Architectural Competitions—A Fools’ Game?

I don’t like these types of competitions—to me the creative process is an individual thing, something done by an individual and never by a group. The idea that the public, a design committee, a city council, whatever, can determine what is and what is not great architecture is laughable.

Inevitably, this can only lead to me-too architecture where everything is MOR (middle of the road) like elevator music. One dare not offend anyone.

I have always thought that design competitions are pretty much a waste of time—not only are most of them pre-ordained (i.e., the ‘winner’ is known in advance and so really a total waste of time) but also the judges are often quite unqualified to recognize great architecture anyway. They tend to fall back on the reputation of the Architect or firm and not see what is in front of them. For that reason, most new ideas and most young architects need not apply.

How do people cook these competitions? Well, if they are smart, they do it legally. And while it might be legal, it often isn’t very ethical. Governments do this all the time—they spec their tender documents in a way that only one or two firms or one or two consultants can meet all their criteria. For example, they might spec a consulting contract for a professional who has, say, a civil engineering degree and a master of engineering-science degree with a specialization in traffic and transportation engineering who also has a Ph.D. in urban economics and 20+ years of experience in the development industry and … gosh, there might only be one such person available (moi).

However, if you feel you must enter these competitions, you might do so on the basis of a win-by-losing strategy; for example, by entering, you could become better known and you will get to know the people behind the competition, so maybe you will be in a better position to win future competitions. You might also get some media coverage which could lead to single source contracts with other new clients who hear about you for the first time anyway.

At the very least, you need to meet with and interview the people behind the competition and try to get assurances that everyone is on a level playing field and that you understand the competition and that you will meet all their requirements no matter how trivial some of them may seem.

A very negative competition like the one that Channel 4 viewers in the U.K. will be participating in (see below) might be even worse—radical, experimental architecture may be singled out by the mob for demolition. I mean there is a reason why we don’t have criminal trials that allow television viewers to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. We have this old fashioned idea that a trial by a jury of our peers, sitting there looking at us face to face so to speak, is better than a popularity contest. Sure jury trial can go off the rails but it’s better than the alternative—rule by mob.

Certainly the tradition in town planning has been that you must attend the town hall meeting to speak your piece. Our traditions do not allow anonymous complaints. If you don’t like the fact that Tom’s goat is eating Mary’s vegetables, then you have to be prepared to stand up and say so. The idea of an anonymous 1-800-RAT-LINE circa the 19^th Century is ridiculous. So if you want to critique one of my projects, at least have the courtesy to say so to my face.

And you can be sure that I will be prepared to stand up publicly too and defend myself and my project as well. I tell my architecture students that they must be prepared to defend their projects in public. If you are too shy to do it, that’s troubling because excellent projects can go down the tubes because the lowest common denominator tends to prevail in committee meetings if there isn’t a passionate spokesperson (you) defending it. This is the way it should be done—rezonings, planning approvals, architectural design committees and what have you should be an affirmation of a project by the community; it is a way for you to bring your neighbours on side.

The only project I ever had turned down is the one where my lawyer told me he could handle it and I didn’t need to take the stand at an OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) hearing. He told me he had it under control. Sure. We lost. We had it reversed on appeal thankfully but we lost valuable months.

Martha Stewart should have taken the stand in her defense, in my opinion. I was amazed when she didn’t. O.J. Simpson did. Look which one is in jail.

Dr. Bruce M. Firestone, Ottawa, Canada. October 2004.

http://www.dramatispersonae.org/DesignEconomicsFrontPage.htm

www.DramatisPersonae.org

Britain's 'worst building' to be demolished on TV

Matt Weaver
Thursday October 14, 2004 http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1327397,00.html

Channel 4 viewers will be asked to identify Britain's worst building in a new four-part reality series which will culminate in a live broadcast of the building's destruction.

The series, Demolition, beginning in 2005, will attempt to build on the success of BBC's popular series Restoration, which was based around a contest to find the historic building that viewers most wanted to see restored.

But in Demolition, which is being supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), viewers will nominate the buildings they want to see destroyed rather than saved.

Nominations for Britain's worst eyesore will be judged by a panel of experts, who will then decide the building's fate.

The series will conclude with a kind of real-time architectural snuff movie - the live broadcast of the demolition of the building which the judges have condemned.

Demolition's executive producer, Nick Kent, from Oxford Film and Television, said the series would explore why bad buildings were built and how they could blight people's lives.

"It's about kickstarting a nationwide debate about the value of architecture and empowering people to feel they can improve the quality of the built environment," he said.

The president of RIBA, George Ferguson, said: "What I seek is public intolerance of the worst and demand for the best. This is about repairing damaged places."

A spokeswoman for the RIBA said the logistics of the programme were unclear at this stage. But she added: "We would not have embarked on this if we did not think it was possible to demolish a building."

Asked if the choice of building would be fixed, she said: "We are going to demolish a building."

The head of arts at Channel 4, Jan Younghusband, said: "There is a valuable public service in opening up a debate about the impact of architecture on our everyday lives and well being. Demolition is about planning for a better future."