How would you define an ideal architecture competition?
Is it the perfect match of: an interesting theme + detailed brief + effective q&a + great jurors and detailed feedback from them + low-to-no entry fees + low-to-no costs (digital submission only) + a lot of great prizes + good exposure in the media + ... ?
Does such a competition even exists?
I have participated in 'Designing Absence' competition (design the missing tower for the cathedral in Antwerp) simply because it was a very interesting theme. No entry fee, no cash prizes, no starchitects in the jury. 400+ submissions. In the end, I was disappointed because of the lack of feedback from the non-professional jury and the overall quality of the winning ideas.
I have also participated several times in the Shinkenchiku competition organized by the Japan Architect magazine, back when the 'paper only' submissions had to be shipped to Japan (and that is quite expensive). Motivation? Starchitect jury (Steven Holl, Koolhaas, etc) and intriguing brief. Disappointed again, not because I didn't won, but because I could only see the top10 submissions (and those in 'thumbnail' size) from the 500+ works entered in the competition.
A couple of years ago, I've submitted a design for a green housing competition in the UK (digital submission), because of the good and detailed brief and because it 'guaranteed' the publishing of all the entries in a competition catalog. In the end it proved to be a scam, with no winners announced, no catalog, not even a 'sorry guys' announcement on the website.
And what about those idea competitions that crowdfund the prizes budget (eVolo, Arquitectum, etc) and in the end the prizes are only 20% of the total amount gathered from the poor designers? What about the idea competitions that asks you to pay an entry fee but does not provide any prize at all (ICArch)? Or the project competitions (Upto35) that award a commission for the actual building but in the end fail to do so (sorry but we've decided not to build anything...)
What motivates you to join in a competition? What do you expect from submitting your hard-worked designs in a competition?
Please share with us not the way you see an ideal competition, but at least a FAIR one.
Multi-stage competitions, limited to local architects (support your community), with stipends for development after the first round. Jury to include builders, expediters, and architects who did not survive the initial round(s).
Yes, the competition system itself needs at least a refurbishment, if not a redesign from scratch. Competitions should be a medium to match the clients and the designers, and not business models to monetize the naivety/greed of the designers/clients. Please share with us your valuable input.
Dear Miles Jaffe,
I think you are addressing project competitions. Could you expand some more? What if the client is in the jury? What if the participants choose the winners? Should the registration be free of charge, or are you willing to pay to participate in a competition limited to state/region professionals? What percentage of the total commission fee should be the stipends for 2nd round development? Thank you for your great ideas.
And again, come on and let's design a fair and fun competition model!
My only competition experience has been Arquitectum and FAKRO windows. Both models are far from ideal. My main beef with Fakro is the winning designs are usually the blander, not the bolder, proposals (to be fair the latest competition went better). Also, little regulation as far as format. The feedback from the organizers was ok. They were at least trying. Gave a shit.
Arquitectum has an attractive site. Most of the ideas competitions' themes are interesting. Cons: sloppy bases full of errors and sloppy english, bitchy/bad english (again)/ doesn't-give-a-shit someone manning the FAQ column, sloppy (the word's sticking!) site maintenance, you win and they say they'll publish your project and then they don't, you lose and they say your project will be posted on the website and then it isn't, and, last but not least: if they say they'll announce the winners say on the tenth, there's a 50% chance they'll announce them on the 11th, and a 50% chance they'll announce them on the 12th.
Oh, and they used to validate, legitimize, lend weight to, their competitions by having and academic "sponsor" (usually a university) behind the competition, a huge plus (looks great on a portfolio or resume), then they suddendly, no explanations given, stopped doing it. No wonder the number of competitors has slumped since then.
I, too, am looking for a better model. Any luck yet? Keep me posted.
Ideal architecture competition
Dear archinecters,
How would you define an ideal architecture competition?
Is it the perfect match of: an interesting theme + detailed brief + effective q&a + great jurors and detailed feedback from them + low-to-no entry fees + low-to-no costs (digital submission only) + a lot of great prizes + good exposure in the media + ... ?
Does such a competition even exists?
I have participated in 'Designing Absence' competition (design the missing tower for the cathedral in Antwerp) simply because it was a very interesting theme. No entry fee, no cash prizes, no starchitects in the jury. 400+ submissions. In the end, I was disappointed because of the lack of feedback from the non-professional jury and the overall quality of the winning ideas.
I have also participated several times in the Shinkenchiku competition organized by the Japan Architect magazine, back when the 'paper only' submissions had to be shipped to Japan (and that is quite expensive). Motivation? Starchitect jury (Steven Holl, Koolhaas, etc) and intriguing brief. Disappointed again, not because I didn't won, but because I could only see the top10 submissions (and those in 'thumbnail' size) from the 500+ works entered in the competition.
A couple of years ago, I've submitted a design for a green housing competition in the UK (digital submission), because of the good and detailed brief and because it 'guaranteed' the publishing of all the entries in a competition catalog. In the end it proved to be a scam, with no winners announced, no catalog, not even a 'sorry guys' announcement on the website.
And what about those idea competitions that crowdfund the prizes budget (eVolo, Arquitectum, etc) and in the end the prizes are only 20% of the total amount gathered from the poor designers? What about the idea competitions that asks you to pay an entry fee but does not provide any prize at all (ICArch)? Or the project competitions (Upto35) that award a commission for the actual building but in the end fail to do so (sorry but we've decided not to build anything...)
What motivates you to join in a competition? What do you expect from submitting your hard-worked designs in a competition?
Please share with us not the way you see an ideal competition, but at least a FAIR one.
a competition to design a competition
Multi-stage competitions, limited to local architects (support your community), with stipends for development after the first round. Jury to include builders, expediters, and architects who did not survive the initial round(s).
Dear j.arleo,
Yes, the competition system itself needs at least a refurbishment, if not a redesign from scratch. Competitions should be a medium to match the clients and the designers, and not business models to monetize the naivety/greed of the designers/clients. Please share with us your valuable input.
Dear Miles Jaffe,
I think you are addressing project competitions. Could you expand some more? What if the client is in the jury? What if the participants choose the winners? Should the registration be free of charge, or are you willing to pay to participate in a competition limited to state/region professionals? What percentage of the total commission fee should be the stipends for 2nd round development? Thank you for your great ideas.
And again, come on and let's design a fair and fun competition model!
My only competition experience has been Arquitectum and FAKRO windows. Both models are far from ideal. My main beef with Fakro is the winning designs are usually the blander, not the bolder, proposals (to be fair the latest competition went better). Also, little regulation as far as format. The feedback from the organizers was ok. They were at least trying. Gave a shit.
Arquitectum has an attractive site. Most of the ideas competitions' themes are interesting. Cons: sloppy bases full of errors and sloppy english, bitchy/bad english (again)/ doesn't-give-a-shit someone manning the FAQ column, sloppy (the word's sticking!) site maintenance, you win and they say they'll publish your project and then they don't, you lose and they say your project will be posted on the website and then it isn't, and, last but not least: if they say they'll announce the winners say on the tenth, there's a 50% chance they'll announce them on the 11th, and a 50% chance they'll announce them on the 12th.
Oh, and they used to validate, legitimize, lend weight to, their competitions by having and academic "sponsor" (usually a university) behind the competition, a huge plus (looks great on a portfolio or resume), then they suddendly, no explanations given, stopped doing it. No wonder the number of competitors has slumped since then.
I, too, am looking for a better model. Any luck yet? Keep me posted.
this post reminded me of an article i read a few months ago:
http://www.modative.com/modern-architects-blog/bid/31683/Why-Open-Architecture-Competitions-Are-Bad-for-Architects
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.