Mies is more.

The biennial Mies van der Rohe Pavilion Award for European Architecture, administered from the 1986 reconstructed German Pavilion for the 1929 Barcelona World Fair, was created in 1987 by the Cultural Commission of the European Communities and the Fundacio Mies van der Rohe. Four architects have so far received the 50 000 ECU prize: Alvaro Siza for his Borges e Irmeo Banc III in Portugal, Sir Norman Foster & Partners for Stansted Airport Terminal, London, Esteve Bonell and Francesc Rius for their Olympic Stadium near Barcelona and in 1994 Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners for London's Waterloo Station. The collection of runners-up, gathered over the award's first decade is, however, a more in-depth review of the past decade's achievements in western European architecture. For every award, two experts from each of the then 12 EU member countries nominate up to 10 projects each to be judged by a separate jury that also includes previous winners.

Kenneth Frampton of Columbia University, who has been a jury member, and Diane Gray chose 38 runner-up and winning projects for a travelling exhibition which started at the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in May. The XIX Congress of the International Union of Architects joined the museum and Mies van der Robe Fundacio to invite another jury member, Ignasi de Sola-Morales from Barcelona, Liuis Hortet Previ, director of the foundation, Frampton from New York, Vittorio Lampugnani from Zurich and the new director of the museum, Wilfried Wang, to discuss 'Contemporary European Architecture'.

It is interesting that Mies, a Modern Movement internationalist, should have his name attached to an award restricted to architects of European extraction producing work within the confines of a European trade zone. Under the present rules Mies himself, who built most of his work in America, would not be eligible, and, vice versa, neither would many non-Europeans who practice in the EU. So what sets these projects and their creators apart from the rest of the world?

When asked to define this European architectural culture the speakers offered a variety of nebulous statements. According to Morales the best European buildings are not isolated objects or necessarily those that follow historical patterns, but buildings that inject energy and introduce new directions for growth within a city: 'Last week I was in Seoul and Shanghai and I was impressed, but it was difficult to understand and rationalise these developments from a European experience.' For Previ, what distinguishes European architectural culture is its respect for the environment, a sense of proportion, human scale and the spirit of modernity. These statements could also be made of good architecture outside the 12 EU member states and Previ admitted that he himself had difficulty with the narrow restrictions of the prize.

Frampton suggested that the award, financed by the EU, was an attempt to reinforce European culture and that it could be seen as part of cultural politics: 'It is a projection, not a reality.' The question as to what outside influences Europeans are defending themselves against was left unasked.

Good architecture requires clients with sensibilities. As Wang noted: 'This prize is given by the EU commission, but when we look at what the donors themselves have initiated in the way of architecture it has been a disaster. I look at Brussels with dismay, because those EU buildings are also meant to represent Europe.' Morales humorously suggested an exhibition of bad architecture produced by Europe's institutions, to which Wang wryly commented: 'But you wouldn't get EU financial support.'

EU expansion will necessitate reassessment. Perhaps even the very word European will have to be redefined. Hopefully without bloodshed.