Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice

1 review for Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice

1. NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING Nr 1-2014, Hennu Kjisik, Architect SAFA, Dr.Tech., professor Partner, Harris-Kjisik Architects and Planners, Helsinki Professor of Urban Design, Faculty of architecture, University of Oulu – 5 oktober, 2015:

   In Finland, sometime in the 1980s, a subject of debate came up in the
   professional press which at the time seemed rather surprising. Some
   colleagues, more academically inclined than the great majority, were
   worried about the lack of research published by the architects as a
   professional body. The reply from the hard-core practitioners was that
   taking part in competitions was research in itself and that everyone
   was doing it all the time. The academics disagreed, claiming that
   competitions were simply an established part of professional practice,
   a relatively pleasant way of procuring commissions, and practically the
   only way to become famous.

   Since then «practice-based research» or «research by design» have
   gradually become accepted by the academic community as credible
   scientific endeavours. The interpretivist research tradition in which the
   understanding of certain actions, systems and arrangements comes
   through a process of interpretation, also lends itself well to the pursuit
   of design competitions. Thus this book constitutes a review of research
   published about an activity that only recently, and even now not without
   some protest, can also be classified as research.

   In Finland we used to have preconceived ideas about how things work
   in other countries, ideas that have often proven to be urban myths. For
   example, we thought that the Swedes only used three categories in their
   evaluation criteria: quite nice (ganska trevlig), nice (trevlig) and very
   nice (väldigt trevlig). This made the system, if not totally flawed, at least
   less analytical than our own, and also excessively dependent on typical
   Swedish consensus policies. Maybe we were not completely wrong
   since, at the end of this book, Charlotte Svensson stresses the need for
   total unanimity among the jury members and concludes with: «In this
   regard, the selection of a Pope in Rome provides similarities to how jury
   members choose winners in architectural competitions in Sweden.»
   The (almost non-existent) British competition system we found totally
   unacceptable. One high profile dictator-judge decided the winner while
   secretly worrying about what «the Prince» would think about his or her
   decision. We used to admire the French for enforcing a competition on
   anything larger than a dog kennel, even if our French colleagues told us
   that the system did not really work, since the same people were always
   invited to compete. We always knew and admired the fact that the Swiss
   organised a lot of competitions, but on the other hand it seemed to be
   just another feature of a country that holds almost daily referenda about
   all possible aspects of life.

   This book is useful from a variety of perspectives, but also in the way it
   helps to at least modify these myths and stereotypes. It is interesting
   to read, in the article by Antigoni Katsakou, that Switzerland may after
   all not be such a «competition heaven», but the universal criticisms
   that the same offices always get shortlisted are voiced there as well.
   The «introverted character» of the Swiss architectural profession is
   also emphasized. Foreign architects («all the usual suspects» included)
   apparently rarely win first prize, but usually only lesser prizes. This article
   also introduces some less familiar names from the younger generation
   of Swiss architects. I shall follow with great interest the development of
   the careers of, among others, Frei & Gysel and their Futurafrosch office,
   whose work seems original and fascinating. This contribution to the
   book is, however, somewhat marred by a lack of editing.

   In Britain, the situation does not seem to have changed a lot. Judith
   Strong’s article gives the impression that the quiet competition scene
   is seen entirely as a procurement method, not as research or as a means
   to generally «improving oneself,» not to mention being a natural part of
   one’s professional pursuits. Strong’s choice of words is indicative of the
   depressing situation in Britain. She, for example, cites the «abandoned»
   Stockholm Library Competition, as one case used in England to argue
   against the usefulness of competitions. In Finland we would see the
   Stockholm case as an enormous body of interesting projects (great
   subject for research!), which unfortunately has not led (so far) to
   realisation. «Abandoned,» however, is hardly a word we would use in this
   context.

   Lentie Volker presents a fascinating story about what happened after
   a fire annihilated one of the most famous architecture schools in the
   world, the Bouwkunde in Delft. The multi-faceted competition process
   is described and analyzed in great detail. Finally, when the reader starts
   to become anxious about the outcome of the whole affair, the writer
   concludes, «In this case the aim was to collect ideas and stimulate
   debate, while in other competitions selecting a single design for a
   building could be a main goal.» Thus the Dutch see the spending of
   resources on competitions as valuable per se, and do not simply treat
   them as an alternative procurement method, in contrast to the Brits.
   According to Pedro Guilherme and Joao Rocha, for Eduardo Souto
   de Moura «competitions seem to be the optimal place to innovate
   and to deal with all that cannot be dealt with on a daily basis.» This
   contribution to the book presents facts and figures about the more
   than 50 competition entries that Souto de Moura has done in the last
   three decades. The authors of this significant article conclude that
   «competitions are either won or lost and even if Souto de Moura wins,
   it does not mean that the project will be built.» Unfortunately, this
   thoroughly researched contribution does not specify whether the listed
   competitions have been open or limited, i.e., to what extent financial
   compensation has been guaranteed. Knowing how reluctant the most
   successful practices are to do any unpaid work nowadays, it would be
   nice to know that Souto de Moura, a Pritzker prizewinner, is indeed an
   exception.

   Kristian Kreiner appears to be a prolific author on the subject at hand
   and produces one of the most entertaining contributions to the book.
   In his introduction he coins a satisfying phrase – «institutionalized
   masquerading» – to describe the behaviour of the various actors in
   these processes. By stating that this «masquerading favours creativity
   over reputation and gives young and inexperienced architects a
   chance for a breakthrough», he gives a simple but astute argument in
   support of competitions. His analysis is to my mind occasionally slightly
   overwrought. He claims, for instance, that for a competitor, a competition
   «is never just another competition».

   Kreiner’s very relevant discussion on the interpretation of competition
   briefs is especially topical, since «unusually vague» briefs, such as the one
   in his research case (the re-use of an old industrial building for a «large
   Danish University») are becoming increasingly common everywhere. The
   description of the way the jury reacted to the technically problematic
   glazed southern façade in the winning entry sounds very familiar. It
   shows that juries «masquerading» as objective bodies and staunch
   advocates of sustainability often end up making decisions that are
   perfectly understandable but difficult to justify.

   Mats T. Beckmann, Jonas E. Andersson, Thomas Hoffmann-Kühnt,
   Elisabeth Tostrup and Maarit Kaipainen provide contributions based
   mainly on interesting case studies. Beckmann brings up another topical
   concept, that of «parallel sketching,» when concluding his analysis of the
   1934 Stockholm-Bromma 1934 case. He writes: «a reasonable conclusion
   […] is that the part of the overall planning process that was completed
   by the four architects should preferably be termed parallel architects’
   assignments.» Finnish colleagues have criticized the procurement
   method Beckmann refers to as being against the best traditions of
   real competitions. It is, however, also gaining ground in Finland. Our
   office recently took part in one, and just like Paul Hedqvist’s proposal
   at Bromma in 1934, ours was chosen. It felt like a competition, but
   unfortunately it cannot be added to our list of competition successes.
   Magnus Rönn, in his own contribution, deals with the subject of
   prequalification, an essential subject in the present competitive
   procurement discourse. Judith Strong and many of the other writers
   also touch upon this subject. Rönn finds only a «handful» of studies
   of prequalification, which is surprising considering its importance for
   anyone running an office, and, in fact, for anyone concerned with the
   quality of our built environment. Rönn comes to a conclusion that is easy
   to agree with, namely that too often «prequalification is a conservative
   force».

   In the introduction to the book, Rönn and his editorial colleagues Jonas
   E. Andersson and Gerd Bloxham Zettersten express surprise over the fact
   that the first serious research on competitions did not appear before the
   1990s, in spite of the organised competition institution already being
   more than 150 years old. «Now,» they write, «there are some 15 academic
   dissertations and a number of ongoing doctoral projects on the subject
   in Canada and Europe.» The editors believe, and indeed the book proves,
   that «the architectural competition is an interesting and rewarding
   object for research.»

   To conclude, I would like to suggest a subject for someone to study:
   the two-stage international open competition, and more specifically,
   its intermediate evaluation phase. Having been involved in this
   competition genre both as a competitor and as a jury member, I find
   that the evaluation of the first stage and the formulation of the written
   instructions given to the finalists may play a totally decisive role in
   determining the final success of a competition of this kind. There are
   undoubtedly several fascinating cases to choose from. One could start
   with the abovementioned Asplund Library extension competition in
   Stockholm. Could it be that the «abandonment» had something to do
   with the way the intermediate evaluations were formulated? Could it be
   that they contributed to the fact that the top entries did not fulfil the
   promise of the first stage? I have no idea, but I think someone should try
   and find out.

   Reviewed by Hennu Kjisik, Architect SAFA, Dr.Tech., professor
   Partner, Harris-Kjisik Architects and Planners, Helsinki
   Professor of Urban Design, Faculty of architecture, University of Oulu