To begin with, the director of the Ordre des architectes et ingénieurs-conseils (OAI), 
The editorial project presented was specifically designed with this in mind, bringing together critics, designers and the public through a participatory initiative combining voting, contributions and discussions, with the stated aim of moving beyond preconceived notions to develop a collective understanding of architecture that takes into account its cultural, social and territorial dimensions. The director of the OAI also emphasised the need to make this approach a long-term endeavour, calling for the initiative to be extended in order to consolidate a critical space that remains fragile.
This line of thinking was given concrete expression in the discussion of the award-winning project, ‘Water Tower Altrier’, whose symbolic significance he highlighted. Beyond its technical function, this infrastructure embodies a vision of the region rooted in the common good. Water, a vital resource, is a fundamental element of community life, lending the structure both a material and a political dimension. Commissioned in 2018, it has helped to strengthen the water supply, the security of the network and the quality of local life, whilst blending discreetly into the rural landscape. This deliberate discretion is precisely what gives it its strength: visible without being ostentatious, the structure stands out as a collective landmark, illustrating the possibility of architecture that is at once useful, contextual and meaningful.
Tom Ravenscroft: thinking of architecture as narrative and mediation
Tom Ravenscroft’s speech, winner of the first Architectural Critics’ Award, shifted the focus towards a more conceptual dimension, centred on architecture’s ability to create meaning and spark debate. In his view, the Altrier Water Tower presents a rare opportunity: to make visible an infrastructure that is, by its very nature, invisible. This approach entails a dual requirement, both technical and symbolic, which has resulted in the choice of a minimalist form and raw materials, notably concrete, in harmony with local resources. Standing at just over 50 metres tall, the tower does more than simply fulfil a function; it stands out in the landscape as a landmark, playing on perceptions and viewpoints to create a sense of place.
What really struck me was the seriousness with which the projects are taken and the way that completely changes our perspective.
Tom Ravenscroft emphasises the intentional nature of the project: ‘We’re not just talking about structure; the project has a very clear purpose and meaning. I’m simply trying, in my own way, to get people talking about this issue. I think the public genuinely wants to understand and take an interest. In fact, we all have a role to play in getting this message across: we have a duty to care more about the world around us and the buildings that shape our lives. It is essential that these discussions take place.”
His view of the selection process also revealed a sense of surprise and reflection: “What really struck me was the seriousness with which these projects are treated and the way that completely changes our perspective.”
The journalist and architectural historian highlighted how local communities have taken ownership of these projects, even the most technical infrastructure: “Even infrastructure such as a water tower or technical facilities become things to be proud of.”
This observation led him to rethink certain prevailing attitudes, particularly in the UK, where performance sometimes tends to take precedence over architectural quality. “Thanks to the mindset and the projects undertaken in Luxembourg, this led me to think differently: not just to seek out the biggest or most impressive, but what makes sense within the landscape, what shapes the skyline and creates an identity.”
When you look at Luxembourg within a European context, you get the sense that something interesting and innovative is happening there.
His critical stance is ultimately characterised by a desire to engage rather than to confront: “If something doesn’t sit well with me, I prefer to question it rather than simply reject it. It’s important to bring people along with you in this process of reflection.” This approach is part of an inclusive conception of criticism, viewed as a tool for mediation. Tom Ravenscroft also highlighted a distinctive feature of the Luxembourg context: “Another surprising aspect is the lack of resistance to certain projects here. In other countries, there is much more opposition to construction, even for high-quality projects. This shows that there is a distinct relationship with architecture and urban planning here. When observing Luxembourg within a European context, one gets the sense that something interesting and innovative is happening here.”
Criticism as a political and collective tool
The round-table discussion that followed broadened the discussion further by bringing together economic, social and cultural perspectives. A consensus emerged regarding the need to establish an independent architectural critique capable of fostering a genuine public debate.
Good architecture or bad architecture – it costs almost the same!
The CEO of Paperjam, 
As a trained engineer, OAI Vice-President Patrick Nosbusch, for his part, refocused the debate on the user and the timeframe of projects. “A building is not just about the moment of completion; it is about its entire lifespan,” he pointed out, arguing for a form of criticism capable of incorporating actual use and appropriation over time. Patrick Nosbusch emphasised the need to make this critique accessible: “We must make architecture understandable to everyone,” warning against judgements that are too immediate or purely aesthetic.
Architecture isn’t a luxury.
Finally, the chair of the OAI, 
The discussions as a whole also highlighted the pivotal role of architectural competitions, which are seen as a guarantee of quality, as well as the richness of a region that, whilst small in size, boasts a high density of architectural output.
By the end of the day, a shared conviction had emerged: architectural criticism is a key driver for understanding, evaluating and shaping the built environment. More than just an exercise in judgement, it serves as a tool for mediation, education and, ultimately, social transformation.
This inaugural award thus marked a milestone, paving the way for a culture of ‘rigorous and inclusive’ debate, capable of supporting the transformations taking place in Luxembourg’s architectural landscape whilst strengthening public engagement with these issues. Architecture for everyone, by everyone.
To watch a video of the event, click here here.
