Angelika Schnell Rotterdam’s reputation as a ‘city of modern architecture’ has justly grown. But is it right to regard Rotterdam also as a ‘city of modern urban development’ or of modern urban planning? To assume that one must stem naturally from the other and that Rotterdam is therefore a modern city because it possesses modern architecture and/or vice versa begs two theoretical questions: what does the term ‘modern’ mean nowadays and what is the relationship between architecture and urban development? It appears therefore that the main preoccupation of the AIR (Architecture Institute of Rotterdam) is that the architectonic potpourri of the last few decades could be little more than a sort of permanent exhibition; this is the reason for repeating the Keurmeester (Critic) project of 1979. Indeed the 25 buildings that are to be judged in 2007 have been chosen less for their architectonic uniqueness than as representatives of a particular urban zone or theme on which they ought primarily to be judged.