Many architects willingly spend time entering competitions in order to show off their credentials, highlight their practice's design talent and to hopefully win lucrative commissions. This is how it has been, how it remains. But is this really a good use of resources?
Do architects, in fact, end up gifting away their greatest asset in this process? Coming up with the initial design concept is the greatest strength that architects hold, their silver bullet – beyond the initial design it is only process, procurement and project management. And yet this it is this skill that architects so often give away for free when competition guidelines request it.
I realise that in every instance their will always be another, younger, hungrier architect coming through who is willing to do the same work at cost ( or at a loss ) in an attempt to make a name or to buy business, with a kind of 'loss leader' approach. This competition can make for a healthy market, a strong turnover of ideas and helps keep the old guard on their toes.
But at what eventual cost? Does the competition process diminish architecture as a discipline when it reduces the paid aspect of the work solely to project delivery?
maybe slightly, but whenever you offer a service, there is always a competition to gain work
this is a logical way for a client to "interview" architects in a way
now of course its up to the architect to judge how much work he will do and maintain good business sense in how he approaches a competition. he cant rely on winning a competition to stay in business.
if you incur a loss that ruins your business based on you entering competitions, you need to run your office better
but entering a competition is a good way to get your name out there, even if you lose. your design skills will be on display for other potential clients who may approach you if they see an entry of yours.
"beyond the initial design, it is only process, procurement and project management"
that is not true. design happens well into a project many times, and many times, the final product is very different from the "initial design".
i bet many projects look nothing like their schematic design, with a lot of design done after. that is a skill that young architects dont understand and often neglect very badly. being an architect means much much more than doing a schematic design
RFQs can be the bane of architectural practice. this process squashed potential future design ambitions within the vise of "qualifications"...therefore limiting access to the few that choose to specialize and propose the same project over and over again. therefore reproducing the known.
competitions are actually a beautiful thing, although like marmkid stated must be entered with prudence. one must think about why they are entering (is the building typology something you would like to prove experience in? is the process you are exploring going to be applicable to subsequent projects that might come through the door? is there a larger experimentation or discovery process that isn't able to be embedded within a traditional project that this will offer as a vehicle for?).....
these are what a competition is really good for...if you enter one to actually win, you will typically be sorely disappointed.
yeah i am always amazed to hear people complain about not winning a competition, like they got screwed or something.
not saying its impossible, but to expect it is probably not realistic.
that should never be the sole reason to enter a competition, otherwise you are setting yourself up to fail most of the time. entering a competition should help you in other ways besides awarding you a project (many of which, futureboy just stated)
it sounds like the view a lot of kids have when they come out of school
if all you ever want to do is make pretty renderings and work on a project only to the schematic level, you wont be much of a designer and wont really know what you are doing
Agreed... that is if you don't win the competition! Low in cost for entering high end cost if you don't land the job. Not much good if
it is a reject. Who wants a looser Project?
Competitions are not among the ways to gain a commission. It is for all the reasons other than that.
There is no "formula" to win a competition. So.. winning is actually a bonus. But realizing this one always puts in best of the efforts (otherwise there is no reason to participate), certainly one can not participate to lose either.
One bright schematic can do wonders in the competitions while in other cases a more developed proposal will do the same. Anyways design development will go on for ever.....
A few of my opening comments above may be seen as a little naïve in some regard, and some comments were truncated or left deliberately obtuse to allow contrary opinions to be voiced. I’m new on this board and maybe this is considered poor form too, but the OP is not reflective of my true position, rather that of my superiors. I’m hoping to find some compelling reasons and arguments to bring back to them.
I’d also like to assure you all I’m not a student. I’m assuming most people on here are generally US based; is this accurate? I’m an architect in practice in the UK ( 6 years qualified ). My practice’s approach to and experience with public competitions has perhaps skewed my view of their worth*, that’s why I was interested in hearing other takes on their perceived overall merit.
[ aside ]
I’m currently working in a long standing practice; one with a strong reputation for delivery of projects (budget and time), but not so much for design. There are a small, dedicated band of 3-4 younger architects in the practice who are trying to change the direction of the practice, modernise it and develop a greater strength & awareness of the importance of good design. But changing the structure of the existing management is proving a slow and difficult process.
[ /aside ]
My merry band have actually been pushing the practice to enter more design-orientated competitions, if only for the value of raising the level of debate in the office and injecting the same dedication and commitment we put into competition entries into other projects too. It would be an investment on their part, but a worthy one if it helps lift the practice and take it in a different, more interesting direction. The competition win, whilst good, is not the true goal; the creation of an office ethos with quality design put front and centre is the real ambition.
* One thing to bear in mind here is that ‘competition’ may mean winning a commission and then only ( due to PFI, PPP, D&B or Framework procurement routes preferred by the public sector) only being able to develop the winning design to RIBA Stage D before it is handed over to a contractor / consortium who with build the scheme with their own architect. In many aspects your design is given away very early to built without your control or any hands on management that would allow on-going development or amendment.
In America competition rarely leads to commissioning. Competitions generally are ideas gathering for a prize - the actual commissioning is often a seperate process all together.
I'm surprised no one said this already: competitions are a way to keep otherwise idle staff busy in times of economic slow-down, rather than laying them off.
I agree - except Ive never actualy seen this done anywhere Ive ever worked. i cant understand why firms will let people sit for weeks at a time doing nothing rather than keeping them engaged in at least a competition.
The concept of how staff can willingly sit idle without taking the initiative to be active is beyond me. But that discussion should be reserved for another thread.
snook_dude
"Agreed... that is if you don't win the competition! Low in cost for entering high end cost if you don't land the job. Not much good if
it is a reject. Who wants a looser Project?"
are you saying that if you dont win the competition it is worthless? that is not true at all
it gives you a portfolio piece for a type of project that will probably come along again at some point in your career
it puts your name out there to many other potential clients who will see some of your work, even if its not the winner of the competition
and the countless other reasons that people have stated here already
and seriously
its not a loser project if you dont win the competition
that is the complete wrong way to look at the whole process
do you honestly believe that for every competition, there is only 1 project that can be considered any good?
thats incredibly naive if you think that
if that is how you plan on winning jobs, dont plan to work very steadily. you will be in for a surprise if all you base the worth of competitions on is if you win that particular job
Lost competitions contribute to your intellectual and creative assets...
Think of it that way, lost competitions are kind of like paying into a mortgage, yeah they are costly, but as people have said, if you don't win, you stick it in your portfolio and on your shelf, and then it becomes a part of your pool of ideas or designs that you can pull out of your pocket at the service of another project. This happens all the time, and it can save your office alot of design time. The work put in is never lost, in other words, it's just accumulating in your office's idea bank... As an office, it's nice to have an idea bank that's all filled up, as opposed to one that is all dried up...
To the extent that we are an ideas business/profession, the idea bank is a kind of sales tool, maybe a kind of job security?... Because looked at this way, ultimately new clients are paying for your intellectual capital... Your staff only knows something and can sell it, design wise, if they have actually worked through the thing... It's harder to sell an idea that is not your own... Even if you lift ideas from projects done by other offices, or if the idea is not original, you will not be able to sell that same idea as well as the person who came up with it unless you have fully engaged with the idea to take ownership of it... In other words, simply seeing a project in a magazine is not intellectual capital... It requires the work to own it in the office toolbox...
Having ongoing competitions is also a way for new smaller offices to build a name, or for offices with less built work in a particular market to get recognized for that kind of work... It's a marketing tool...
Competitions also make the market actually more open to free competition, which leads to better design in the industry generally... How boring would that be if a few large companies dominated the industry? Competitions are a great benefit to the industry as a whole as a forum for innovative new ideas...
May 31, 08 2:59 pm ·
·
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.
Are competitions the bane of architectural practice...?
Many architects willingly spend time entering competitions in order to show off their credentials, highlight their practice's design talent and to hopefully win lucrative commissions. This is how it has been, how it remains. But is this really a good use of resources?
Do architects, in fact, end up gifting away their greatest asset in this process? Coming up with the initial design concept is the greatest strength that architects hold, their silver bullet – beyond the initial design it is only process, procurement and project management. And yet this it is this skill that architects so often give away for free when competition guidelines request it.
I realise that in every instance their will always be another, younger, hungrier architect coming through who is willing to do the same work at cost ( or at a loss ) in an attempt to make a name or to buy business, with a kind of 'loss leader' approach. This competition can make for a healthy market, a strong turnover of ideas and helps keep the old guard on their toes.
But at what eventual cost? Does the competition process diminish architecture as a discipline when it reduces the paid aspect of the work solely to project delivery?
Any thoughts?
maybe slightly, but whenever you offer a service, there is always a competition to gain work
this is a logical way for a client to "interview" architects in a way
now of course its up to the architect to judge how much work he will do and maintain good business sense in how he approaches a competition. he cant rely on winning a competition to stay in business.
if you incur a loss that ruins your business based on you entering competitions, you need to run your office better
but entering a competition is a good way to get your name out there, even if you lose. your design skills will be on display for other potential clients who may approach you if they see an entry of yours.
"beyond the initial design, it is only process, procurement and project management"
that is not true. design happens well into a project many times, and many times, the final product is very different from the "initial design".
i bet many projects look nothing like their schematic design, with a lot of design done after. that is a skill that young architects dont understand and often neglect very badly. being an architect means much much more than doing a schematic design
Award competitions are the bane of practice.
Design competitions are healthy and generally produce stronger projects.
It’s also an excellent way for younger architects to make a name for themselves/market themselves.
RFQs can be the bane of architectural practice. this process squashed potential future design ambitions within the vise of "qualifications"...therefore limiting access to the few that choose to specialize and propose the same project over and over again. therefore reproducing the known.
competitions are actually a beautiful thing, although like marmkid stated must be entered with prudence. one must think about why they are entering (is the building typology something you would like to prove experience in? is the process you are exploring going to be applicable to subsequent projects that might come through the door? is there a larger experimentation or discovery process that isn't able to be embedded within a traditional project that this will offer as a vehicle for?).....
these are what a competition is really good for...if you enter one to actually win, you will typically be sorely disappointed.
yeah i am always amazed to hear people complain about not winning a competition, like they got screwed or something.
not saying its impossible, but to expect it is probably not realistic.
that should never be the sole reason to enter a competition, otherwise you are setting yourself up to fail most of the time. entering a competition should help you in other ways besides awarding you a project (many of which, futureboy just stated)
mine is bigger than yours
your what?
his, um, competition?
this statement couldn't be any farther from the truth and illustrates a very insular and naive view of the profession...
it sounds like the view a lot of kids have when they come out of school
if all you ever want to do is make pretty renderings and work on a project only to the schematic level, you wont be much of a designer and wont really know what you are doing
Agreed... that is if you don't win the competition! Low in cost for entering high end cost if you don't land the job. Not much good if
it is a reject. Who wants a looser Project?
Competitions are not among the ways to gain a commission. It is for all the reasons other than that.
There is no "formula" to win a competition. So.. winning is actually a bonus. But realizing this one always puts in best of the efforts (otherwise there is no reason to participate), certainly one can not participate to lose either.
One bright schematic can do wonders in the competitions while in other cases a more developed proposal will do the same. Anyways design development will go on for ever.....
Thanks for the comments.
A few of my opening comments above may be seen as a little naïve in some regard, and some comments were truncated or left deliberately obtuse to allow contrary opinions to be voiced. I’m new on this board and maybe this is considered poor form too, but the OP is not reflective of my true position, rather that of my superiors. I’m hoping to find some compelling reasons and arguments to bring back to them.
I’d also like to assure you all I’m not a student. I’m assuming most people on here are generally US based; is this accurate? I’m an architect in practice in the UK ( 6 years qualified ). My practice’s approach to and experience with public competitions has perhaps skewed my view of their worth*, that’s why I was interested in hearing other takes on their perceived overall merit.
[ aside ]
I’m currently working in a long standing practice; one with a strong reputation for delivery of projects (budget and time), but not so much for design. There are a small, dedicated band of 3-4 younger architects in the practice who are trying to change the direction of the practice, modernise it and develop a greater strength & awareness of the importance of good design. But changing the structure of the existing management is proving a slow and difficult process.
[ /aside ]
My merry band have actually been pushing the practice to enter more design-orientated competitions, if only for the value of raising the level of debate in the office and injecting the same dedication and commitment we put into competition entries into other projects too. It would be an investment on their part, but a worthy one if it helps lift the practice and take it in a different, more interesting direction. The competition win, whilst good, is not the true goal; the creation of an office ethos with quality design put front and centre is the real ambition.
* One thing to bear in mind here is that ‘competition’ may mean winning a commission and then only ( due to PFI, PPP, D&B or Framework procurement routes preferred by the public sector) only being able to develop the winning design to RIBA Stage D before it is handed over to a contractor / consortium who with build the scheme with their own architect. In many aspects your design is given away very early to built without your control or any hands on management that would allow on-going development or amendment.
In America competition rarely leads to commissioning. Competitions generally are ideas gathering for a prize - the actual commissioning is often a seperate process all together.
I'm surprised no one said this already: competitions are a way to keep otherwise idle staff busy in times of economic slow-down, rather than laying them off.
I agree - except Ive never actualy seen this done anywhere Ive ever worked. i cant understand why firms will let people sit for weeks at a time doing nothing rather than keeping them engaged in at least a competition.
The concept of how staff can willingly sit idle without taking the initiative to be active is beyond me. But that discussion should be reserved for another thread.
snook_dude
"Agreed... that is if you don't win the competition! Low in cost for entering high end cost if you don't land the job. Not much good if
it is a reject. Who wants a looser Project?"
are you saying that if you dont win the competition it is worthless? that is not true at all
it gives you a portfolio piece for a type of project that will probably come along again at some point in your career
it puts your name out there to many other potential clients who will see some of your work, even if its not the winner of the competition
and the countless other reasons that people have stated here already
and seriously
its not a loser project if you dont win the competition
that is the complete wrong way to look at the whole process
do you honestly believe that for every competition, there is only 1 project that can be considered any good?
thats incredibly naive if you think that
if that is how you plan on winning jobs, dont plan to work very steadily. you will be in for a surprise if all you base the worth of competitions on is if you win that particular job
Lost competitions contribute to your intellectual and creative assets...
Think of it that way, lost competitions are kind of like paying into a mortgage, yeah they are costly, but as people have said, if you don't win, you stick it in your portfolio and on your shelf, and then it becomes a part of your pool of ideas or designs that you can pull out of your pocket at the service of another project. This happens all the time, and it can save your office alot of design time. The work put in is never lost, in other words, it's just accumulating in your office's idea bank... As an office, it's nice to have an idea bank that's all filled up, as opposed to one that is all dried up...
To the extent that we are an ideas business/profession, the idea bank is a kind of sales tool, maybe a kind of job security?... Because looked at this way, ultimately new clients are paying for your intellectual capital... Your staff only knows something and can sell it, design wise, if they have actually worked through the thing... It's harder to sell an idea that is not your own... Even if you lift ideas from projects done by other offices, or if the idea is not original, you will not be able to sell that same idea as well as the person who came up with it unless you have fully engaged with the idea to take ownership of it... In other words, simply seeing a project in a magazine is not intellectual capital... It requires the work to own it in the office toolbox...
Having ongoing competitions is also a way for new smaller offices to build a name, or for offices with less built work in a particular market to get recognized for that kind of work... It's a marketing tool...
Competitions also make the market actually more open to free competition, which leads to better design in the industry generally... How boring would that be if a few large companies dominated the industry? Competitions are a great benefit to the industry as a whole as a forum for innovative new ideas...
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.