Date: 26.11.2018

Location: Str Edgar Quinet nr 7, Sector 1, Bucharest

1. The judging process – structure: One of the jurors could not be present in the judging process, Nicoleta Deliu, and so the role was taken over by a supleant member, Khalid Inayeh.

All other members of the jury were either physically present or over Skype, in the case of Nadja Zerunian.

At the meeting there were also members of the Technical Commission, Andrei Georgescu and Raluca Antonescu.

For the contest there were 44 submitted projects and after the evaluation of the Technical Commission, all 44 were presented to the Jury.

2. Evaluation Criteria: the theme of the contest and the evaluation criteria were presented again while any kind of questions were addressed.

3. The judging process – way of working:

Each of the jury members presented their shortlisted projects, based on the evaluation they had done, during the dedicated period.

Each of the shortlisted projects were discussed in greater detail by all jury members and were again scored according to the contest rules.

Conclusions: 

The following projects were shortlisted: 4, 6, 7, 12, 15, 19, 27, 29, 35.

The following projects have received the greatest scoring and appreciation:

Project 19 with three jury votes.

Mentions and recommendations about this project:

“Project 19 had a strong equilibrium between a good concept, a good space expression and a powerful design identity tacking into account the budget. The flexible furniture could generate different situations, but it cannot store too much objects. The atmosphere is mysterious and expressive looking for a more minimalist approach than a crafts approach.”

“I found the concept of dialogue & the encounter of the different worlds around a table as equal partners very compelling. To merge these two very different realities & give them balanced value & enable conversation, interaction & allow the ‘consumer’ to become part of this reality are the most interesting aspects.”

“The project has a conceptual and aesthetic value, I also appreciate the flexibility of the furniture. Anyhow the interior is more appropriate for an exhibition space and do not create a socializing environment.”

Jury recommendations – lighter interior in order to create an ambiance flexible for needs for the shop, café and socializing atmosphere. Storage space and much more flexibility of the overall space. Addressing these aspects is mandatory in order for the project to be considered for implementation.

Project 27 with four jury votes

Mentions and recommendations about this project:

“Project 27 exhibits a strong and sensitive concept about the space tacking idea of the workplace as a sign for the MBQ shop. The objects exhibited here have crafts identity and, in accordance, the proposal create a space for crafting interaction and meeting. The tectonic atmosphere of the proposal visually attracts, but, in a sense, is static because of the workplace wood installation which interposes between the entrance and the coffee area creating two tiny rows of exhibited object. The difficulty for the visitors is to perceive and enjoy the objects. Nevertheless, the hole proposal expresses very well the whole MBQ concept.”

“To emphasize the workshop & allowing a visitor to visit this ‘alien’ world is a very alluring concept. I like this concept because it uses the architecture as a storytelling tool The realization is whimsical, flexible & very distinctive. The general mood is inviting & the narrative the clear link between these 2 very diverse universes.”

“We appreciate the flexibility and freshness of the concept. This is a concept that represent the essence of MBQ.”

“Project 27 seems to be one of the most dynamic yet simple. It can be made very flexible to respond easily to continues modifications and adjustments.”

The jury recommends further development of the project in order to meet the clients needs such as space for storage, proper lighting, easy maintenance and easy adaptability of the structure. Addressing these aspects is mandatory in order for the project to be considered for implementation.

Project 29 with three jury votes

Mentions and recommendations about this project:

“Project 29 had a smart and nice concept regarding the idea of roots and the Roma culture. The space becomes a sensitive exhibition of this idea. Also, the same space is attentively designed for each function: first the shop which attracts people and then the coffee-shop which creates interaction, and all gathered in a very small space. The space could easily be transformed with minimum effort into an event-space.”

“The idea to work with the existing furniture and to improve the space rather than to change radically it is a sign of respect and understanding both for the good atmosphere and vibe of the original MBQ shop which actually attracts people within, and also of the client budget.”

“I appreciate the very clear distinctions between spaces and between functions. This is a concept that does not leave the client guessing and is trying to make it easier for the different types of interactions to happen. And beyond function, there are specific identity and design elements that make this space memorable for everyone who would step in.”

Jury recommends a further development of the project in order to meet the clients need for bigger shelves surface and storage in a flexible solution. Addressing these aspects is mandatory in order for the project to be considered for implementation.

In the final decision, the Public’s Vote is the “6th Juror” and can contribute to make the difference between two projects which had the same final scoring.

Taking all of this into account, the final standings are:

1. First place and Winner of the competition: Project 27

2. Second place: Project 29

3. Third place: Project 19

4. Special mentions to Projects 4, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 35

Jury Members:

Eliza Yokina

Emil Ivanescu

Mindaugas Valuckas

Nadja Zerunian

Khalid Inayeh

Secretary:

Andrei Georgescu