The jurors began the selection process with a discussion of what the criteria should be. They decided that the ideal entry should offer both a compelling hypothesis and research that led to an equally compelling answer. Sounds simple, and suitably scientific. But so many of the entries asked such provocative questions, and provided such provocative answers, that, in the fever of discussion, some of the jury members nearly missed their flights home. At the end of the day, five entries emerged as award-winners and four projects as citation-winners. All nine demonstrate that architectural technology is alive and well—and evolving in remarkable ways.
