As evident – the projects are not urban. It like a notion away from cities.
I do agree with comments that identified the Bartlett mania. Though the ideas are original – the representation pays homage to Piranesi.

In UK – atleast – the architecture research is consciously moving away from the realms of human space…

Alot of people in practice loose there imagination to mind numbing and terrible projects that if anything hinder the progression of architecture. If these images will and have stirred debate then that in itself is an achievement and a testament to how powerfull they are, they make people question there out of date perceptions of architecture.

Congratulations to all the winners!

while it’s great that students have the ability to now create visually stunning results in rendering programs, and create alluring and poetic scenarios with seemingly arbitrary juxtapositions of typology, i feel that as an ARCHITECT it’s not enough to simply make the rendered image alone be the most important appraisal of the work. if they are really serious about understanding and helping others understand the projects, you would think that the renderings might be paired with drawings that are on a level that can compete with the scenography that now pervades most schools at the highest level.

As an image-driven culture in which pictures of things are given limited time on our screens, (mine included) i’m beginning to notice a loss of subtlety in our work – that is, that there is more emphasis on the “money shot” rendering. but in school, is it isn’t about making money, so i wonder why more time isn’t taken to bring more analytical images to the forefront of what is perceived as the “best” or most publishable school work.

most of the details are overlooked in projects like these because we all realize that there is a certain amount of freedom allowed in school which can encourage more open-ended and unconventional project types. but as Scott mentions, they seem to be reaching a point of becoming more random and less rigorous in their resolution. sure the visualization is some of the best we’ve seen, but why should that take precedence over the tried and true methods of architectural graphic language – the plan, and often more importantly, the section. not saying they have more visceral impact than a well executed inhabitable scene, but i think they are at least equally important, and these images at least are missing that level of information.

if you are interested in a project that combines lucid imagery with analytic diagrams / drawings and a sense of real practical scope, check out Alastair Parvin’s redesign of the M1 motorway in England as a self-sufficient farming system:
http://media.bdonline.co.uk/Class2009/AlastairParvin.pdf

but i don’t want to sound like i don’t support the students above, i definitely like their open-mindedness and bold stance on what architecture could be… just give me some more substance!

Also: Look at the early work of Rem and his generation: they had little to no problem transitioning into conventional building practice from conceptual projects that were a hell of a lot more radical than this.