Hawthorne: So Alejandro Aravena, at 48, gets the Pritzker. Ancient by Hollywood standards but by architectural ones practically a baby. How surprised are you -- not by the choice but by the timing?

Miranda: I think Aravena had a fair degree of international acclaim going into this. He’s taught at Harvard. He’s done a TED talk. He’s been out on the forefront on the issue of social housing -- a focus that has gotten him a lot of attention within the worlds of architecture and urban planning. And he served on the Pritzker jury for about half a dozen years, a position that took him all over the world, exposing him to a world of thinkers and media.

But the Chile part of the equation will definitely throw people for a loop. Chile is on the way nowhere (unless you’re flying from Johannesburg to Tahiti). And because of its small size (population 18 million, smaller than greater Los Angeles) it is often overlooked by the machinery of global culture. 

What about you? What struck you about this win? And what it says about the Pritzker?

Hawthorne: To what degree can institutions like the Pritzker be self-aware? I'm fascinated by the Aravena pick from this point of view. The Pritzker has faced rising criticism in recent years for symbolizing a rather old-fashioned definition of architectural practice, to put it mildly. With a few (but only a few) exceptions, it’s honored men at the expense of women; individuals at the expense of pairs or collectives; architects who work for wealthy, establishment clients at the expense of those working for the poor or disenfranchised; and north over south. It’s basically been the Great Man Theory of architecture as represented by a fancy bronze medallion and a check for $100,000. Choosing Aravena is a departure in terms of the last two categories, but of course not the first two. A modest move in a different direction, let's say. The Pritzker press release says he "epitomizes the revival of a more socially engaged architect."

....

And here's where the age-and-experience question comes into play. If we assume the Pritzker is feeling the pressure of some of that criticism about its choices, and wants to start looking further afield, it's going to have to consider younger architects, because this shift in the profession's priorities is showing itself in built work mostly among architects under 50. There’s definitely something to be said for honoring architects later in their careers, because architecture is such a slow profession and takes so long to master. The number of truly great buildings by architects in their 20s and 30s (and even 40s) is just really, really small. But increasingly it seems the Pritzker has to do one or the other: try to adapt to a shifting definition of architecture or stick with the career-achievement model.

Does it seem too cynical to read the prize that way? I guess I'd be less inclined to do so if it weren't for Aravena's very recent departure from the jury.

Miranda: Not too cynical! I do think Aravena is a compelling Pritzker candidate: The scope of his work in the south of Chile is ambitious and important because it represents an architect who is thinking holistically about environment, not just buildings. But it would have been better for him if the jury had put at least a year’s worth of breathing room between his service on the Pritzker and his selection for the award.

This doesn’t help dispel any questions of clubbiness when it comes to the Pritzker. And all of it comes close on the heels of the Denise Scott Brown situation, from 2013, when a group of women at Harvard sought to have her retroactively included in the Pritzker awarded to her husband and partner, Robert Venturi, in 1991.

When it comes to the women, Chicago architect Jeanne Gang’s name comes up regularly as a possible contender for the Pritzker. And you’ve very casually mentioned the possibility of New York architect Annabelle Selldorf, since granting the award to someone like her would signify a turn away from awarding bold form-making and more to the thoughtful regeneration of existing spaces -- such as her re-do of the Neue Galerie in New York or the Clark Art Institute in Massachusetts. 

If you would have been on the jury, which architect or type of architecture would you be lobbying to have recognized?

Hawthorne: Selldorf is a really interesting test case because her work is largely interior: Rather than doing big, eye-catching ground-up projects she's working in completely different vein, coaxing older buildings back to life or remaking them for new uses. I'd love to see one of the forgotten architects of the 1980s get real consideration while they’re still alive (since the jury can consider only living architects), somebody like James Wines or Gunnar Birkerts. William Rawn’s work interests me for its smart regionalism, as does Marlon Blackwell’s.

Choosing somebody known less for buildings and more for landscape or public-space design could be fascinating, as could honoring a collective or somebody who works on conceptual projects, like the late Lebbeus Woods. Maya Lin's post-Vietnam Memorial career is underexplored. Giancarlo Mazzanti and some other Colombian architects have done remarkable work. Or somebody even further afield -- somebody who would make even architecture insiders scratch their heads. (Somebody in the middle of nowhere. Somebody with a great practice and a terrible publicist.) I think a lot of us are dismayed that instead of the starchitecture model really crumbling, as it appeared ready to after 2008, we're simply getting new stars to replace the old ones.

That's one interesting way to gauge this pick: Is Aravena so different from Rem Koolhaas, Renzo Piano, et al, or is he just a younger, fresher model?