Anyone who tells you how exhausting it is being on a jury for an architecture prize is having a laugh. “‘How was it?’ – ‘Oh, you know, exhausting!’”. It’s a surprisingly common refrain. It might be exhausting in the same way visiting a great art gallery is exhausting; or how watching all 18 episodes of Twin Peaks season 3 is exhausting. But let’s be honest: there is no hardship to be had during a guided tour of well-designed buildings.

I speak from experience. It was nearly ten years ago now, but my 2015 stint as a Stirling Prize judge – the one RIBA award to rule them all - were among the best days I’ve enjoyed in this business. The visits were in-depth and the long tours of exquisitely made buildings, speaking with architects and clients who made them happen, left a lasting impression. But what I remember most clearly was just how unscientific the whole exercise was. In truth, that suited me.

RIBA’s guidelines back then said judges must consider ‘budget… the spatial experience it offers… its architectural ambition and ideas… the selection and detailing of materials…its fitness for purpose, especially in response to the brief, as reflected in the level of client satisfaction.’ It was a useful steer, but way too baggy to help us measure which building was ‘the best’ out of a school, two housing projects, an art gallery, a hospice and a new build architecture department. Finding a winner was going to arise from debate – both kinds, reasonable and emotional - rather than any metrics.

So, while alighting upon the ‘right’ building was tricky, I wouldn’t call it hard work. And while convincing your fellow judges, especially those who are more experienced than you in such matters (in 2015, a couple of my fellow jurors – Peter Clegg and Steve Tompkins – had not only designed similar buildings to the ones under consideration but had also won the Stirling Prize before) was demanding, I’m going to stick to using the word ‘exhausting’ for tasks like coal-mining, or nightshifts at Whipps Cross A&E.

In any case: awards. Who cares, huh? They don’t mean anything - unless you win one of course. To be fair, our profession is rather fond of gongs. Perhaps overly fond. Although the proliferation of architectural awards contrasts with the diminishing influence of architects, awards do matter. The better ones, like the RIBAs, represent an industry, or a profession, recording and calibrating its output as reasonably as it knows how. Of course, there are times when the best projects don’t win, but they’ll usually make the shortlist.

At PTE we’ve been lucky in recent years, winning four RIBAs since 2023, all for housing. The winning schemes range from custom-build modular innovation in Basildon to estate regeneration in Islington to a whole new city centre townscape in Chelmsford.

This year’s winner, designed with Alison Brooks Architects – Knights Park in Cambridge, a net zero neighbourhood in the emerging Eddington suburb – fingers crossed, could go all the way. The drone shot in particular shows the extent and sheer verve of the architectural and urban design underpinning the shared vision. For me, it feels like a descendant of the best of Sidney Cook’s Camden housing and Cambridge’s Accordia paired with a contemporary Net Zero aesthetic and sound design coding – making it entirely its own thing. A huge thanks to the RIBA East jury for giving it the nod.

Clearly there are many more conversations ahead before the winner of RIBA’s Stirling Prize is announced later this year. Regardless of which building ‘wins’ in the end, be assured that it was selected not because it was ‘better’ than the rest. Rather, it will most likely win because the jury voices backing it are simply more convincing in their arguments. Maybe those describing the process as exhausting are the ones who failed to win over their fellow judges. I get that. It’s not something I’m familiar with but yeah, that must be tiring!