...architects can be deeply ambivalent about entering such contests. Simply emerging as a finalist can bring prestige and business to a firm and unleash creative juices. But losing can also mean steep financial loss and profound disappointment after months of effort.
_____
Yet in contrast to traditional competitions in Europe, which tend to be more open and allow emerging talent to be discovered, design contests in the United States today are generally limited to a few select entrants, be they celebrities or up-and-comers.
_____
"Some architects have come to view competitions as exploitative and even demeaning, a way for clients to troll for ideas without committing to a specific architect and compensating him or her appropriately."
_____
To limit the financial burden, some architects enlist the help of interns. The summer interns in Mr. Eisenman’s office, for example, many of whom are European, work only on competitions, not commissions. They are not paid a salary, but Mr. Eisenman said the experience enhances their graduate school and job prospects.
Some previous threads about the subject on Archinect: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
our firm is doin a "lifestyle ceter" for some developers. i was not working on it initially, but attended a meeting after i did some work on the master plan.in that meeting i learned that in just one two day charette and some schematic design development sketches, two principles, a project manager, a graphic designer and another team member had burned up over 20 grand and they didnt even calculate the desired square footage correctly. its a freaking expensive business, i cant imagine what these guys spend on these competitions. they are right to boycott them.
i'm simply amazed that eisenman publicly admitted that he has unpaid interns. (wait, not that amazed...)
my own firm, which is very young, does almost no competitions for all of the reasons given in the article. can't afford it, but primarily, why give all that energy over to something else? we'll take it an channel it into other self-initiated work. or donate it to the 1% Solution projects.
one thing that peter eisenman mentions, that i'll echo, is that it's hard to do a competition against more well-financed firms. you end up trying to be scrappy and pray that you've gotten there. still, it's good to do one or two a year, as a way to keep sharp and push yourself into thinking about things a little differently than you might...
i've heard from reliable sources that "unpaid interns" do not equal poor abused serfs, that many of these people from overseas are psychopants, they have parents with deep pockets, and they pay for the "privilege" of working for Petey.
in other professions a 'competition' is called an RFP, we do them too. but an rfp never seems to get into such details or expend as many hours as a full blown design competition.
i suppose a for lack of a better term..."starchitecture or starchiwannabe" firm needs to follow this sort of approach as big shiny jagged buildings with holes in them using emergent technologies don't happen everyday.
The design industry has a strong code against doing spec work, pity there doesnt seem to be much equivalent in architecture.
However the competition does allow emerging architects an opprotunity to break out, as well as for a general flexing of creativity, something that shouldnt be lost...
An interesting idea is to run the competition as a selection of the architect, not the design. In the competition for a local museum, architects essentially submitted competing manifestos and conceptual mock ups before receiving the full brief. I assume this way saves development time, and the selected architect can focus better on the end solution once select.
Just because many design competitions--I'm thinking of that ridiculous sham from Dwell--exploit architects doesn't mean competitions should be thrown out and dismissed all together. Gropius reminds us of the important goal of competitions: dialog. Competition breeds better product--isn't that the mantra of the US economy--a market economy? Now if only competitions were better designed to be more inclusive...and had better and bigger carrots. The best designs usually place but never win. I always find myself more intrigued by the finalists than the eventual "winner". Still don't think it's as simple as Competitions=Bad/waste of effort.
It is in many ways an american problem - many european competitions are quite fair, have decent prizes or compensations and are well run.
As an example, Finnish competitions are organized by SAFA (our AIA), held whenever a new public building is designed, open for all, anonymous, have a comprehensive and respected jury and have a fairly clear and stable framework (all competitions have similar requirements concerning the images / drawings to be produced.) The competitions are held according to need, and results are judged also on practical terms - this makes them "real" and not ridiculous.
This system has launched a bunch of finnish students/young architects into the real world during the last decades. And in some cases good architecture has also been the result.
Aug 20, 07 5:31 am ·
·
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.
Ready, Set, Design: Work as a Contest
From the news.
It looks like Gwathmey, Piano, and Meier, refuse to enter them, but Eisenman cannot afford to stop.
Original NYT Article
Some Quotes:
...architects can be deeply ambivalent about entering such contests. Simply emerging as a finalist can bring prestige and business to a firm and unleash creative juices. But losing can also mean steep financial loss and profound disappointment after months of effort.
_____
Yet in contrast to traditional competitions in Europe, which tend to be more open and allow emerging talent to be discovered, design contests in the United States today are generally limited to a few select entrants, be they celebrities or up-and-comers.
_____
"Some architects have come to view competitions as exploitative and even demeaning, a way for clients to troll for ideas without committing to a specific architect and compensating him or her appropriately."
_____
To limit the financial burden, some architects enlist the help of interns. The summer interns in Mr. Eisenman’s office, for example, many of whom are European, work only on competitions, not commissions. They are not paid a salary, but Mr. Eisenman said the experience enhances their graduate school and job prospects.
Some previous threads about the subject on Archinect:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Message from a very serious Gropius: Discuss!!!
our firm is doin a "lifestyle ceter" for some developers. i was not working on it initially, but attended a meeting after i did some work on the master plan.in that meeting i learned that in just one two day charette and some schematic design development sketches, two principles, a project manager, a graphic designer and another team member had burned up over 20 grand and they didnt even calculate the desired square footage correctly. its a freaking expensive business, i cant imagine what these guys spend on these competitions. they are right to boycott them.
the question is; how long before Architectural Competitions are sponsored by ESPN and shown on Must See Thursday?
i'm simply amazed that eisenman publicly admitted that he has unpaid interns. (wait, not that amazed...)
my own firm, which is very young, does almost no competitions for all of the reasons given in the article. can't afford it, but primarily, why give all that energy over to something else? we'll take it an channel it into other self-initiated work. or donate it to the 1% Solution projects.
one thing that peter eisenman mentions, that i'll echo, is that it's hard to do a competition against more well-financed firms. you end up trying to be scrappy and pray that you've gotten there. still, it's good to do one or two a year, as a way to keep sharp and push yourself into thinking about things a little differently than you might...
... does anybody else find the juxtaposition of those last two paragraphs to be deeply ironic? Well chosen, q.
i've heard from reliable sources that "unpaid interns" do not equal poor abused serfs, that many of these people from overseas are psychopants, they have parents with deep pockets, and they pay for the "privilege" of working for Petey.
don't cry for them Archinect.
it's called the complete eifs immersion program. its analogous to extraordinary rendition.
psycho-PANTS?
oh my.
sycophants?
in other professions a 'competition' is called an RFP, we do them too. but an rfp never seems to get into such details or expend as many hours as a full blown design competition.
i suppose a for lack of a better term..."starchitecture or starchiwannabe" firm needs to follow this sort of approach as big shiny jagged buildings with holes in them using emergent technologies don't happen everyday.
The design industry has a strong code against doing spec work, pity there doesnt seem to be much equivalent in architecture.
However the competition does allow emerging architects an opprotunity to break out, as well as for a general flexing of creativity, something that shouldnt be lost...
An interesting idea is to run the competition as a selection of the architect, not the design. In the competition for a local museum, architects essentially submitted competing manifestos and conceptual mock ups before receiving the full brief. I assume this way saves development time, and the selected architect can focus better on the end solution once select.
Just because many design competitions--I'm thinking of that ridiculous sham from Dwell--exploit architects doesn't mean competitions should be thrown out and dismissed all together. Gropius reminds us of the important goal of competitions: dialog. Competition breeds better product--isn't that the mantra of the US economy--a market economy? Now if only competitions were better designed to be more inclusive...and had better and bigger carrots. The best designs usually place but never win. I always find myself more intrigued by the finalists than the eventual "winner". Still don't think it's as simple as Competitions=Bad/waste of effort.
It is in many ways an american problem - many european competitions are quite fair, have decent prizes or compensations and are well run.
As an example, Finnish competitions are organized by SAFA (our AIA), held whenever a new public building is designed, open for all, anonymous, have a comprehensive and respected jury and have a fairly clear and stable framework (all competitions have similar requirements concerning the images / drawings to be produced.) The competitions are held according to need, and results are judged also on practical terms - this makes them "real" and not ridiculous.
This system has launched a bunch of finnish students/young architects into the real world during the last decades. And in some cases good architecture has also been the result.
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.