The jury’s reasons, articulated by architect Juan Herreros during the presentation, for unanimously awarding first prize to “El sol del membrillo,” by José Ignacio Linazasoro and Ricardo Sánchez (Linazasoro & Sánchez Arquitectura), were based on the proposal’s commitment to recovering the space and removing the elements contributing to its degradation. The scheme also proposes reorganizing the statues and iconic elements of the square, restoring the original Isabeline layout of the space, unifying the commercial ground floors, and creating a setting in which emptiness predominates, while still incorporating essential features required for its function as a public space, such as seating areas, kiosks, and metro entrances.
A proposal that speaks of emptiness as the support for its function, for its public program, before being occupied, used, or enjoyed by citizens. A moment of supreme nothingness.
Second prize was awarded to the proposal entitled “No es fácil establecer cuándo debe el poeta detenerse” (“It Is Not Easy to Determine When the Poet Should Stop”), by Luis Martínez Santa-María, which likewise seeks to clear the square for public use, with particular emphasis on the commercial awnings featured in the proposal. The competition jury decided not to award a third prize and instead granted three ex aequo mentions to “Los lunes en sol,” by José Manuel Calvo del Olmo, Javier de Esteban Grabayo, José Manuel de Andrés Moncayo, and Ana Sabugo Sierra; “Reload Sol,” by José María Sánchez García; and “Puerto Sol,” by Francisco Alonso de Santos.
The results of the ASIENTO 4SOL competition for the design of a bench intended for installation in the square, developed by Escofet and MTT, were also announced. The winning entry was Km. 0, by Mauro Doncel Marchán and Maitane Díaz Prieto, who proposed a seat reminiscent of an eraser shaped like a wayfinding element indicating distances to different locations, thereby “emphasizing Madrid’s hospitable character toward all those who once arrived and decided to stay,” as well as its centrality.
In addition to this first prize, the jury awarded five mentions to the following proposals:
“Viceversa,” by Antonio Rentero Pereira; “Fisol,” by Roberto Ortiz de Landázuri Monagas, Ignacio García, and Jaime Diz; “Organic, Functional and Contemporary City,” by Artur Jorge Dionisio de Sousa, André Pedro Gonçalves Terleira, and Helder Flavio de Oliveira Rodríguez; “Sun 4,” by Josep Muxart Escala and Javier Duarte Blanco; “Rolling Stone,” by Erica Santacruz Sastre, Gregorio Ramírez Vila, and María J. González Cabanellas; and “Rodasol,” by Miguel Ángel García-Pola Vallejo.
Notes to Notes, or Another Supreme Moment of Nothing
First of all, congratulations are due to the winners — my sincere congratulations to them.
It has taken a while, but at last, after the initial intention to announce the results in December and following constant postponements (to the point where they even stopped specifying the date on which the results would be made public), the announcement was finally made last week, for yesterday and, true to form, even the timing of the announcement changed during the day itself.
The competition does not entail the actual execution of the project, and in every press release the COAM has made it abundantly clear — extremely clear — that this is merely a “strategy for intervention in Puerta del Sol and its surroundings,” or, even more emphatically, a “definition of the intervention strategy for Puerta del Sol.” Phew… so much apprehension about the outcome, and so much qualification of terms.
The winning proposal includes neither trees nor terraces spread across the entire square, nor the famous awnings championed by the Dean of the College of Architects. The second prize, however, does include these famous awnings, and perhaps for that reason, the COAM states in its press release: “José Antonio Granero added that the ‘feasibility of the project opens up possibilities for reorganization,’ potentially leading to a combination with the second prize proposal and the correction of whatever may be necessary.” Ah! So corrections are already being discussed?
Mayor Ana Botella seems more convinced, or at least in the press release, she appeared more consistent and committed to the project when she stated that it “resolves two fundamental issues in a city: beauty and the capacity for lingering and inhabitation,” and, according to the COAM press release, considered the project viable because it respects both the uses and the conception of the square.
It may turn out that the Mayor is more convinced than the Dean himself — though perhaps it is all just a game of misdirection… In any case, what now? Now all that remains is to wait: to wait and hope that the winning proposal (the result of an exceptional jury evaluating proposals for one of the most frequently redesigned squares in Madrid) is ultimately executed, and that the outcome does not become a Frankenstein assembled from multiple combinations.
President.- Dña. Ana Botella Serrano, Alcaldesa de Madrid.
Vowels.-
- D. Pedro María Corral Corral, Delegado del Área de Gobierno de las Artes, Deporte y Turismo del Ayuntamiento de Madrid.
- D. Javier Hernández Morales, Director General de Planeamiento Urbanístico del Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda del Ayuntamiento de Madrid.
- D. David Erguido Cano, Concejal Presidente del Distrito Centro.
- D. Jaime Ignacio Muñoz Llinás, Director General de Patrimonio Histórico de la Comunidad de Madrid.
- D. Antonio Bonet Correa, Director de la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando.
- D. José Antonio Granero Ramírez, Decano del Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid.
- D. Fernando de Porras-Isla Fernández, architect.
- D. Juan Herreros Guerra, Arquitecto.
- D. Emilio Tuñón Álvarez, Arquitecto
- Dña. Martha Thorne, Arquitecto.
- Un representante de cada uno de los grupos municipales con representación en el Ayuntamiento de Madrid.
- Un representante de la Confederación Empresarial de Madrid CEIM–CEOE.
- Un representante de la Federación Regional de Asociaciones de Vecinos de Madrid.
Secretary.-
- D. José Luis Barrero Peñalver, Director de la Oficina de Concursos del COAM (OCAM).
