The jury chaired by RIBA President Sunand Prasad noted the depth of his creativity and the ability of this distinguished Portuguese architect to create workshops and “inevitable” projects based on the peculiarities of the natural and architectural environment.
The medal, which placed Sizu on a par with the laureates of past years - Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, complements his other awards, including the Alvaro Aalto Medal (1988) and the Pritzker Prize (1992). But, despite his authority, love and respect for the architectural community of the whole world, Siza did not receive the wide recognition that he deserved. Maybe the fact is that he belongs to a laconic, far from superficial showiness version of modernism. Among his works there are no projects for the world's largest airport or the tallest skyscraper, and most of his buildings are concentrated on the Iberian Peninsula (although he built in Latin America, Germany, the Netherlands).
At the same time, his work is distinguished by attention to detail, to the functional side of the project, its use in the future. Despite the fact that Siza himself constantly emphasizes that he strives for creative freedom and experiment, his buildings are devoid of any excesses. The indissoluble unity of form and function, the perfect balance between these two concepts - this is what is often lacking in modern world architecture.
Another of the indisputable advantages of Siza's works is their ability to perfectly coexist with the natural and historical surroundings. He never makes concessions to mass taste, does not stylize his buildings like houses under a hipped tile roof and tile decor, for which he was criticized in Portugal as "alien" to the national tradition. Back in the mid-1990s, as noted by observers, he was not appreciated in his homeland. At the same time, much more of the spirit of Portuguese architecture is contained in its buildings than in any of the soil studies; this explains many of the features of Siza's modernism, which distinguish it from the works of contemporaries.
Of course, his buildings do not come into conflict with the surrounding buildings, but they also do not seek to merge with it, complementing it and placing new accents; the same can be said about the natural environment, be it the rocky coast of the Atlantic Ocean, as in the case of the open basin of Les de Palmeira in Portugal, or the subtropical forests of South Korea around the Anyang Pavilion.
All these characteristic features of Alvaro Siza's work - the balance of form and function, diverse typology, professional honesty in matters of style and not only - appear as an alternative to corporate smoothness or superficial innovation of the era of globalism. This unites Shizu with some other architects who have indisputable international prestige, but shy away from the deliberate brightness and flashiness of "iconic" buildings. These are the British David Chipperfield and John Pawson, the Swiss Peter Zumthor, the Spaniard Rafael Moneo. All of them continue the traditions of "classical" modernism of the 20th century, enriching it with new forms and experimenting. It is the incessant search for the new that unites them with their brilliant predecessors, although sometimes their buildings seem to fit closer to the classical tradition or to expressionism than to the principles of "modern movement".
Each of them clearly feels the influence of their own creative landmark from the era of "heroic" modernism, and if Chipperfield, for example, is Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with his clarity of composition and ideality of geometric form, then Siza is undoubtedly close to Alvar Aalto.
Despite the difference in geographic location and national temperament, these architects are united by an all-consuming interest in shaping as the starting point of their work. But, despite the fascination with the philosophical aspect of the profession, work, both are distinguished by humanism, attention to the needs and inclinations of the "users" of buildings, understanding of the deep role of the functional side in any structure. As a result, Siza is more sensitive to the social or psychological characteristics of the people who live, work, or study in his buildings than many other prominent contemporary architects who exponentially spend time studying production processes or the prevailing directions of human flows in the area of the project entrusted to them. An understanding of his social responsibility, one of the fundamental elements of Siza's worldview, was inherited from the "progressives" of the 20th century; this favorably distinguishes him from supporters of the "corporate" line in architecture, making the master's works especially relevant for his young colleagues: world architecture is now in a kind of transition period, and such a creative method can serve as an ideal example to follow.
