというと洗練の印象が勝っていたので、筆者は残りの3つを推した。
「後藤邸」は、一般の人には想像しにくい空間だと思うが（筆者も図面では全く分からなかった）、これは洗練とは逆方向の挑戦の塊だ。小住宅にもまだこんな面白さがある、専門家たちはこれを見てザワついている、という温度感は一般の人にも伝わるのではないか。
「52間の縁側」と「春日台センターセンター」は、考え方が対照的でありながらどちらも先進的・挑発的なケア施設で、甲乙つけがたかった。最終の1票は、未知の期待感の大きい「52間」に入れた。本当に起こるか分からない未来のリスクを指摘したくなる自分への反省票でもある。最後となる審査で、2つの魅力的な建築が文化施設でなく福祉施設で見られたことに、今後への頼もしさを感じた。
なお、筆者は「高度に洗練された建築」も大好きだ。そちらの方向性の設計者の方にはこの場を借りてお詫びしたい。JIA日本建築大賞の審査でなければ喜んでそういうものも推すので、ご理解いただきたい。
■宮沢 洋
画文家、編集者、BUNGA NET代表兼編集長。1967年東京生まれ。1990年早稲田大学政治経済学部政治学科卒業、日経BP社入社。日経アーキテクチュア編集部に配属。2016年～19年まで日経アーキテクチュア編集長。2020年2月に独立。2020年4月から磯達雄とOffice Bungaを共同主宰。2021年5月、株式会社ブンガネット（BUNGA NET Inc.）を設立。著書に『建築巡礼』シリーズ（磯達雄との共著）、『隈研吾建築図鑑』、『はじめてのヘリテージ建築』など
What Are the Objectives of Being “Open to the Public” and the “Media Slot”?
I wanted to select works which expand the possibilities of architecture and architects. So it was from this viewpoint that I approached my third time as a reviewer.
Indeed, I have been writing my review with the same opening line each time. This is because I want to contribute even in some small way to opening up architecture to the general public. This will be my last review, and so I would like to write a little about this first.
The JIA Award differs from other architectural awards in two ways: the first is that the final screening is “open to the public” and the second is the inclusion of a “media slot” among the reviewers. I am the media-slot reviewer.
When I accepted the role of a reviewer, I looked into the reasoning behind these two points. However, I couldn’t find anything that stated a clear reason for this. And so, I deliberated on it myself. The reason I came up with was that the JIA may have wanted to open up the awards for architecture away from “discussions within a closed, insular community.”
Having worked for a long time as an editor for an architectural magazine, I generally know what kind of architecture would be featured in a magazine. Broadly speaking, there are two directions: one is “works that are highly refined,” and the other is “works which expand the possibilities of architecture and architects.”
When deciding on what to cover for the magazine, I confess that I find it easier to feature the former—works that are highly refined. This is because this choice is safe and less risky. In contrast, the latter choice means taking up a challenge, and is therefore fraught with risks. It takes courage to strongly endorse something. Nevertheless, for this award, I have decided to endorse the latter because they are easier for ordinary people to understand.
This time, I tried to assess the five works selected for on-site reviews from the perspective of what sort of possibilities they demonstrate. (In order of entry)
- Daigo Town Hall in Ibaraki Prefecture (Katsuhiko Endo of Endo Architect and Associates)
→Opens up possibilities for government office spaces rich in visual variation with tree-shaped assemblages using local timber. - Long House with an Engawa (Kentaro Yamazaki of Yamazaki Kentaro Design Workshop)
→Opens up possibilities for encouraging casual interaction from actions and emotions evoked by the linear layout. - Goto Residence (Takeshi Goto and Chie Goto of Takeshi Goto Architect & Associates)
→Opens up possibilities for new spatial experiences in a small residence through shifts in upper and lower spaces of a studio room and perceptual illusions inside and outside the building, among others. - Kasugadai Center Center (Chie Konno of teco)
→Opens up possibilities for numerous, planned social interactions designed with careful consideration of business prospects and in keeping with the local character. - Takatsuki Arts Theater (Satoshi Ezoe, Shigeru Taki, Kiyoshi Takahata, and Takahiro Sashio of Nikken Sekkei Ltd)
→Opens up possibilities for a theater that prioritizes shared spaces through a segmented layout and wooden louvers.
With these brief descriptions, I have attempted to summarize the works. All of them have taken up the challenge of opening up new possibilities. However, the Daigo Town Hall in Ibaraki Prefecture and Takatsuki Arts Theater gave more of an impression of refinement, so I endorsed the other three.
Although I think the Goto Residence possesses a space that is difficult for ordinary people to envision (I myself could not understand it at all from the drawings), it contains a collection of challenges that are in the opposite direction to refinement. I believe that ordinary people would also sense the enthusiasm for a small residence that can still be fascinating, with experts buzzing with excitement upon seeing it.
Despite their contrasting approach, the Long House with an Engawa and the Kasugadai Center Center are both visionary and provocative care facilities, making it hard to choose between the two. My final vote went to the Long House, with its greater sense of anticipation of the unknown. It is also a self-reflective vote for me, for having the urge to point out future risks that may never actually happen. Seeing two wonderful architectural works that are welfare facilities instead of cultural facilities in my final review gave me hope for the future.
Let me say that I also love “works that are highly refined.” I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the designers who took that direction. Please understand that I would be happy to endorse such works as well, as long as it is not as a reviewer for the JIA Grand Prix.
■Hiroshi Miyazawa
Illustrated essayist, editor, and BUNGA NET representative and editor-in-chief. Born in Tokyo, 1967. Graduated from the Department of Political Science, School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University and joined Nikkei Business Publications, Inc. in 1990. Assigned to Nikkei Architecture’s editorial department. Served as editor-in-chief of Nikkei Architecture from 2016 to 2019. Went independent in February 2020. Has chaired Office Bunga jointly with Tatsuo Iso since April 2020. Established BUNGA NET Inc. in May 2021. Authored works include the “Architecture Pilgrimage” series (co-authored with Tatsuo Iso), “Illustrated Directory of Kengo Kuma’s Architecture,” and “Heritage Architecture for Beginners.”
社会に貢献し人々を生かす建築のシナリオ
選定基準というものは時代が要請するのかもしれない。学会の基準の違いもあるが、やはり建築作品そのものに注目してしまいがちだ。私自身は建築家の役割というものを問いながら審査に望んだ。建築家の職能を考えさせられる活動が主たる作品も増えている。空間を追求していく作品も一方で深みを見せ、その職能範囲は幅広く深い。建築が面白いのは、やはり社会の中で人々を生かしているということだ。それが美しい形態と表情であればさらに良い。今年は木造、木材を扱ったものが共通して意図せず選定されている。これも環境の時代の表れだろうか。
審査は194の応募作品の中から書類審査で100選、その後5作品に絞り現地審査を行った。書類審査では傾向として昨年と同じく単なるコンセプトよりもシナリオに重点が置かれている作品が多かった。絞っていく過程では空間時間人間の起承転結が明快なものを選んだつもりである。5作品はそれぞれのシナリオの良さに、私は加えてそれが社会にいかに貢献するであろうかという視座に重点を置いた。
「52間の縁側」はその長さにまずは驚く。タイトルも縁側と呼ぶに相応しい。この建築が生まれる背景にはクライアントの活動と強い意志と目的があり、建築家はそれに長い時間をかけ対峙し共鳴して高みに導いた建築となった。建築家の役割を見事に果たしていることが、利用者の満足感や話から伝わってきた。現地審査でないと分からない局面である。布石として三つの機能が長い縁側にあるが、これらは時間をかけ変容する可能性がある。建築家はそれらを仕掛け、成功している。木構造のディティールはローコストでの工夫はあるが改善の余地が多少あるように見受けられた。それを超えてメンテナンスを自らやる人のように利用者が率先して体を動かして関わっていく姿、笑顔に溢れている利用者の「とも生き」に共感を覚えた。この場の持つ力が建築の出現によって人にも力を与えている。多数で日本建築大賞作品に残った。
「春日台センターセンター」は建築学会賞に選定された作品であるが，学会賞よりもJIAの賞がふさわしいと思う。このプロジェクトも「52間の縁側」と同じように建築家の長期にわたる活動の成果である。弱者のための施設を内包し、その地域のコミュニティセンターとして、しっかり生活の視点で地域に馴染んでいる。地域の核になるべく計画され、そのきめの細やかさが随所に見受けられ、建築よりも建築家の尽力が魅力的だ。美しさという視点はさておき親しみ易い建築としては抜きん出ている。
「後藤邸」はワンルームの概念を覆している。室内に飛び交う梁が視線を遮りながら個々の空間を繋ぎ、不思議で魅力的な空間を生み出し建築家の住宅へのチャレンジが漲っている。汎用性は低いと思われるが、全く新しい境地は建築家としての哲学が空間として見事に形になっている。
「高槻城公園芸術文化劇場」は豊かな歴史的な敷地を生かし、地元の木材を多用し歴史と文化、そして生活も繋ぎまとめ上げる力量は建築計画学的に成功させ、しかも全体のプロポーションや素材が美しい。木材を適材適所に活かし、分節化したRC構造の内外にまとわりつかせ豊かなシークセンスを生み出している。木質の肌触りの良い空間は公園と連続し一体化し、市民にとっての公共建築として素直なあり方を提言している。
「茨城県大子町新庁舎」は、建築家が正面突破で挑んだ緻密な木構造とディティールをシステム化し、気迫のこもった傑作である。自然災害の余波で敷地が代わり何度も根底からやり直し昇華していくプロセスが凄まじい。しかし賞には残らなかった。このような建築を本来落としてはいけないはずだが賞の数の問題と審査員の評価基準とは少し乖離していたのだろう。残念であったが木造庁舎として歴史に残る作品であるのは間違いない。
■松岡拓公雄
1952年姫路市生まれ、1976年東京芸術大学美術学部建築学科卒業。1978年同大学院修了、1978～86年丹下健三・都市・建築設計研究所勤務、1986～07年アーキテクトファイブ共同主宰、2008年〜現在アーキテクトシップ主宰、1999～2016年滋賀県立大学環境科学部教授（名誉教授）、2016〜23年亜細亜大学都市創造学部教授（学部長）／公共施設の建設検討委員会、まちづくりや景観審議会などの委員を現在も多数努める。日本建築学会賞業績賞、GD大賞、BCS賞、日本建築美術工芸協会賞、土木学会デザイン最優秀賞など受賞。
Architectural Scenarios Contribute to Society and Help People Thrive
Perhaps our selection criteria are dictated by the needs of the times. Academic societies may have differences in criteria, but we ultimately tend to focus more on the building itself. I myself hoped to review the architectural works while questioning the role of the architect. Also, more and more works are now mainly based on architectural efforts that make us reflect on the architect’s professional functions. Works that explore space are becoming deeper as well, resulting in greater breadth and depth of the architect’s professional functions. Ultimately, what makes architectural works interesting is that they help people thrive within society. Better still if they have beautiful forms and expressions. This year, the selected works were unintentionally either wooden structures or works using wood. This may well be a sign of the environmental age.
Out of 194 entries, 100 works were selected through document screening, followed by on-site reviews of five chosen works. In the document screening, there were many works that emphasized scenarios rather than concepts alone, which was similar to last year. In narrowing down the field, I tried to choose works that clearly showed their narrative composition—introduction, development, climax, and conclusion—over the space-time-human continuum. For the five chosen works, in addition to the merits of each scenario, I also placed more emphasis on how these scenarios serve to benefit society.
The Long House with an Engawa will first and foremost surprise you with its length. The work is also aptly entitled an engawa (veranda). The client’s endeavors together with a strong will and sense of purpose provided the impetus for the creation of this building, and the architect devoted long hours to wrestle and resonate with these requirements, all of which led to new architectural heights. It was clear from the satisfaction and feedback from users that the architect’s role had been admirably fulfilled. We would not have known of this facet of the work without an on-site review. To lay the project’s groundwork, the architect provided the long engawa with three functions, all of which can be potentially transformed over time. All these functions have been successfully set up by the architect. Ingenuity went into creating the architectural details of the wooden structure at a low cost, but the building seemed to offer room for improvements. Nevertheless, beyond that, I felt a sense of empathy at the sight of the users actively getting involved on their own initiative like they are the ones doing the maintenance work themselves, full of smiles and demonstrating the meaning of “living together.” The power that this place holds empowers people through the manifestation of architecture. The majority selected this work for the JIA Grand Prix.
While the Kasugadai Center Center won the AIJ Prize, I believe that the JIA Award is more suited for this work rather than the AIJ Prize. Similar to the Long House with an Engawa, this project is a culmination of the architect’s endeavors over a long period of time. The building has built-in facilities for people with vulnerabilities and as a local community center, it blends well into the community from the perspective of daily life. Planned to serve as a core of the community, the meticulous attention to detail is evident at every turn and showcased the architect’s efforts more than the building itself. Beyond aesthetics, this building stands out as an approachable piece of architecture.
The Goto Residence overturns the concept of a one-room space. The beams spanning over the interior conceal lines of sight while connecting separate spaces, creating a mysterious and attractive space filled with the architect’s new challenges to residential buildings. Although it may seem to be low in versatility, an entirely new frontier in architectural philosophy has been wonderfully created in the space.
The Takatsuki Arts Theater’s ability to combine history and culture together with daily life by taking advantage of its rich historical site and making lavish use of local timber has made the building a success in terms of architectural planning. Furthermore, it has beautiful materials and overall proportions. Its judicious use and placement of suitable timber material to wrap around both the interior and exterior of the segmented reinforced concrete structure creates a generous sense of chic. The pleasantly textured wooden space is connected and integrated with a park, presenting an authentic ideal for public buildings for the local people.
The Daigo Town Hall in Ibaraki Prefecture is a bold masterpiece showcasing the architect’s challenging breakthrough to systematize the precision and detailing of a wooden structure. In the aftermath of a natural disaster, the town hall site was moved and tremendous energy was poured into the process of starting all over again from the bottom up time and again. Yet this work failed to win an award. Normally, this kind of architecture should not have been dropped. There must have been some misalignment between the number of awards and the evaluation criteria of the reviewers. While this was unfortunate, this architectural work will unmistakably go down in history as a wooden town hall building.
■Takeo Matsuoka
Born in Himeji City, 1952. Graduated from the Department of Architecture, Tokyo University of the Arts in 1976. Completed a master’s degree at the same university in 1978. Worked for Tange Associates from 1978 to 1986. Jointly chaired Architect 5 Partnership from 1986 to 2007. Chaired ARCHITECTSHIP LLC since 2008. Served as a professor (professor emeritus) at the School of Environmental Science, the University of Shiga Prefecture from 1999 to 2016, and as a professor (dean) at the Faculty of Urban Innovation, Asia University from 2016 to 2023. Currently serves as a member of numerous committees including public facility construction review committees and town planning and landscape councils. Awards include the AIJ Prize Practical Achievement Division; Good Design Award; BCS Prize; Japan Association of Artists, Craftsmen, and Architects Award; and Civil Engineering Design Grand Prize.